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 Marshman (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 26 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 -- redirects

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


Boilerplate

Please add the following to any page you list here. Thank you.

This page has been listed as a potential candidate for deletion. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to that page to discuss whether this page should be deleted. If you have questions about why this page was listed, you can also ask Username Foogrumple.

''This page has been listed as [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|a potential candidate for deletion]]. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to that page to discuss whether this page should be deleted. If you have questions about why this page was listed, you can also ask ~~~.''

November 16


November 20

  • 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 [1] and [2] 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)
      • Keep for the same reason to keep Hypofixx. If the band is actually being covered in high places, they WILL be known by at least 1,000 people who don't know any of the members personally, won't they? Wiwaxia 01:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • "Practically Einstein" update: last Thursday, November 20, they participated in the "[Washington] DC SoBe Battle of the Bands". High places indeed. This is encyclopediac? orthogonal 01:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 06:12, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-famous. Angela 02:12, 26 Nov 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, attempt at neologism with almost zero pickup. 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)
    • Delete. made up. Maximus Rex 04:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. A Google search returns 11 results, and the provided external links have no mention of "Hertz doctrine". --Minesweeper 13:37, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Real phenomenon, as James Day said. On article on this topic should exist, but it should be moved to a title that's a real word. Does James Day have any suggestions? Wiwaxia 01:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Neologism. Angela 02:12, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 21

  • 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)
    • What about Eton? ;) How important is this HMPS? -- Tarquin 17:29, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep unless it is decided at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools to delete all schools. Angela 18:10, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We should keep in all the schools that are put up individually at VfD. (and better yet, have them all recorded on a List of schools so we can keep track of them all if our final decision means we have to delete some). That way, if we make a final decision that schools should be kept when we're deliberating on an all-Wikipedia policy that determines which schools are legitimate for Wikipedia articles and which aren't, we won't have to start from scratch all over again on all those schools people worked so hard on in order to get our coverage of schools complete. Wiwaxia 02:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete per my reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools. Daniel Quinlan 05:45, Nov 26, 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)
    • Keep. We have List of record labels. Some labels certainly have much more historic importance than others, but I have no objection to NPOV articles about lesser labels if someone cares to add them. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Infrogmation 16:56, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can we find one example of a well-known band name signed to thatlabel? Someone should do a little searching on that. Wiwaxia 03:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The label published a compilation CD that included a song by Easter Bradford, who is clearly well-known. Well-known thanks to misusing Wikipedia. Oh, wait, never mind. orthogonal 09:05, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's v. stubby, and they don't have a huge web presence. Delete based solely on dislike of Easter Bradford stubs. Martin 19:45, 25 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)
    • Since I'm no expert on .de poetry, I hesitated. But adding himself to 1957 makes my decision much easier. Is "Brand" German for Bradford? Delete. orthogonal 12:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself: Why should a poet who is listed in more than 10 national and international literature lexica or biographical works (See the page: www.angelfire.com/art/gregorbrand/Biographie.html)have no entry in Wikipedia? I don´t see this as a case of vanity. GregorBrand
      • Correct me if I'm wrong, but your user name isn't an homage to Brand, is it? You're actually the person in question. So I guess you are literally "speaking for yourself". Bad form, old boy. And very clearly vanity. If you're actually of note, someday someone who isn't you will come along and note you. Let us hope for the arrival of that happy day, but not anticipate it. orthogonal 21:49, 22 Nov 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)


  • 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)
    • Delete, uninteresting company. Fuzheado 05:00, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 22

November 23

