Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rronline (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 22 November 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- Wikipedia:Cleanup




November 16

  • First things first 2000 Manifesto - contains mostly primary text --Minesweeper 13:18, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • I jumped on this too (in Talk), but the poster is new, let's give him a bit of time to make it an article before jumping in with both feet, maybe? orthogonal 13:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looking at the edit history of this IP, there's lots of interesting material. Some newbie issues but this looks as though it'll be fine after the lerning hurdles have been dealt with. JamesDay 14:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Still looks like this is going nowhere, but if FT can actually make something of this, then hold off deleting. I see nothing new in the "Manifesto" other than the age old premise that artists should either do something (in their mind) relevant and starve, or do what society is willing to pay them for. Although couched here as an "ethical" dilema, it is actually just a political one. I too hate cigarettes, but they are legal. It is therefore a political decision not to do cigarette ads, not an ethical one - Marshman 17:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Marshman you do not have a clue what you are talking about. What exactly is the difference between the ethical and the political? You read texts like you have a privileged position on the world and can see an 'objective' stance. Your argument pretends that it is that of 'reason' and 'common-sense' but in reality it conceals a political stance of the methodological individualist - right-wing and capitalist. So if you have a political position then why cannot others? What gives you the right to declare Truth with a capital T? I vote to keep it and have some balance against this pseudo objective stance which conceals a conservative, individualist and highly political agenda.
      • Ease up anonymous dude. I know what I'm talking about, but clearly you would not be receptive. And what the hell is a "methodological individualist"? Should I be insulted? Hurt? Proud? I'm definitey NOT rightwing by the way, and far from a capitalist (although I don't regard that as necessarily bad). Shows how good your politcal radar is. Here is a difference for you: if you are a graphical artist and take a job doing a cigarette ad, but do a crapy job because you are opposed to smoking, then that is a breach of ethics. If you refuse to do the work, that could be because of your personal ethics (you regard the perveyors of tobacco to be evil), but the entire question of smoking is really a societal/political one, not a moral issue. I find your POV to be at odds with general liberal thinking; not everyone has an "agenda" and I did not vote to delete, so what is your gripe? - Marshman I might add, I went and read the original 1964 Manifesto (on the web), and would have no problem with signing on to it myself. In my life, I've always been a critic of the advertising industry and consumerism. The problem is the strident presentations we are getting at Wikipedia on this subject: try this: lose the jargon, write like you are trying to teach something (stop preaching), and watch the POV. The subject is a valuable one, but so far you are a poor presenter. Around here, you are going to run into problems until you learn to get it across without POV. - Marshman 22:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • A Methodological Individualist is a person who believes in the sovereignty of the individual. The point is you cannot write in an objective style - it is a fiction. I suggest you read Gadamer, Foucault, Derrida et al. Anyway reading these debates I don't quite undestand the reasoning for deletions. It is far from democratic to allow a random collection of people to vote who are insiders and moreso have no idea about the subject matter... some real tricky questions about how you decide to manage this project if you ask me. I think a democratic pool with a real fair and equal voting system should be instigated - this is far from transparent, fair and free... just my 2 cents... User:ABC
      • Hmmm. Sounds good (sovereignty of the individual), but if that means "no responsibility to society," then anonymous dude is definitely way off base. Anyway, your criticism of the process is probably quite valid (discussed many times around here), but the idea there should (or even could) be such a pool is probably not realistic. Either everyone has an equal opportunity to voice their opinion (system in place now), or a select few are "elected" to make decisions for us. The latter is more likely to upset valued contributors than the former (which tends mostly to upset newbies and questionable contributors; no intention here to chasracterize anyone, just process). And all that is being said here is that an encyclopedia is no place for strong POVs. I think the problem that anonymous dude has with this tenent of Wikipedia is very clear in his response to criticism of his articles. Go read some of the articles. They are packed with jargon and source text. They need to be toned down and written so the average non-flamming liberal can even understand what he is saying. If I mis-interpreted the point of the articles (a distinct possibility) it might just be that the article is at fault (in its presentation of concepts) and not me. - Marshman 17:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. By the way, who made the vote above? Morwen 18:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Must be the graphics guy that is writing the POV articles? - Marshman
    • Keep. A long-running discussion that is important as a precedent and as an example of the issues involved. Since this whole dreary debate keeps recurring, it is important to keep a record of what we decided. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree the discussion should be kept. One solution might be to change the titles of the talk pages to remove the actual slogan from them, such as Talk:Slogan AKFD/title rather than Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title. That does cause problems with broken links though. Angela
      • That would do much to solve the problem. One page stuck in meta on "Offensive slogans" could replace the vast network of pages and talk pages and subpages that we've built up by constantly fragmenting the discussion. -- Someone else 19:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela's solution would be fine by me, provided someone was willing to get fix all the links. However, merging all the pages together (on meta or elsewhere) would be a mistake - the discussion is fragmented because it is discussing seperate things. Martin 19:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To remove the slogan from the titles would obscure what the discussion is actually about. Why anyone should consider this a good thing is beyond me. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It would be good because it would produce a better encyclopedia. It's not all about process, some consideration should be given to the result. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's only removing the title from the talk pages, not the article itself. The point is to have fewer pages with this in the title to prevent it showing up so many times in the search. There is no reason at all that it should obscure what the discussion is about. If necessary, a line could be added to each to talk page stating the page is discussing the article with the title "Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" if it isn't already clear. Angela 02:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Memorializing the talk page is fine. