Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed/2004/Archive 3

This page contains nominations from the main Collaboration of the week page which have been removed due to lack of votes or because they're unsuitable nominations from July 17 to August 6, 2004.

Art theft (15 votes over 2 weeks)
Support:
 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 05:59, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ambivalenthysteria 06:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Dmn 12:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Conti 23:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Burgundavia 07:40, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:16, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Jwrosenzweig 23:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Washington, DC 21:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Ravn 12:54, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Thue | talk 08:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Peak Freak 20:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Triskaideka 20:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) [[User:Avala|Avala| &#9733; ]] 13:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This poor orphan of an article was written by someone who knows nothing about art (yours truely) because it was requested. Right now, it's pretty sad - but on the bright side, there's plenty of room for growth. PLus, it's a pretty interesting topic. &rarr;Raul654 05:59, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. This article's got potential.  I'm sure there have been at least a couple other famous art thefts in history. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:16, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Listed for over 4 weeks. --Lexor|Talk 10:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Also lack of support after four weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Roman Empire (4 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Alsocal 02:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Adam Bishop 02:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Pjamescowie 21:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Conti|&#9993; 22:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Good first half, but the lower half is devoid of vertically any text underneath the headers. That's a serious hole in the encyclopedia's coverage. --Alsocal 02:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. The top of this page says to nominate articles which do not exist or are stubs. This article is 8 printed-pages long. &rarr;Raul654 03:11, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Point taken - and it is filling up anyway. Support withdrawn. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be the first to agree that this article needs work. It needs a lot of work, & considering just how complex a topic it is, what is curretnly there can, in good faith, be considered a stub. (Consider if the articles United States, France, or Soviet Union were nothing more than what appears for Roman Empire.) But I don't think the place to fix it is by listing it as an "Article of the Week": there is just too much to be done to make a decent impact in the process of a week. Is it possible to find a way to gather some interested people to consider this problem, & together make the article somewhat better? I have some ideas for how this should be done, & would like to help fix this hole in Wikipedia's coverage. -- llywrch 01:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider a Wikiproject. I couldn't help, but that framework sounds like what you're looking for. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Independence Day (US) (4 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Neutrality 04:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2)    ALargeElk | Talk 11:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Rmhermen 20:35, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Sean Curtin 21:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * It's a wee bit more than a stub, but should have a whole lot more. There's nothing at all on July 4th celebrations, for one thing. --   ALargeElk | Talk 11:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Added some info on traditional celebrations. Not sure how much we could do with this. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blockade (5 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Neutrality 04:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Burgundavia 07:30, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Geni 00:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 20:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Sean Curtin 21:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * A bit simular to siege but there should be more of an article than there is there nowGeni 00:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Green Berets (1 vote over 1 week)
Support
 * 1) Neutrality 04:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tourism in Egypt (2 votes over 1 week)

 * (currently redirecting to Egypt)