  • Nik Swider - Unverifiable idiosyncratic advert. "Credited with the Corealism movement". Corealism has been deleted 4 times now with similar reasoning and the same IP created this article, possibly to work around that deletion. Nik Swider Corealism search on Google gets three hits: two Wikipedia and an artist directory entry open to public editing. Daniel Quinlan 03:12, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to delete. A sidenote: the individual appears on Wikipedia:Requested articles. Lord Emsworth 03:23, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. More Boyerism (the Daniel C. kind). Nik Swider was added to Requested articles on 8 Sep 2002 by (surprise) User:Daniel C. Boyer. It took Boyer a long time to write it, guy must not be very important, even to Boyer. Maximus Rex 03:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I didn't write it. Check the page history. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:46, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Bradfordistic and bizarre "Painting was traded for a lifetime of free hair-cuts and reportedly destroyed by David's mother." Delete. orthogonal 04:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like a vanity page. --mav 06:49, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This guy should trying getting ahold of Roy Neuberger. Wiwaxia 03:26, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sunset High School. For the usual reasons. Undeleted by User:Minesweeper without discussion on the Votes for undeletion page, in order to prove a point. RickK 03:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hold on, I didn't undelete anything here. Once I saw it restored, I thought I'd include the missing information to see what kind of school-disambiguation madness we're starting here. --Minesweeper 03:40, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      • Then I apologize. But that's even worse, it was undeleted anonymously. RickK 03:45, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I undeleted after Oliver listed it on VfU. Anyway, anonymous undeletions have not been possible since November 5 when Brion implemented the logging of undeletions. The undeletion policy states that I should have told you about that and listed the page here, but that wasn't the policy until 02:47 and I undeleted it at 02.20. Angela 04:02, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Please tell me we have a rule against writing about undistinguished high schools. Is there at town/city page where this particular non-article can be merged into? Maximus Rex 03:55, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Now a disambiguation page. Original content (but not the history thereof) moved to Sunset High School (Portland). The disambiguation page is useful for looking up where there are schools called "Sunset High School". -- Oliver P. 04:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as disambig. May need the red links removing, but doesn't need to be deleted. Martin 17:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We should keep in all the schools that are put up individually at VfD. (and better yet, have them all recorded on a List of schools so we can keep track of them all if our final decision means we have to delete some). That way, if we make a final decision that schools should be kept when we're deliberating on an all-Wikipedia policy that determines which schools are legitimate for Wikipedia articles and which aren't, we won't have to start from scratch all over again on all those schools people worked so hard on in order to get our coverage of schools complete. Wiwaxia 02:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The Cunctator says keep, strongly (see talk page)
    • Even if we were to delete all the entries on the individual schools, which I would consider a failure of the goals of Wikipedia, there would not be any reason to eliminate this entry, which tells where such schools exist, and is certainly valid and potentially useful information. --The Cunctator 04:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sunset High School (Portland).
    • Delete. OliverP is out of control. I have a reason, the reason that I have for all schools and lists of schools, and I don't think I need to keep repeating it. RickK 04:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but you do need to repeat it because I don't know what the reason is. I cannot imagine any reason why these should be deleted. --Camembert
    • Thank you, Mr. Camembert. :) -- Oliver P. 04:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Abstain on Sunset at present. Jamesday 04:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Either keep, or merge and redirect with Portland, Oregon. Doesn't need deletion. Martin 17:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Rick that it's unnecessary to have an article on every high school. Adam Bishop 23:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Essentially all the content now lies at Beaverton School District. --Minesweeper 06:29, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
      • Should it not be kept as a redirect then? Martin