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • All remaining talk pages with "AIDS kills fags dead" in the title. I posit that there is no value in any of the talk pages discussing the issue. Deleting them is the most merciful thing we can do to protect the next 7 generations of Wikipedians. Shoot this radioactive waste into the Moon, no, the Sun, no, just get rid of it all. I considered merging/redirecting, followed by a request to delete, but they're all indexed by Google and other search engines and unless we get rid of them all, we're going to be hit results 1-50 for this discussion until the end of time. And yes, I find it offensive that we've added legitimacy to this rarely used expression. It's covered more than adequately in one article now anti-gay slogan. Daniel Quinlan 11:16, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • We're not going to be "hit results 1-50 for this discussion until the end of time", on account of the fact that we're not hit results 1-50 now. Note that in any case, most of the hits on Wikipedia aren't the above talk pages, and only one of the top ten is. Martin 23:04, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • agreed - I've only ever heard this expression in wikipedia. Secretlondon 14:19, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, please delete these -- I completely agree with Daniel. I will point out that there is a photograph somewhere of someone at a protest with a sign that said this -- but that's the only instance of it existing outside of Wikipedia that I know of. -- BCorr ¤ #1041;райен 14:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For info: [1] offers evidence that the slogan has been seen on a bumper sticker. Andy Mabbett 12:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I also completely agree with Daniel. Bmills 14:34, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Could not agree more. Delete and bury. As long as I have been here (since August) this issue has been a constant at VfD. Does not deserve this much of our valuable time - Marshman 17:20, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I could not agree more with Daniel. Delete the whole bloody lot. There is no justification whatsoever for their continued existence. FearÉIREANN 20:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Eh? I still vote to keep, as indicated above. Why are we voting multiple times on the same issue? Don't answer that. Martin 22:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Because more redirects keep getting made would be just one reason. --Someone else 01:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • It would be, if it were true. No new AKFD redirects were made between the two times you [and Daniel] listed these pages on VfD. Martin 02:48, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • It is difficult to find exactly how many AKFD redirects there are. My apologies if the two additional redirects/five additional talk pages were created earlier rather than later. Nonetheless, they need deletion. So far the argument for keeping them seems to be "they have histories". Perhaps we could prevail upon a developer to join the histories to the page on which the "info" lands? -- Someone else 03:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
            • Apology accepted. Try the "What links here" links to get a complete list of redirects, and the "Page history" links to find out when they were created. Similarly for the talk pages. Martin 03:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Please delete all these articles/redirects. The content has been sufficiently moved to a new home, and all the debate about redirects, etc. is now moot. --Minesweeper 23:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • I love this vote. This particular thread is discussing the deletion of certain talk pages. And Minesweeper says "delete all these articles/redirects" - they are neither! Heh, I guess this is what happens when VfD discussions get too long. Martin 01:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
    • Delete. Such of it as is informative, should reside at homophobic hate speech. Also, see below. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • what do you want to do with the article information itself? Delete it, or factor it into another article? orthogonal 17:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. If you want to merge and redirect it, you don't need VfD for that, though please read past discussion at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge before doing anything drastic. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You certainly need VfD if you want to delete the redirect, don't you? 10 pages with AKFD in their titles pointing somewhere is still gonna rack up the google hits. -- Someone else 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Sure, but first see if you can get agreement for merging the content, at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge, then merge the content, and then see about deleting the resultant redirect, if you still feel that's necessary. IMO. Note that redirects don't "rack up the google hits" - google is smart enough to only give one hit, no matter how many redirects we create. Martin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Is this junk still on? This POV rubbish has had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. Please delete it and all its unnecessary redirect pages. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Martin. Discussing whether or not the article should be deleted as a redirect is academic, because it isn't a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Discussing why we need (exact count hard to determine...15?) pages of discussion seems not so academic.--Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~
    • Delete. I don't think it is encyclopedic. The term is not all that common and it originated here as trolling, article has taken on a life of its own, deleting it will improve Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. JDR
    • My vote for article is to delete. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can anyone find ANY page ANYWHERE on the Internet that has the phrase "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" in its title? Other than in the Wikipedia, that is, which seems to have a great many of them. Do we have them all? And if so, can't we limit ourselves to having all 2 of them (an article and ONE talk page? -- Someone else 07:10, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I take it that that's a vote to keep this article, now a redirect, since you seem happy for us to have AN article? We have five(?) talk pages because people on Wikipedia have spent so much time talking about this article. If you dislike that, you're welcome to stop talking about it. And yes, I can find pages with "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" in the title - google groups has bunches of them. Martin 22:53, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • No, we have five talk pages because the talk has not been gathered in one place. And I don't consider wikipedia pages and e-mails equivalent.--Someone else 01:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • And the reason I split the talk pages up and spent time refactoring them was because people spent so much time talking about it. Since you're the first person in the history of Wikipedia to complain about the existence of talk archives, you'll excuse me if I didn't anticipate your comlaint. Martin 02:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
            • Something to consider for the future then. -- Someone else 03:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete these all, (as above). --Minesweeper 23:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • General comments on AKFD articles above:
    • Searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" on the web now gets wikipedia-derived hits in 8 of the first 11 spots. We're not simply reporting anymore: we're actively promoting this lovely sentiment. Time to shove this toothpaste back into the tube. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Promoting the sentiment? Does having an article on Nazism promote Nazism? Having lots of hits for Wikipedia articles does promote Wikipedia, I suppose, but I think that's a good thing. :) -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • This is not like having an article on Nazism, it's like having lots of pages whose titles are Nazi anti-Jewish slogans. Bmills 09:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • and that these slogans were marginal until we decided to promote them. I don't think this does wikipedia any favours. Secretlondon 09:59, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • Having redirects from every marginal variation does suggest that we want to call special attention to it, yes. An encyclopedia with more entries in its index pointing to AKFD than it does to, oh, say, Nazi, does suggest that the encyclopedia is especially fond of the former, and has little rational planning or forethought about emphasizing important rather than unimportant concepts. The fact that you have to scroll down the bage to get to non-Wikipedia-related hits also suggests we might be inflating the importance of this particular phrase. And not all publicity is good publicity. -- Someone else 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • And that's exactly what we deserve. If we had left that informative and harmless article alone after it had been written and posted by, I think, Axel Boldt, there wouldn't be anything to complain about now. (Due to all those redirects it's now also difficult to find the original text.) Reading the above comments shows me that right now people aren't even sure what they want deleted -- the article itself or just the numerous redirects. Two more things (again): (1) Writing about a particular subject does not imply advocating it, just as it does not imply opposing it. Please see the use-mention distinction. (2) Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached and the matter is dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Wikipedia? (I can hear voices telling me this doesn't belong here, so I may post my second question again at a more appropriate place.) --KF 09:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To respond to Someone Else's comment about google hits, I think on balance I'm not too depressed if it takes longer for some Nazi punk to find a hate site because they keep getting hits from a respectable encyclopedia with a policy of writing from a neutral point of view. In any case, most of the Wikipedia-related hits are not being listed for deletion, being mailing list posts, user talk pages, meta pages, and other encyclopedic articles like Fred Phelps, Raid bug spray, Matthew Shepard, etc. Martin 19:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. As SomeoneElse said, once we start "making the news" and bring up the majority of mentions/hits of the term, we are the ones determining the general popularity of the phrase. This is problematic. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia doesn't make up the majority of hits on the google-indexed web: it's 84 of a total of 198, most of which are at our mirrors, or in places that nobody's proposed for deletion, such as meta, mailing list, or articles like Fred Phelps. It also doesn't make up any of the 494 hits on google groups. I doubt it makes up a significant minority of mentions in the real world - last I checked, folks who waved anti-gay banners tend not to do so in the context of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Nor are we making the news - neither of the two references to "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" on google news at the time of writing had anything to do with Wikipedia. On a side note, you haven't said what you want to delete, which would seem to be relevant. Martin 22:59, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, accepting this straw-man argument at face value, it's not much better for us to have 17% of all the hits on the web. On a side note, I'd propose combining all talk on one page, and delting all redirects. If all the material now resides at "anti-gay speech", I'd advocate deleting all AKFD redirects. That would leave the material at "anti-gay speech" and rid us of our intensive network of AKFD redirects, and stop the emphasis on this particular page. -- Someone else 01:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Boyerism. Unnecessary redirect. (now the article has moved to Patrick Boyer). Angela 19:25, 16 Nov 2003 (23:05, 16 Nov 2003)
    • Delete, dictionary definition anyway. Morwen 19:28, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I am fleshing out. Already listed on Cleanup. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - only nine google hits, #1 of which is us. Thanks for listing, though. Martin 19:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Google's #1 vote is "Delete"... [[2]] Other sites seem to give a different definition... Κσυπ Cyp 21:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Since the article was mostly about Patrick Boyer, I have moved it to Patrick Boyer in the hope that it will turn into a nice biographical article. Boyerism is now a redirect with no history. I don't see any harm in keeping it as a redirect to Patrick Boyer. -- Oliver P. 23:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • See below. Andy Mabbett 07:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Term is not used in this context. POV title of redirect also. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
      • No, no... Below is for discussion of the article. This is for discussion of the redirect. Actually, no-one seems to want the article deleted, so I'll remove the entry. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Um, I was talking about the redirect, it is both used in the wrong context and POV. Note that I voted to keep the article. Daniel Quinlan 09:14, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
          • Oops, I put that in the wrong place. It was meant as a reply to Andy Mabbett, who just said "See below", presumably referring to the discussion of the article. -- Oliver P. 09:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The article now contains no mention of the word Boyerism so such a redirect would be confusing nd should, therefore, be deleted. Angela 08:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • As one of the resident Canadian politics dudes, and the guy who removed the Boyerism reference from the redirected Patrick Boyer article, my reasoning was as follows: Patrick Boyer is a real figure in Canadian politics, and is worth keeping. As for "Boyerism", from the context I have it would appear that Daniel C. Boyer latched onto a single, isolated coinage of the word in reference to Patrick Boyer to buttress his side of the "Boyerism" debate. Trust me, I know my Canadian politics -- the word is close to meaningless in that context. There is no such phenomenon large enough to be worth an encyclopedia entry. Bearcat 08:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Okay, okay... Kill the redirect! -- Oliver P. 09:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unnecessary. --Minesweeper 23:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

November 17

  • Ben & Mo's. Deletion notice was added on 12 November but it wasn't listed here. Angela
    • "Somewhat shizophrenic dining establishment?" What's that supposed to mean? - Arthur George Carrick
      • It means that the author doesn't know very much about shizophrenia :-( Delete. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's an article about a restaurant which gives no indication why this restaurant is notable. Onebyone 16:25, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 18

  • Fukue,Keita - the story does not check out. seems like agrandized self-promotion. I say delete. (Also, the article name probably has to be fixed) Kingturtle 02:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it does check out (much to my shock). I found a Japanese site for a book about the album and the contest he supposedly won here. It does seem a bit premature to have an article on the musician and the article needs a lot of work, but I don't think it should be deleted. -- Tlotoxl 03:02, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, it actually turns out that Adorunta, the band that Fukue Keita is supposedly the lead singer and guitarist for, is a one-man-band lead by a 53 year old guy from Hiroshima who calls himself Adorunta. I rewrote the page, removing almost everything, and moved it to Adorunta. -- Tlotoxl 19:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sydney Boys and Sydney Boys High School. I don't care where the school is, we don't need an article on every school in the world. RickK 02:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a valid article. Keep. Vancouverguy 02:48, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No, it's not a valid article. We have already deleted other high schools that don't belong here, why does this one deserve to stay? RickK 03:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I merged across the reasons from the other article (Sydney Boys). It is a bit significant, but anyway... Dysprosia 05:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Not any more significant than any other school in Sydney. I'm uncertain why, with such a strong web site, someone would want to add all this stuff to a Wikipedia article (interesting grading curve, by the way). Should be severely cut back, then merged into Sidney or Schools in Sydney where every school can place a blurb - Marshman 23:21, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 03:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. According to the article, "[t]he school was founded in 1883, making it the oldest state school in Sydney." Does that make it more worth keeping? I mean, I'd say Boston Latin has a place in Wikipedia. orthogonal 06:30, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are many articles on secondary schools already in Wikipedia. SBHS is just a significant as them. The article as it stands could do with some work but it should be delted outright. Sydney Boys High is significant enough to warrant its own article. -- Popsracer 22:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Please list thos other school articles so they, too, can be deleted. RickK 05:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I see no reason why well-formed articles including differentiating aspects of specific secondary schools should not stay.