Support
 * 1) PFHLai 15:02, 2004 Jul 10 (UTC)
 * 2) Sean Curtin 21:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Tourism in Egypt used to redirect to Luxor, now it redirects to Egypt. There are many places outside Luxor for tourists to visit in Egypt, right ?  There may be Wikipedians willing to share photos taken from various tourist attractions in Egypt to make this a pretty page without worrying about copyvio.  Someone may also want to write about the importance of tourism in the economy of Egypt, a page which so far has little info on tourism. PFHLai 15:02, 2004 Jul 10 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eugene Onegin (6 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) grendel|khan 04:22, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
 * 2) Ambivalenthysteria 04:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Avala 09:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4)    ALargeElk | Talk 12:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 20:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Sarge Baldy 08:27, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * A tremendously important work of world literature, famous for the very strict structure of Pushkin's sonnets, maintained over the novel's entire length. Russians have been known to memorize the entire book; its translation has been a tremendously controversial issue as well; Vladimir Nabokov claimed that it was impossible to translate into English verse. I know next to nothing about the Russian language, but the book deserves more than it has right now. grendel|khan 04:21, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tendon (6 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) grendel|khan 04:45, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
 * 2) Burgundavia 07:39, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Markalex 15:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) inks 15:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 20:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Sean Curtin 21:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * This is a really basic anatomical topic. It deserves more than a four-sentence stub. It also has a sizeable "what links here" list, so it's likely to be frequently traversed.
 * My only concern would be that anatomical topics aren't necessarily easy for non-specialists to work on - that was the problem when situs inversus was AOTW.--   ALargeElk | Talk 12:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Tendon general and simple enough for most people. The anatomy students can deal with the lingo :)--inks 15:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saint Thomas, United States Virgin Islands (4 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Neutrality 04:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ambivalenthysteria 04:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jwrosenzweig 20:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Rmhermen 20:35, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ballet (11 votes over 3 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Burgundavia 20:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Ambivalenthysteria 05:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Lexor|Talk 14:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Jonik 11:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) ohka- 16:30 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) – PlatinumX 16:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 20:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Sean Curtin 21:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) mary 03:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * As ballet is skimpy, I so nominate it. Burgundavia 20:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * it needs lots of additional pages created as there is so little on the subject, this is a big task Ohka- 16:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after three weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Haute couture (1 vote over 1 week)
Support
 * 1) PFHLai 05:53, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Comments
 * So far, just a brief history, and an incomplete list of fashion houses .... Couturier is also rather stubby ....
 * It's hardly stubby---at least a printed page and a half of real article text. I think there's too much in haute couture to be AotW. Couturier is definitely short enough, though. grendel|khan 07:21, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
 * Whether it's an AOTW or not, it needs some help. The problem is figuring out which fashion houses are only ready-to-wear and which actually do custom dress-making. The custom dressmaking is a loss-leader for the ready-to-wear, perfume, shoes, handbags, etc. and some fashionistas, like Ralph Lauren I believe, just skip the custom part. I've read Vogue for years and I still can't tell which of the touted dressmakers do real couture and which don't. The fashion industry seems to want to blur the distinction. If there's anyone in the Wikipedia community who's in the fashion industry, or knows someone in the fashion industry, please help! Zora 21:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Then this belongs on pages needing attention, not here. There's already an article there, and it doesn't belong here. grendel|khan 17:52, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
 * It belongs as long as someone nominates the article, with the aim "to have a featured-standard article by the end of the week, from widespread cooperative editing." The fact that the page needs attention (though not really listed at WP:PNA, as indicated above) actually means that are things to add to the article, making it a reasonable candidate.  I was hoping to learn more about haute couture apart from the brief history.  Anyway, there is a lack of votes.  Never mind .... -- PFHLai 18:50, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Violence (9 votes over 4 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Sarge Baldy 18:33, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ambivalenthysteria 05:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) grendel|khan 07:51, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)
 * 4) TPK 04:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) – PlatinumX 16:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6)    ALargeElk | Talk 11:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Sean Curtin 21:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Musschrott 23:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Conti|&#9993; 14:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * I found this article pitifully weak. Could be expanded to cover the sociological, psychological, cultural, and philosophical and ethical reasonings behind and against it, as well as some depth into the methods of violence, etc. Sarge Baldy 18:33, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There is a lot that could be written here. It's a huge topic, and deserves so much more attention than it's had so far. Exactly the sort of thing AotW was made for. grendel|khan 07:51, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after four weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Carpet (3 votes over 1 week)
Support
 * 1) PFHLai 05:15, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
 * 2) Burgundavia 05:56, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Much more is needed about manufacturing processes (Rug-making is also stubby), designs, materials used, usages, prominent exporters, and more. -- PFHLai 05:15, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Candidate (1 vote over 1 week)
Support
 * 1) Neutrality 21:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * I wonder whether this can be any more than a dictionary definition. Different nomination/electoral systems belong in relevant politics of X Country articles or equivilent. I've also added in the concept of candidate countries. Secretlondon 12:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Esoteric knowledge (4 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Conti|&#9993; 04:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Sean Curtin 21:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ohka- 20:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) TPK 10:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) J3ff 07:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think this could be a very interesting article. --Conti|&#9993; 04:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. --Conti|&#9993; 18:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maxim Gorky (2 votes over 1 week)
Support:
 * 1) blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ambivalenthysteria 15:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Secretlondon 12:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This article is seriously lacking. We have like 3 sentences and a list of works on him.  Shameful!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. --Conti|&#9993; 18:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Song writing (3 votes over 1 week)
Support:
 * 1) Tom- 10:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) TPK 10:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  20:52, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Wide-ranging subject, currently a stub. Tom- 10:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * To merge with Music composition (which currently redirects to Musical composition) ????? Both are stubs. -- PFHLai 18:55, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
 * I'd give my support to both Song writing and musical composition (which could very prossibly be merged, and are both stubs). The article should address the history and development of method and style.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  20:52, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. --Conti|&#9993; 18:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Embargo (1 vote over 1 week)
Support:
 * 1) Neutrality 16:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. --Conti|&#9993; 18:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Art (7 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Bmills 08:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Tothebarricades.tk 07:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Lexor|Talk 10:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Ambivalenthysteria 15:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) TPK 10:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Dysprosia 11:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Hwarwick 3:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Not a stub, but a pathetic attempt to address a subject of such importance.
 * Yes, I noticed this a while ago...a lot of things you could put on there (i.e. descriptions of various genres, types of art) already have pages of their own though, so I don't know how much we could write about "art" as an abstraction. It needs work, nonetheless. --Tothebarricades.tk 07:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * All the above and more. Of all these subjects listed, this is the largest and most sweeping omnibus subject that has such a truly inadequate article for it. It's just terrible, and a real shame. If I had the time, I'd sit and rewrite the whole thing myself, but I can't for at leastthe next few months. It's pretty easy to write about Art as an idea, if you are flexible in your discussion, and willing to propose competing and contradictory ideas. It MUST be fixed. Truly. Hwarwick 21:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The work has already begun, if anyone wants to come and help......!Bmills 07:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pornocracy (9 votes over 3 weeks)
Support
 * 1)     ALargeElk | Talk 11:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) David Gerard 11:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Sarge Baldy 17:17, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Thue | talk 10:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Ambivalenthysteria 15:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 20:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Conti|&#9993; 14:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) TPK 10:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Earl Andrew 10:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * One of those classic "I can't believe that's for real" articles that Wikipedia does so well (so much so that it was speedy deleted as nonsense when it was first created). --   ALargeElk | Talk 11:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe overkill for AotW, but I'm certainly curious on this topic. Sarge Baldy 17:17, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * There seems to be plenty of stuff to write about, certainly not boring! Thue | talk 10:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after three weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Singer (2 votes over 1 week)
Support:
 * 1)  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o
 * 2) Burgundavia 09:04, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This article can definately be expanded well beyond what it is now. It barely explains anything about different types of singers (aside from some links to the vocal ranges).  There are so many styles of singing, and so much history to the profession; much has changed over the centuries and recent decades.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  04:57, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Darwin -- Wedgwood family (2 votes over 1 weeks)
Support:
 * 1) Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 16:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Andy Mabbett 21:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Although the main article is okayish, there is much biographical information to add (see Talk:Darwin–Wedgwood family/to_do) and I'm feeling a bit daunted by it all. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 16:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Conceptual blending (1 votes over 1 week)
Support 
 * 1) Gyan 00:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)-