    • Keep pending discussion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools about schools and lists. There is an active discussion on schools there. Personally, if there can be a NPOV non stub on a school, why not keep it? Surely a real educational establishment is at least as important as Hogwarts, the Unseen University and the List of fictional elephants?207.189.98.44 00:00, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We should keep in all the schools that are put up individually at VfD. (and better yet, have them all recorded on a List of schools so we can keep track of them all if our final decision means we have to delete some). That way, if we make a final decision that schools should be kept when we're deliberating on an all-Wikipedia policy that determines which schools are legitimate for Wikipedia articles and which aren't, we won't have to start from scratch all over again on all those schools people worked so hard on in order to get our coverage of schools complete. Wiwaxia 02:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The entry is obviously informative and well-written. By any standard that recognizes that the goal of Wikipedia is to be comprehensive, it should stay. --The Cunctator 04:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Sanacja (1999), a political party of 39 members which has yet to achieve significant popular support or awareness. Too soon to be here. Jamesday 04:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree, and therefore beg to Delete. Lord Emsworth 04:51, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, currently immensely insignificant. Hell, I could probably start a party with 39 members. Maximus Rex 05:01, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 03:30, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Quick Reference Handbook - ambiguous; Google search shows this could mean a lot of things [3] (this listing is from CLEANUP) --Minesweeper 06:24, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd say delete; I think this is unlikely to contain any particularly useful information: a Quick Reference Handbook is a handbook used for quick reference in some situation, by the mere definition of the words in the phrase. The fact that there are thousands of such handbooks doesn't seem worth an article. --Delirium 07:00, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • Diary of an Ordinary Woman - was on Cleanup for 6 weeks. little to no progress has been made. it should be deleted. Kingturtle 10:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've copyedited a little and this is currently about as large an article as is merited. Jamesday 01:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is no longer hashed-up Nipponglish. Wiwaxia 03:26, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Richard Nash Gould - was on Cleanp for 6 weeks. vanity page? delete. Kingturtle 10:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems like a reasonable amount of coverage for this architect and his firm. I've added a link to their company site and wikified a little. Also added a better photo link to the Tribute in Light article.Jamesday 01:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I merged it with Tribute in Light and redirected there. Maximus Rex 02:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well fixed up. Wiwaxia 03:26, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hurlante Nova - moved from Cleanup. non-famous - can't verify. Kingturtle 11:26, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. See this machine translated French Wikipedia entry [4]. (you'll need to copy and paste the whole URL between the brackets - the wiki parser can't handle embeded https.) Jamesday 01:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. From Talk:Hurlante Nova, User:Hashar says "This article have been deleted on the french wikipedia as it is not a known artist. ". Maximus Rex 01:41, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Hashar told me in talk a few minutes ago that a French sysop undeleted it and they are now discussing it. I've asked Hashar to let us know the final result (looks like deletion so far). It seems that it might be a fake entry with the name of a poem, based on Google results. Jamesday 02:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Mohammed Rafi - the claims in this article are poppycock. delete. Kingturtle 11:26, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to delete. One will notice that the article, furthermore, is extremely biased towards one Point of view. Lord Emsworth 12:38, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've Wikified and given a NPoV; though I can't speak for the veracity of the claims Andy Mabbett 17:13, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Claims should be verified, but the singer is well-known, so keep. --Delirium 22:20, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've added an external link to a biography elsewhere. Given what (relatively little) I know of Bollywood and its wide use of musical cinema, 26,000 songs is unsurprising. Jamesday 02:44, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Towelie - TV series episode plot -- JeLuF 22:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There are other episodes of various TV shows that have their own plots; I think it was decided some time recently that there was no need to delete them because "wikipedia is not paper." (I happen not to agree with that, but there is precedent for them to be kept...) Adam Bishop 23:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 23:18, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The article says it's an episode of South Park. Huge TV show, cult following. An episode deserves an article. It's an even better known show than Timon and Pumbaa (whose I Think I Canada article met none of the criteria for deletion). Wiwaxia 03:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Six best Waka poet. POV title. Best according to whom? If the article is worth keeping, maybe move it to List of Waka poets, but the resulting redirect should still be deleted as inappropriate. Angela 22:58, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. I've