      • Anonymous posters' votes don't get counted. RickK 05:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I would say keep. There is no actual reason to delete this article, other than the fact that it is perhaps not particularly relevant, as many of you have said. SBHS is a significant school - in fact, probably the most significant school in Sydney, which is a significant city in the world, etc. But that's not the reason behind letting this article stay. As long as it conveys information, it should stay. Even though it probably only appeals to a few people, it should stay. And, on the other hand, it contains important information about the school. Marshman, you said that because the school has a strong website it should be deleted. If we were to respect that reasoning for other articles, then we would get to a stage where all entries on companies, institutions and organisations would have to be deleted. Wikipedia is an encylopedia with a difference - it's range of topics should be much wider than, say, Britannica. And finally, articles should only be deleted if they are: a) harmful, derogatory, blank, b) totally irrelevant, as in an article on Bob's Cornershop, 72 Sandringham St, London, or c) biased. SBHS is neither of these - as long as it conveys information it should definitely stay. -- Rronline, 22 Nov 2003
  • Native American Indian Fighting Styles - too broad a topic. too vague an explanation. an orphan to boot. please consider for deletion. Kingturtle 04:38, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too general, with no specifics. Too many upper case characters in the title, anyway. RickK 05:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep ... I'll copy edit it ... JDR
    • Move and delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Check the original contribution.... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:26, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd seriously question the accuracy of the opening paragraph. But it seems a valid enough topic, with some good info in the body. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Bugging devices in EU headquarters a news story that somehow became an article, can't stand alone as an article. It has already been listed on cleanup for 9 days. Maximus Rex 07:34, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 10:24, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This was Iraq-related - could it be redirected and merged with an appropriate Iraq war article? Martin 23:04, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • How was this Iraq-related? There is no mention of Iraq in the article.Maximus Rex 15:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Answer in the external links. Martin 23:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and work on - an ex-GCHQ worker has now been charged with leaking stuff related to US bugging of UN delegations. Secretlondon 10:06, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you could explain what the above has to do with the article? I believe the EU is different from the UN. Maximus Rex 15:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though at some point it may merit being placed within some coverage of diplomatic bugging. I'll leave that timing to those working on this and related topics... Jamesday 16:07, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • AcuMox & acumox - Perhaps acceptable after name change from AcuMox to acumox but (1) probably intended as an ad for a book of that name (2) altho the practice is well established the term may be made up by fronts for the book. 3050 Google hits, of which nearly all are "entries very similar to the 64 already displayed"; the ones using the embedded capital are, i think, all associated with the price of the book. Continuing to edit it, so consider looking at original via "Page history". --Jerzy 15:36, 2003 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Chip Row. Now has no content or page history, as per guideline 10 of the DGfA. Angela 16:10, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (and thanks for listing the first one) Martin 23:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • John Cena. Too Little Information as by number 4 on the canidates for speedy deletion on the DGfA Jack Zhang @ 10:31, 18 Nov 2003 (PDST)
    • That's enough to be kept as a stub. Angela 20:32, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Clearly not as famous as Easter Bradford. Cena's in the little known World Wrestling Entertainment, not in something as important as a drag amateur part-time improv group. orthogonal 01:09, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This seems about the right amount of coverage for this person. Jamesday 16:07, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 19

  • Cassi Holder, Christopher Cochran, Scott Simpson, Don Gibbs, Calvin Nokes, Charlotte Hendrix, and Don Mullins are all members of the deleted "Far From Kansas" improv (now defunct [3]) that was part of the many vanity pages about (and written by) Easter Bradford/User:Easterbradford. Maximus Rex 01:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually, each of these is not a vanity page (I guess because they were put in by a friend or coworker). I'd tend to want to keep them, but lose the link to the stage show. Altogether, it is a clear advertisement, but separately, hard to justify removing all of these people. - Marshman
      • OK. I change my vote to delete -- Marshman 17:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For instance "Cassi Holder" gets 4 Google hits. How is this an encyclopedia topic? Should I write articles about all of my friends? Maximus Rex 02:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Go ahead! We already have articles about unimportant people, and I'm not referring to Joe Ahmed. - Arthur George Carrick 03:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all, does not pass Google test, not even close. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Not encyclopedic. Tempshill 03:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. They're vanity pages whether created by the individuals or by a friend of the individuals. RickK 04:06, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all; the group did amateur improv, it's now defunct. Re Cassi Holder's Google hits: two are from posts by her on www.gephardtgrassroots.com, one is her listing on the staff page of her employer ("Development Coordinator"), and one is on a Wikipedia screen-scraper site. (For comparison, Googling on my real first + last name gets six hits that are me, and two others that are not me. Googling on my full name gets 25, all of which are really me, for a total = 25 + 6 = 31. And no, I do not deserve a Wikipedia page. Also for comparision, Googling for "Easter Bradford" -wikipedia gets 35 results, some of which indirectly result from Wikipedia links.) The FarFromKansas web site consists in its entirety of a photo, a caption, a line of text, and a link: "Read our entry at the Wikipedia." All of this is just appropriation of Wikipedia for do-it-yourself PR and Google farming. Maybe we can make a good Google-farming article out of it. orthogonal 06:17, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Not encyclopedic. —Frecklefoot 17:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Nasalized language on cleanup for a long time, from User:SmartBee, only 1 Google hit not related to wikipedia makes this suspicious (or perhaps its under the wrong name?). Maximus Rex 02:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unverified (actually, just plain bad) information and title. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Those actually are real, but my recollection of what kind of information should be included in such an article is extremely sketchy. I do have linguistics notes somewhere that would be useful :) I'll see if I can find them, and I vote to keep in the meantime. Adam Bishop 04:12, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • But, is it a useful classification? Is it encyclopedic. We could have an article named K language. Any language with the sound 'K'. Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. It's not a real linguistic term. All hits are from wiki. Nasal language does seem to be used but even then <50 hits. I'm going to do some work on how we categorise languages (it's haphazard at the moment). Secretlondon 10:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, the language I was thinking of was Desano, which apparently has words made up of all nasal segments, or all non-nasal segments. This includes nasalizing consonants that we wouldn't normally consider to be capable of being nasalized...but I'm not sure it can be called a "nasalized language." Oh well. Adam Bishop 00:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is NOT a classification, but a very vague description of the lexicon, etymolgy, and phonetic system of a language, not its relations to others. SmartBee
    • Delete. SmartBee's comment is a convincing argument for deletion. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Red Brick Ltd An obscure group dedicated to "restoring" an obscure game. RickK 05:21, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If we try to maintain an article on every obscure group of a few people with a web site... Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move anything useful onto Earthdawn, then delete it. Andy Mabbett 23:15, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge the content, then make a redirect to the game. Jamesday 16:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Games of physical activity, Games of physical skill. I don't really see what we can put underneath these titles that makes them an encyclopedia article. Pete 18:20, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (I've edited on these two). They are closely related and are more a list of games that fall under these types. They are similar to the other pages listed on the games page. It creates a tree structure that i personally like . Content possiblities are not big only what they are good for like body coordination. Ebricca 08:58, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Merphant 01:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, reasons above. Jamesday 16:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • PEG unencyclopaedic, unclear, can't even work out what PEG means. I think its supposed to be about economics (?) DJ Clayworth 19:04, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to require a major re-write, at least. Andy Mabbett 23:11, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - PEG is a term used in finance. It is a variant of the price/earnings ratio (PE) that is modified to account for high growth market characteristics. The article seems totally off topic. mydogategodshat 02:44, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Chisholm Trail District - the was in CLEANUP for ages. I think it should be deleted. I'm not even sure what it IS. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. A Boyscout Troop designation, essentially - Marshman 02:35, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Festivals of Plagiarism - this was in CLEANUP for a long time. It still makes no sense. Either it gets written to make sense, or we should delete it. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Furman v. Georgia - this was in CLEANUP for a long time. It needs to be fixed or deleted. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep now. I've expanded it to include the salient points of the decision and why it was significant. Jamesday 18:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Careertimes.com.hk - this was in CLEANUP for a long time. It needs to be fixed or deleted. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - just a web site of a job advert newspaper. Secretlondon 09:56, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

November 20

  • Pavol Hudák unless its not translated (i guess its slovenian..) it should be deleted. pit 00:11, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Oil imperialism - unless there is hard evidence for this, it is POV and theory. Kingturtle 00:31, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Clearly has problems as most conspiracy theories do. Would have to be rewritten to point out flaws in theory before I'd want it to stay around as it is almost all speculation - Marshman 02:51, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - It is clearly stated that it is only a theory, that the theory is disputed, and that it is a conspiracy theory. It should be treated in the same way as the theory that America invaded Iraq in order to "liberate" it's citizens. We should not delete an article because there is no hard proof of it's truth. If we did that the religion and politics sections would be much reduced. mydogategodshat 03:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, oil conspiracies are very real and persistent accusations, and deserve an entry. However, this article is terrible, which led me to put it in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and much later (when that did nothing) to NPOV it. It would be great if it was improved, but sadly I fear it should stay as is (with NPOV notice) until that is done. -- VV 07:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Will eventually evolve into a good article :ChrisG 16:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV title of article. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • Rename "Oil imperialism theories" - mydogategodshat 00:53, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's merely a driving factor in at least the US involvement in WW2 (the Japanese desire for oil resourcs in the PI and expected US military response required destruction of the US ability to intervene) and many other imperial adventures over the last century or so. This article is rather short-sighted and doesn't yet consider the longer history but that's something which the normal wiki process will deal with. Jamesday 19:06, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • The automobile's effect on America - a school essay. delete. Kingturtle 00:52, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like a decent base to build from. Why not leave it? orthogonal 01:03, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. If it is free to keep, then do so and improve - Marshman 02:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't look like an article suitable for Wikipedia SD6-Agent 02:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not bad, it's an interesting topic, I like it. Maybe it should be a section under "Automobile." Dpbsmith 03:04, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Perhaps a school paper, but a decent one, and mostly appropriate here. I agree that it might be best merged into automobile. Jgm 13:29, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though I suspect it ought to be rewritten at some point to tbe Automobile's effect on industrialised society. :ChrisG 16:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Scholarly topic. Agree that it needs to be more generalized. I'd probably put it under urban planning though. That's the area of research that is richest (at least that I know of). Rossami 17:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not for original essays or research.
    • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to automobile. - Arthur George Carrick 20:23, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - article needs work but this is an important topic in sociology. mydogategodshat 00:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hypofixx "Hypofixx is a heavy metal musician based out of New York City. His music is just beginning to garner national attention" (emphasis orthogonal's). How about we wait until he's actually garnered national attention, so as not to unduly influence the nation's taste by allowing Wikipedia to be used as his free PR firm. orthogonal 01:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing the pattern here. Delete - Marshman 02:43, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • And it looks Bradfordistic. Delete. —Frecklefoot 15:19, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This VH1 bio suggests there's merit to about this much coverage of this artist at present. Jamesday 19:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • A little googling suggests that the bio is posted on the VH1 site, but was written by Hypofixx or someone doing PR for Hypofixx. The same text shows up at http://www.hofrec.com/hfx/bio.shtml, Hypofixx's label's web site. As it seems unlikely the label would appropriate copy written by VH1, it seems a case of VJ1 re-printing the label's press release. orthogonal 21:24, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Influence - dictionary definition already copied to wikitionary. - SimonP 02:43, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Matthew Fister - probable vanity. See also the "cool blog" entry above. Dysprosia 10:54, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Let us all thank Easter Bradford for pioneering the use of Wikipedia as a free personal PR machine. Delete. orthogonal 03:58, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 09:56, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. —Frecklefoot 15:19, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete.Maximus Rex 15:21, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If this and other similar pages are deleted, there may be a case of reopening the Easter Bradford debate. Bmills 15:57, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insufficiently significant at present. Jamesday 19:30, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Practically Einstein and Brad Pugh - local band and its lead singer. More Bradfordistic vanity. As the band page contains little more than a link to the band's web site, seems an advertisement designed to take advantage of Wikipedia's high Google ranking. orthogonal 05:04, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 15:57, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the group. Press at [4] and [5] suggest that this degree of coverage is about right at the moment. Redirect the lead singer to the group - doesn't seem to merit individual coverage. Jamesday
      • Please note the header on the second link (emphasis mine) "Self-publishing by and for the Metro region's music community" orthogonal 22:11, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Critique of e-Bay business model - a critique is POV by nature, no? Isn't something like this better suited to be written in http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml ? Kingturtle 08:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. "How ebay could improve their business" isn't really our area of expertise: we're not business consultants. --Delirium 08:19, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:24, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. This in an inappropriate venue for this approach to improving the world - Marshman 17:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original essay. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - I wrote this before I was aware of WP policies. Also, the people at eBay have already seen it. mydogategodshat 00:44, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Grafici climatici is just a collection of bar-graphs concerning weather. -- Khym Chanur 08:37, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • In Spanish as well. delete Secretlondon 09:56, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • Actually it's in Italian, even the title. Bogdan 14:39, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It would be really nice to have these climate graphs (in English), but without any source information, I'd suspect they have been lifted (copyvio). Delete - Marshman 17:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not English. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Ciao, I'm the author of these graphs, I utilize a template that I have drawe with "paint", the template is now insert with the other. I thik that it is no so difficult to make some green rectangle or a blue line. If the problem is that are all in italian, I remember you that italian wikipedia haven't a space to insert italian picture and the only way to have image in our encyclopedia is use english space as support. Bye Renato
      • Renato is saying that those graphs were hand-made, thus original and not copyvios. Please don't delete them. The Italian wikipedia is still running on the old UseModWiki software, and the only way for us to include images is to upload them somewhere on other wikipedias and link them using html. As soon as the .it will be moved to the new software, the images will be moved there too, and deleted from this one. I'll move this page under Renato's personal page. If I have the time, will look into an automatic program to generate similar graphs in the various languages - they are nice. At18 11:54, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep where they are now, for reasons above. Renato, can you make 2 versions, one with no text and one in Italian? If you do this, other people will be able to use them for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries by adding labels for each language.
  • Bit rot is basically a duplicate of link rot. -- Khym Chanur 09:28, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • The term is used more generally, and in fact the definition it gives is not one i've seen it used as before. It refers to the discovery of bugs in code that seemed to be working fine for a long time... and upon investigation, you cannot see why it ever worked in the first place.... Morwen 09:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As it stands, they are, but Bit rot refers to something completely different, so I'll attempt a rewrite or a FOLDOC port. Dysprosia 10:48, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Done, keep. Dysprosia 10:54, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid term, a bit Wiktionary-ish, but whatever. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Hearst doctrine -- a google search suggests there isn't such a thing. This doctrine supposedly delineates the subset of the Bush Doctrine which calls for American military power without equal (making reference to Hertz corporation's purported "We're Number One" slogan). technopilgrim 10:32, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • gotta love it when people try to make an article out of a pet phrase and then don't even get the phrase right. Delete. Jgm 13:29, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reads like it was totally made up - Marshman 17:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bogus article and title. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's real US policy, though it needs to be moved to Hertz doctrine. Jamesday 19:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Monday Report - from Cleanup. Reads like a press release, about a TV show to be aired in 2004. Secretlondon 14:26, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia:Cleanup:
      • Monday Report
      • - reads like a press release Secretlondon
      • - Bah, it isn't even on the air yet. It's an ad. I vote for deletion, it can come back when some people have seen it. Tualha
        • I'd previously fixed it to not be a press release, and I've reverted to that revision. Keep. Morwen 14:36, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The other edits by this IP are fine (though use of preview would be nice!) and that suggests that this one will be updated when the show is broadcast. It appears to be a genuine contribution rather than a deliberate ad. Jamesday 03:43, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms - Source material -- JeLuF 16:29, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agreed. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • Not sure why. Is the excerpt of the law too long? I thought of putting only the preamble at first and write something like: "See external link to read the full document". However, I also did think that people would want to know what's after the preamble so I included the first few articles. Is putting only the Preamble more reasonable in your opinion? I mean, I don't see why a government would sue us for putting an excerpt of a law especially since the reference to Publication Quebec (official editor of the Quebec State) is at the bottom of the page. Mathieugp
      • This is item 14 of Wikipedia is not, which unfortunately doesn't give the reasons. I can't remember where they are discussed, but the gist is that (1) encyclopedias do not contain large quantities of source text, they contain information about important texts, and (2) the wide-open nature of Wiki isn't really appropriate to storing source texts, where every dot and comma must be preserved without modification. Onebyone 11:02, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove the source text, include and external link to the source text, and this is fine. --Minesweeper 11:06, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, without the source text it's a reasonable stub, keep. Onebyone 11:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Ok. I'll remove the excerpt. I'll add a paragraph detailing the history of the Charter instead. -- Mathieugp


  • Kafe_44 just some bar in Sweden. No contents, just link to its website and chefmoz. Mrdice 19:11, 2003 Nov 20 (UTC)