Comments:
 * A very interesting topic. Deals with human creativity and meaning generation. I've created a Resources fork where I've linked to about 50 research papers and articles. Perusing these should be enough to compose a comprehensive article. -- Gyan 00:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)-
 * Just for information, and not expressing a preference either way, this was nominated by Gyan before on 30 April and removed on 3 July with 4 votes. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting; I'd certainly enjoy reading it if it were a feature-quality article. But I think the subject is too esoteric for it to be an AOTW, even with the 50 resources readily linked. --Benc 03:45, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

American Old West (14 votes over 4 weeks)
Support
 * 1) [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Conti|&#9993; 22:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jwrosenzweig 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) llywrch 05:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Fredrik | talk 13:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ALoan (Talk) 14:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Avala 13:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) strongly support
 * 8) – PlatinumX 16:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Brassratgirl 09:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Amcaja 14:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Marlowe 19:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Secretlondon 11:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Benc 04:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  01:15, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Such a stubby entry for a topic that contains so much cultural material. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a lot of missing detail, such as the German fascination with the genre (pulp novels written by Karl May), the Spaghetti Western ("Fist Full of Dollars"), & the irony that for some of us Westerners, much of the "Old West" took place far to the east of us. -- A native Northwesterner 05:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after four weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scottish independence (6 votes over 2 weeks)
Support
 * 1) Neutrality 01:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ambivalenthysteria 10:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Liberlogos (Talk) 17:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) PFHLai 19:46, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
 * 6) Secretlondon 11:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * This absolutely deserves something more exhaustive, akin to Quebec sovereigntism, for example. Scottish independence is a very interesting, important subject and it has centuries of information to be drawn from and to be clarified. Furthermore, to find information about it all in one place with a more thorough coverage would be much more usefull than having to dig through the history pages every time. --Liberlogos 17:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Little Rock Crisis (7 votes over 2 weeks)
Support:
 * 1) Ambivalenthysteria 15:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Conti|&#9993; 16:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) PFHLai 19:05, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
 * 4) TPK 10:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Dysprosia 11:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutrality 03:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) PlatinumX 07:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * For such a crucial event in the civil rights movement, this is a pretty cruddy stub - and a fairly large hole in Wikipedia's coverage. I think it'd be perfect for AOTW - there's so much that could be added. Ambivalenthysteria 15:09, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice photo at Little Rock Nine. Let's merge and take the pic.  -- PFHLai 19:05, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Empire Windrush (5 votes over 2 weeks)
Support:
 * 1) Secretlondon 11:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Warofdreams 12:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Andy Mabbett 21:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) 81.156.152.186 18:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * It's an important topic in the history of multicultural Britain and deserves much better than my pitiful stub. It needs to talk about why they came, why they were needed etc. Secretlondon 11:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after two weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Baby shower (2 votes over 1 week)
Support
 * 1) PFHLai 06:40, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
 * 2) Benc 04:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Would be interesting to learn how people in different cultures welcome new babies into their communities. -- PFHLai 06:40, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
 * If that's what you want to cover, the article would certainly need to be renamed. Baby shower is a very Americanism I believe. - Taxman 17:46, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any problems with renaming and redirects, but it's the same topic: we all "shower" the "baby" and the new mother with gifts. The timing varies.  Traditional choices of gifts also are different. Some cultures may have interesting and unique foods at the party, too. -- PFHLai 18:44, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
 * Anyone know a more generic term for this? There must be one somewhere.... -FZ 13:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The term "baby shower" is used in Australia so I wouldn't know a more generic term --John Lynch 08:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Coastal Plain (2 votes over 1 week)
Support
 * 1) FZ 16:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Paranoid 08:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Important geographic concept that's appearing in the news more frequently with debates over climate change and sea level changes; is on the "Most Wanted Stubs" list. -FZ 16:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for removal:
 * Lack of support after one week. -- PFHLai 07:05, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)