copied the content, as NPoV, to Waka, which is itself very brief. Andy Mabbett 23:13, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it is a grammatical error, should be "Six best Waka poets". However, It is not POV, it is just their title. There are also "Four most beautiful Chinese woman". -wshun 23:26, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote against deletion though it should be moved to "Six best Waka poets". Best according to Ki no Tsurayuki, who compiled the anthology of poems Kokin Wakashu by imperial order. "Six best Waka poets" (Rokkasen) is a historically established term and is NOT POV. --Nanshu 01:10, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Could you find time to add that information to the article? Onebyone 10:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as Nanshu stated. -- Taku 02:24, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Is "Six Best" an established name, like "Gang of Four" or "Chicago Seven"? If this is a standard name for the group like "Greatest Generation" for the G.I. Generation, then keep. If it's just what the author thinks are the six best, then delete. Wiwaxia 03:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 24

  • Deckchair.com – an article about the office layout of a .com company. As it stands the article needs a major rewrite. However I don't think this company is significant enough to warrant an article, so it ahould be deleted. -- Popsracer 23:21, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep; but needs much work. It used to be Bob Geldof's company [5].Andy Mabbett 01:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Worthless as is. --mav 06:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:18, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not interesting. Fuzheado 05:06, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • How to perform in a play substub, nonencyclopaedic and wrong! DJ Clayworth 03:27, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I thought the same thing when I first saw it. I did my best to salvage some sort of information and rewrite the thing, but if it is to go, I won't be shedding any tears. Nullproductions
    • Delete. WP is not a How To manual. (Perhaps the seed of a new Wiki there?) Anjouli 08:16, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of how tos on wikipedia. However we now have a better wiki at http//:wikibooks.org wikibooks theresa knott 16:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, but some of the content (it's not all wrong) could usefully be added to Theatre technique, which is currently a bit narrow in focus. Bmills 14:13, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • My apologies. This has improved since I wrote 'wrong'. (originally the main advice was to 'watch the movie of the play on video'). Still not sure its encyclopaedic. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Mount Taranaki legend about a mountain God. Needs work or deletion. Original writer wrote it as factual info. Antonio Devilish Kid Martin
    • It is factual. It is an accurate report of a Maori legend, but does not claim the legend is true. The heading is "Mount Taranaki legend" and the article clearly states "according to legend" and "there are those who say". I recently contributed an article called Pania. If you delete this one, then please delete Pania as well, and to be consistent you will need to delete Robin Hood and King Arthur too. Moriori 07:42, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • It may need a bit of wikifying but it's worth keeping, I might try to do a bit on it now. Lisiate 08:01, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Onebyone 10:59, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Article on a god being listed for deletion? Sounds like more Nommophobia to me. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As written the article is essentially correct. It describes adequately one theory about the siting and formation of Mt Taranaki. Perhaps the article would be enhanced by adding the alternative theory about its formation; that it is a semi-active volcano. I have known educated people who by choice, would never spend the night between Taranaki and Tongariro, just in case their battle was resumed, quirky maybe but still a current NZ issue. ping 07:46, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
    • I think my main issue here was with how the original writer seemed to be asserting that Mount Taranaki is, in fact, a God, in which case the article would be POV. Even in God page itself, wikipedia leaves it to debate whether there is a God or not (I firmly believe myself in the Christian faith). I added according to legend in the Mount Taranaki page. If the page leaves the subject open for debate about whether thats a god or not, then it should be kept. Antonio Locl Licker Martin
  • aglet - orphan that can never be more than a dictionary definition, better redirected to Wiktionary. Daniel Quinlan 08:12, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 08:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind after the Java def. added today. Keep it. Anjouli 08:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I was just screwing around; I took "can never be more than" as a challenge. I should just get a life. Don't let it influence you. orthogonal 08:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Seriously, keep it. I didn't know about the java. That's factual content. Why delete? Anjouli 14:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I've just expanded the article into a decent sized stub so I'd like to keep it. theresa knott 15:50, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Is more than a dictionary definition. Keep. Onebyone 15:59, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I created the 'aglet' page about two days ago (11-22-03), and I'm happy to see its now been handsomely flushed out from the original entence or two I posted. But if it gets complaints THIS early on, maybe Daniel Quinlan is right. Then agin, the tide seems to have turned for keeping it so DO- who knows if, heaven forbid, someone actually has to know what an Aglet is! Litefantastic