    • Delete. orthogonal 19:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, probable advert, not encyclopedic anyway. Please, let's not create advertisements for every bar or restaurant everywhere. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • EPortfolio - advertisement added by person who sells a product trade named "EPortfolio". Not encyclopedic either. Daniel Quinlan 19:24, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Can you provide any evidence that it is a product trade named ???. ePortfolio is a concept derived from portfolio that is currently leading many innovative initiatives in the field of education and life long learning. (see [[6]]). If the 'style' is 'not encyclopedic', the content certainly is and I would certainly be eager to use a more 'canonic' form of writing if you would be kind enough to point out my mistakes Serge Ravet 19:24, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • This has been rewritten to explain what ePortfolios are. It's not an advert. ePortfolio isnt any particular product. It should be kept. Angela 18:44, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • A vinculo matrimonii, A mensa et thoro, Ab initio - legal definitions. The content may be appropriate somewhere, but I can't think of anything to write under those names. -- Cyan 23:19, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think they are important definitions that people should be able to find out about on wikipedia. They are also internationally used terms, though 'divorce a mensa et thoro' has I believe been replaced by a new concept of judicial separation in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed after all the Easter Bradford collection of vanity pages it is good to see proper encyclopædia articles for a change. I am a little suprised to find them listed on the VfD page. FearÉIREANN 23:27, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • They aren't proper encyclopedia articles, JT, they are verbatim legal dictionary entries. -- Cyan 23:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into a single legal terms article and redirect (it will be more interesting and just as useful, you can even use headers for each term so you can redirect to the specific definition if you want). Stand in awe of my brilliance. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 23:37, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • I shall do so. -- Cyan 23:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • We are not worthy of your presence, O Most Powerful and Illustrous One. All hail Daniel, the light that shineth into the darkness of wikipedia! :-) Or in Star Trek-speak: 'make it so!' FearÉIREANN 23:51, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed, merge, unless there is sufficient history behind the term (e.g., Habeus corpus) to justify an article. orthogonal 00:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 21

Some users are prepending new entries at the top of this daily list, and some are appending at the bottom. While I'd prefer appending, I'd mostly like to see consistency. orthogonal 22:43, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Bromley Contingent. "consituted the fashion avant garde of the early UK punk rock movement". They constituted' the avant garde? There was nobody else? RickK 05:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
    • I dont think it should be deleted, maybe reworded? The bromley contingent were an important part of punk history! Steeev 21 Nov 2003
    • Needs editing but deleting this is almost unthinkable. Bromely Contingent were very important. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Even I've heard of 'em, and I'm a Yank. Reword and keep. Malcolm McLaren probably ought to be mentioned as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 23:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Replaced vfd note with stub warning. there is no reason why this article shouldn't be included on WP. the article as it stands is mot inacuarte either, the Bromley Contingent WERE the avant garde that pushed the pistols into the limelight. Granted article could be fleshed out alot (I will do it if I get time), but in the meantime I vote it's better than owt. quercus robur 00:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • HMPS. Another school that doesn't need its own article. RickK 05:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Please do not delete. It is an important school. will shortly update it. Hemanshu
It's no more an important school than any other school in the world. No elementary or high school needs its own article. RickK 07:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Courtisanerie - this was in CLEANUP for ages. Is it encyclopedic or dictionaric? Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. Rossami 17:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a dictionary entry. Moved to 21st from 19th after I added the VfD notice for the first time today. Jamesday 16:27, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • DCide "is a Washington, DC based independent record label most noted for releasing various compilations of unsigned artists in the Washington, DC area." There are lots of independent record labels, given how inexpensive it is to press CDs with modern technology. This seems another case of Wikipedia being used for Google-farming. orthogonal 00:22, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Gregor Brand and Siegfried Alkan - vanity page, self-advertising by same internet persona. Only 63 hits on Google, 1000 if you include German pages. He added a page about an ancestor of his, Siegfried Alkan, who only gets 3 google hits from Brand's own free web-hosting pages, so it poses verification problems. Advert also includes link to a genealogy site claiming he's related to another historical person. User has also linked his article into a variety of list articles over the last few days from a variety of IP addresses: User:193.159.25.80 User:212.185.253.71 User:193.159.25.22 User:62.227.254.4 User:62.158.143.175 and more for the other article. Daniel Quinlan 01:13, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Vate - a Mexican electronic music outfit. They are linked to from the list of notable electronic music artists and DJs despite the fact that they don't seem to have made any significant contributions to electronic music (unless those contributions are simply unknown outside of Mexico). Their main repository for mp3s is mp3.com, and they only have 13,000 views there. -- Tlotoxl 04:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Santorum was unofficially undeleted. 7 votes previously to delete (Talk:Santorum/Delete). Currently no support on WP:VFU to undelete. Angela 20:00, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've moved the relevant copy to Rick Santorum (should that be moved to "Richard S...."?) Andy Mabbett 20:11, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't think it's common enough to be an encyclopedia entry (and I'd question if it even belongs in Wiktionary, but I could live with that.) -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For the record, Googling 'Santorum' comes up with the first three entries as senate.gov pages, the next two cnn articles about his views on homosexuality, the next two about the Rick Savage sense of the word. It does seem to be pretty common.207.189.98.44 21:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This should never have been undeleted, going against both VfD and VfU. Daniel Quinlan 20:52, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This page was deleted before, the discussion on vfu was to uphold the deletion, and then a sysop (somehow who must know better) unilaterally undeleted it? I seriously question their judgement.Maximus Rex 20:57, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Heep and move to Dan Savage Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Delete. The explanation of the term belongs on Rick Santorum. SANTORUM should not be its own article in wikipedia. Kingturtle 22:57, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • There is no term in common use (it was made up by a political opponent (shock jock type of activist?) to attach the most offending term possible to Rick Santorum), but that is not at issue. The Santorum title attached to the term is at issue since it was almost unanimously deleted and unilaterally undeleted. Daniel Quinlan 23:03, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Currently redirects to Dan Savage. Agree that it does not warrant an article on its own. I believe that Dan Savage is probably worthy of an article. The redirect does not seem wildly unreasonable. Martin 00:39, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Surely if Santorum is a redirect, it should redirect to Rick Santorum?? Am I missing something?207.189.98.44 00:48, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You're missing some inside baseball. Gay advice columnist Dan Savage, in reaction to some of Senator Santorum's criticism of homosexuality, held a contest among his readership to find a sexual act or accompaniment that could be called "santorum" to embarrass the senator. Savage ultimately chose (from memory, I may be off here) "the frothy mixture of feces and lubricant discovered on sheets after anal intercourse". orthogonal 01:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Power level DragonBall, but too generic to be a redirect. DJ Clayworth 20:48, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, of course! wshun 23:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hexaware Technologies - unwikified advert, first edit by anonymous IP. Daniel Quinlan 22:34, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Lir has transformed the original advert into a reasonable wiki entry, so I think the question is, is Hexaware Tech significant enough to be in an encyclopedia? My thought is, no. Delete. orthogonal 22:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think that most of the information is suitable for a small article, but realistically the info on their alliances is irrelevant. A simple statement of what they do, where they are based, how many employees they have woudl suffice. I fail to see how linking to technology etc is useful. Most of the information on teh page is erroneous or unverifiable. Its an obvious advertisement. And LIR, do not edit other peopels entries. AQBachler 01:04, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, a company which employees 1700 people is encylopedic. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Can't see any strong argument for deletion. Keep. Jay 06:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 22

  • Michal Arkusz - seems to be a wannabee-politician, no google hits.