    • Keep now. can never be more than a dictionary definition should really be immortalised as famous last words for anyone listing a recently created article here...:) Jamesday 02:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • The funny thing is. Had the article not been listed here I and User:Orthogonal would probably never seen it and it would have more than likely stayed as a dictionary definition.The phrase "can never be more than a dictionary definition", cries out to be proved wrong and is has made the article what it is now.theresa knott 09:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Hear hear! -Litefantastic 8:28, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
        • Hear hear! I enjoyed the aglet article and was startled that anyone would want to delete it. Opus33 18:39, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's more than a dictionary definition now. -- Ortonmc 05:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ned - inappropriate for an encyclopedia: slang definition about tracksuit wearers... Dysprosia 09:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's also slang for a skinhead (Scottish) or a Born Again Christian (after Ned Flanders).Anjouli
  • Alligator (fan-film). I feel bad for suggesting this but it's about someone's school project. Filming starting dec 2003 - release 2005. Secretlondon 13:49, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • The least that can be said is that an article on a film should not be made until after the film is finished. All article on uncompleted films should be deleted, unless there is something very significant about it as screenplay. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:01, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Might make an exception for, say Harry Potter III. But in this case definitely not. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • from Talk:Alligator (fan-film): "Secretlondon, please don't delete my page. I really want people to know about my movie. It's not even started yet, and I have a lot of information to add to my Wiki page!" I've tried to post a not-too-discouraging reply there. - IMSoP 14:05, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • List of quasi-scientific speculative ideas - this "list" has only one entry, and even that is not even remotely scientific. --Wik 14:16, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia would be happier without this kind of, erm, knowledge, however there should be some way to handle the stuff that all the 211.28.xxx.xxx anons keep adding - just reverting will not work, Wik. I created that page as a sort of dumping ground for total bogus. better ideas welcome. Kosebamse 14:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree with the above. Keep it just to please all the anons. --Raul654 15:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The information currently contained in this article is duplicated in Gene Ray (and if there's any difference the info can be moved). We have enough lists as it is, without introducing new ones with fewer than two entries. Use Gene Ray to placate this alleged rampaging horde of anons. Onebyone 15:56, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is an exuse not to take the Gen Ray (see next article down) page down by having it be linked to by something other than 'crank'. -Litefantastic 8:39, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
  • Gene Ray - we don't need an article on every lunatic with a website. --Wik 14:16, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 14:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia would be happier without this kind of, erm, knowledge, however there should be some way to handle the stuff that all the 211.28.xxx.xxx anons keep adding - just reverting will not work, Wik. Kosebamse 14:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd say that Gene Ray is a notable lunatic with a website. Keep, unless he's more obscure in pointing-and-laughing circles than I thought. Onebyone 15:04, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. TimeCube.com is one of the more well-known kook websites, and Ray is an interesting figure. What other kooks been given the opportunity to preside over a large debate at MIT? 80.58.0.107 15:22, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • As much as it makes me want to cry, I have to agree with the above --Raul654 15:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I also agree with the above! Some of Gene Ray's claims are mentioned in the comment by Smerdis of Tlön (below) -- if these claims are nonsense, then why are Academic pedants recommending the censorship by deletion of all Wikipedia content pertaining to Time Cube? Gene Ray is an altruistic man who has made an independent discovery and has invested many years of time and effort in order to make this discovery known to the public. Censorship of Time Cube would equate to no less than a travesty of unimaginable magnitude, which would doom all humanity to Hell on Earth. Is Academia so evil as to allow such an abomination to occur?
    • Only a lying professor or an educated stupid scientist would think of deleting an article about the TimeCube and its creator! I had heard of TimeCube before I had ever heard of Wikipedia. Keep. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This nonsense is not worth having on a credible encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN 21:21, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • While his theory isn't credible, information about it may be. I'm against Bradfordism and Reptilian Humanoids and Kranism, but Gene Ray and the Time Cube do have a certain notoriety on the web, and an NPOV explanation of it is useful. Keep. orthogonal 22:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If you think this isn't credible, then what do you delete next? Erich von Däniken? Cyrus Teed? George Adamski? (Yes, I checked, and we do have articles for all three of them). Adamski's theories are a lot more unlikely and kooky than those of this Gene Ray fellow, and yet people seem perfectly content to let the articles on other people slide. Frankly, if I were to read the biggest encyclopedia on Earth that purported to be exhaustive, I'd be more concerned if I didn't find an article on von Däniken (what would seem like a glaring omission) than if they did have an NPOV article on the man. Save deletion for people who are obscure, not whose theories you of all people happen to disagree with. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • (You forgot Velikovsky.) But seriously: Gene Ray may be a complete crank, but he's a moderately well-known crank. Besides which, other Internet cultural phenomena -- comparable in significance to, if larger in scope than, Gene Ray's amusing lunacy -- have their own articles. Keep, sez I. --Mirv 12:05, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To add my 2 bytes to the matter, this is badly written, reguardless of topic, and ought to be shot down on that point at least. I mean, what IS this cubic time they speak of? Can we get some more information? If not, delete. -Litefantastic 8:39, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
      • That's exactly the problem here - it's just some bogus idea with a lot of PR and absolutely no substance to it, so all you can possibly write about is the PR (see [6] among others) and the nutter behind it. Unfortunately the Gene Ray fans are rather persistent in promoting their kookery on Wikipedia (but even they can't elucidate on the substance of the time cube, only add links and shout censorship). Kosebamse 04:08, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. He's not particularly notable in the "real world", but he is quite notable in internet circles. --Delirium 07:13, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Realdoll Stub about a particular brand of sex dolls. Read it. Surely, no WP material. Mrdice 14:23, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)
    • DeleteAnjouli 14:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Pointess. Delete. Anthropos 14:42, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Realdoll just a bit more than a "particular brand of sex dolls"? I have a hazy recollection that Realdoll is emblematic of a "particular type of sex dolls", even to such a degree, that it is in danger of suffering the fate of "Thermos", "Aspirin" and "Xerox". Again, correct me if I am wrong. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 19:24, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. These are probably the best known of the ultra-realisic sexual manikins and as a result have been featured repeatedly on TV. Jamesday 03:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Just a point: this was previously on Requested Articles... Dysprosia 05:29, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Not pointless -- an encyclopedia is supposed to cover things. Keep. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, well known product --Morven 02:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Brunswick - to make it possible to move Brunswick, Germany there. - Sandman 16:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - very full disambiguation page. Andy Mabbett 22:00, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We need disambiguation instead for other Brunswicks, like New Brunswick, Canada, perhaps, or New Brunswick and East Brunswick, New Jersey. Or Brunswick, Australia. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I support moving Brunswick, Germany into Brunswick, rather than redirecting Brunswick to a disambiguation page. Brunswick, when used alone, almost always refers to the city in Germany so I see no problem in doing this. Maximus Rex 11:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Brunswick, Germany, should be at Braunschweig. The English name has fallen out of use for the present city (compare Google results for "Brunswick Germany" vs "Braunschweig Germany"). --Wik 18:30, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with Wik: keep redirection page, consider using Braunschweig for the German place since I personally believe the Brunswick anglicisation is rarely used anymore --Morven 02:10, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That's not true. Google results limited to English: ~1,900,000 for Brunswick Germany and only ~330,000 for Braunschweig Germany), so it's clearly the dominant form in English. --Delirium 08:38, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • You have to include the quotes, otherwise you get a lot of pages relating to the historic duchy, or to one of the U.S. Brunswicks, or New Brunswick. With quotes you restrict the search to the present city: "Brunswick Germany" - 2,430; "Braunschweig Germany" - 135,000. --Wik 12:54, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Onus - dictionary definition -- JeLuF 20:21, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move out. Is it not clear to people that there is a Wiktionary? -- Marshman 02:01, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Setting Default Profiles -- badly written, out-of-context how-to; only linked from Mozilla, along with another, as yet unwritten article (if it goes, so should these links) IMSoP 21:39, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as if any comment was necessary. Fuzheado 05:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 02:03, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 25

  • Semper Fi (book) - orphan. advert?