    Remove also references on 1981 and March 31 -- JeLuF 00:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to Delete. The article appears to be autobiographical. I think that the neutrality of the article is also doubtful, by the way. Lord Emsworth 00:44, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've listed this on Cleanup for added exposure. I agree that this person ought not to have an entry in Wikipedia. -- Cyan 00:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. See also Sanacja, Jozef Arkusz, Naczelnik and other edits by User:68.98.126.213. Andy Mabbett 01:01, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Michal Arkusz - I don't see why a current politician cannot have a referance about him in relation to the political party he heads. As for Jozef Arkusz, he is listed in both Polish and International Encyclopedias, so there is no reason for his entry to be deleted. Censorship should not be selectively applied, on here or in real life. Sanacja
    • Delete. Hesitant I first, reading that "Sanacja.... claims (as of November 2003) to have 39 members" makes it pretty obvious that this is Bradfordistic. orthogonal 01:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Again, why is it that other small political parties can have references on here, yet our party cannot. The site on Michal Arkusz is a reference to a leader of a political party, which albeit small is a real party. Why censor it? Sanacja 01:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Which other small parties are you refering to? Please respond on my talk page. -- Cyan 02:06, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Folks, this is a new user who doesn't yet know our conventions. Let us be gentle. (I'm not saying anyone hasn't been gentle, just that we should continue to be.) Sanacja, the essence of the objection to this entry is simply that we prefer people and political entities to be well-known before they are recorded in Wikipedia. -- Cyan 02:13, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. You can remove the link to Michal Arkusz then, since I admit that he is not known. But Sanacja is a very well known party that played a crucial role in Poland during the interwar period. I represent the renewed Sanacja party, and I thought it only appropriate that we include some information on our fledgling politics. Sanacja 02:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's accurate though. Sanacja is a fairly well-known and historically important Polish party. Is it widely recognized that the party you represent is in fact the same party, not a new upstart party that has coopted a famous name? I could, for example, start the United States Whig Party, claiming it to be a revival of the United States Whig Party, but that would not necessarily make it so. --Delirium 02:29, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
      • That would definitely not make it the United States Whig Party, which I revived and am Maximum Leader of. orthogonal 03:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If you went through all the motions of starting the political party, along with recruiting members, holding meetings, discussing policies for fundraising and growth, you would indeed be a political party. The fact is that there is no Sanacja party in Poland, and the Polish community here in Arizona decided to renew it under the same name. What is wrong with this? Sanacja 02:35, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • " there is no Sanacja party in Poland". Well, quite. Andy Mabbett 02:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • That does not mean there is no Sanacja!Sanacja 03:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • [[Sanacja]]has just added this to my User page: "I provided citations for the information that was disputed, as for the parties current status you can come to one of our meetings and find out for yourself. Stop slandering us and altering our information." Andy Mabbett 03:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This entire argument is with one person who seems intent on portraying Sanacja as a party that has something to do with Hitler. Andy Mabbett why? Like I said, you can come to one of our meetings and see that we have nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, or anything else you wrote about us. I'm not going to play this game of you adding, me deleting, you adding, me deleting slanderous material. Also, I cited sources that verify the accuracy of the information provided, and you still keep adding disputes and deleting my comments. Again, why? What do you have against Sanacja, and what is your problem? Sanacja 03:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • A fallacious and disingenuous response. Andy Mabbett 04:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • OK, whatever, I'm done with this argument. Edit the page as you will, it doesn't alter the truth. Sanacja 04:03, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. More self-aggrandizement. The secret is out, toot your horn here. Daniel Quinlan 04:46, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • I have changed the page to include as little information as possible, and to be as neutral and censored as I can without making it useless. Do as you wish with it. Sanacja 05:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • In regards to the Sanacja page I say keep it, but I would agree that the Michal Arkusz article is a bit too obscure. an entry in Modern Sanacja would suffice at least until the individual is of some larger importance. The exclusion of an article is not saying that it is an unimportant subject per se, but merely that it is too obscure and not generally relevant to warrant its own seperate article. Every human being on earthis important, but we cant turn this into the white pages. AQBachler 06:28, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • 2002 Gujarat pogrom- Fundamentally wrong because it gives a lie to the whole NPOV thing by having a POV page direct to a page which is NPOV- i.e. a pogrom is one of the speculations among others. The existence of this page means that there is a blatant suggestion that this is the conclusion, though the 2002 Gujarat violence professes to be/ aims at NPOV. Moreover, the matter is still in the courts (even yesterday there were some developments on the trial). Very inciteful, especially considering the other point of view.KRS 05:32, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1790751"