    • I dunno... Can we get a marine in here or something to add to this. I mean, there's NOTHING THERE. --Litefantastic
    • Stubby, but a book like this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia entry. Keep. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Yu-Gi Cards what is this? Alexandros 00:35, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ditto Seto Kaiba's Cards. The article leaves the reader utterly bewildered. I vote to delete. Lord Emsworth 01:27, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh, dear god, that's hilarious. Delete. orthogonal 01:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Does that have something to do with the anime series Yu-Gi-Oh? A lot of these anime shows seem to revolve around the use of cards, so I wouldn't be surprised . . . Wiwaxia 06:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes. If you look, they're linked to from the Yu-Gi-Oh page. -Litefantastic
    • Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh. And for -ods sake, kill the incoming links. Martin 22:44, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The page Pegasus' Cards is equally perplexing. Lord Emsworth 00:41, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • French alphabet and English alphabet - seems to be wrongly named disambiguation pages for French and English. No content about alphabets, though. Rmhermen 00:58, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • An individual has taken the trouble of redoing the English alphabet page. Still, the page is redundant, there already existing a page on Latin alphabet, which, incidentally, seems the more appropriate term. I beg that either the pages be rendered as redirects, or be Deleted. Lord Emsworth 01:29, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • French alphabet should be kept, unconditionally. Most of the the English-specific stuff from Latin alphabet should be moved to Latin alphabet, and Latin alphabet used for, well, the alphabet used for Latin? (A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z), with a list of adaptions, and perhaps notes on common ones. Morwen 07:22, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Note the "Latin alphabet" doesn't just mean the alphabet used in Latin, it also refers to modern alphabets derived from Latin. Onebyone 11:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the best solution would be to retain the Latin alphabet page as is and have a page of Alphabets derived from the Latin which would show the actual alphabets for French, English and other vernacular languages? Bmills 11:56, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The English alphabet doesn't come entirely from the Roman one: The current letter Y, was, in Shakespeare's time, a slightly diffent symbol with a phonetic pronunciation equal to the Greek 'theta'- a Th sound. That's why, for a while, the word 'You' was spelled 'Thou', and 'The' and 'Ye' (as in Ye Olde Shoppe) meant the same thing. In the modern words, sometimes the sound won and sometimes the spelling won. Keep. -Litefantastic
        • Not totally relevant, but this isn't quite right. Y was a letter in its own right. The thorn was used at times in writing English, but the Europe-imported printing press lacked it, and so the similar-looking y was used. You and thou were, however, always different words (though they did rhyme, unlike today's renditions). (Bigger digression: Greek theta used to be a t-, not a th- sound, though the latter is in Modern Greek.) -- VV 04:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Which is why I think a page showing how modern language alphabets vary from the Latin would be a good way to organise this material. Bmills 13:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what I did: Alphabets derived from the Latin. BTW, what that (UTC) thing stand for? -Litefantatsic 8:24, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep in light of -Litefantatsic's work (no pun intended). Bmills 13:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Tails from Lardfork - for a webcomic, you'd think the author would get more than one google-hit. And that only google hit is for the website of the External link. Unless the author is ALSO the "Daniel Worthing" who allegedly stole confidential fiberglass. Delete, please. Kingturtle 01:30, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an ad! With a web site! And lots of exclamation points! And it's POV! Delete it now! orthogonal 01:57, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advertisement. Maximus Rex 06:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 12:07, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete ad. Bmills 13:04, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Apologies. I created this page rather heedlessly since i expect the content to be revised, if not replaced, by the author of the comic (who has no relation to the PPG Industries scam). I didn't intend to create an ad page and have removed the offending phrases. What remains is an objective description of the comic. Sorry, i won't do it again. Va1damar 02:21, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • R. Joe Brandon - vanity page? Adam Bishop 03:21, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anyone who was simultaneously born in 1967 and 1987 is extraordinary enough to be worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • And no one noticed that he graduated from college at the age of 2 :) (or 22 if you trust the older birth date). DELETE Gentgeen 12:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete vanity/ad. Bmills 13:04, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Arts and Entertainment - Found this via old pages. Seems sorta crazy and useless.
    • It should be remade into an article on the television channel A&E. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Disagree. This could have merit as a link hub if someone would flush it out and add a few more links to round out the selection. Keep, but edit heavily. -Litefantastic 8:53, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
  • Investigator. Sub-stub, a definition that should go to Wiktionary. RickK 03:38, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Direction. From the same author as Investigator. RickK 04:01, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Direction can have a lot about the cardinal directions east, west, north and south. Investigator, I don't know about. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Transiaxartesia is poorly written, and the only place I can find references to Transiaxartesia is two other Wikipedia articles. -- Khym Chanur 05:26, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • The place has a valid mention in the Khwarezmia article. Why shouldn't we branch off the Transiaxartesia reference into a different article then? Maybe that's misspelled, but we don't want to lose the article if it takes more than seven days to find the correct spelling. Wiwaxia 06:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • This will be hard. It seems to be the historic name of an area occupied by the Huns in North Asia. I can find no references elsewhere to this place being called anything online - I guess the internet is still too US/Euro-centric for this sort of information to be available. Secretlondon 13:35, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks a bit suspect to me. Anybody noticed the article says this area extends to Hyperborea (a fictional country)? Still looking, but nothing found yet. Anjouli 14:41, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think if it is not PURE BS, it is so poorly written as to lend an air of it - Marshman 01:56, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • After several hours of research off and on-line, I conclude that Transiaxartesia is almost certainly pure invention. Anjouli 09:31, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Captain Submarine and Frank and Gino's adverts for restaurants. Maximus Rex 10:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete both. Ditto. Viajero 13:00, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Why? We have plenty of fast-food restaurant articles. Keep. - Hephaestos 16:57, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If you think these are likely to ever become more than stubs (i.e. they are famous in some way) then fine. At present, they are worthless, and were possibly added as adverts. Plus, they can always be re-added with some real content later. Delete. - IMSoP 18:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Nobody bothered to ask me directly if I was directly affiliated with these restaurants and just advertising them here. Your fault. I'm not affiliated with them. I simply added them for the same reason I added every other page aboue Canadian companies (and every other Canada-related article) SD6-Agent 22:51, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You created every Canada-related article? That might be news to Montrealais, Torontonian, and several others I can name.
      • I don't want to say as a blanket rule all such entries should go, but be reasonable. Is it really your feeling (SD6-Agent) that each of us could go through a list of restaurants (or dry cleaners, or markets, or hardware stores) in our respective towns and cities and create one or two line entries for every one of them? Maybe the big mistake of Wikipedia is to suggest it is a compendium of ALL knowledge? This makes having an article on every school in the world pale by comparison. RULE: If you can look it up in the Yellow Pages, it is likely NOT encyclopedic - Marshman 01:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If that's the case then I would recomment deleting all restaurants here (as I suggested earlier) becaus they can all be found in the yellow pages. Right? SD6-Agent 04:00, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • In general that is exactly what is done (they are deleted after listing at VfD) - Marshman 17:23, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Surely the point is not that the restaurant could be found in the Yellow Pages, but that the entire article could - there is probably less information here than in a small ad there. Hence my earlier comment, that if it's likely to turn into anything more (soon), keep; otherwise, what is it gaining us? - IMSoP 13:02, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as such not interesting or significant. Fuzheado 00:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we're going to keep every elementary school in the world, why not keep every other thing that anybody has a hairbrained scheme to write? RickK 04:15, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • 2156 - orphan, factual content differnt than only page that could possibly link to it. Anthropos 19:54, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Outline of Roget's Thesaurus - seems more like a Wictionary type of article Dori 20:19, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Please think twice before deleting. A lot of work has gone into wikifying it to make it a sort of classification scheme for the wikipedia. See Talk: Outline of Roget's Thesaurus for more. -- Heron 20:28, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The article would not be deleted immediately (people have to vote on it, and your vote cancels mine). Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move it to sources. Also, the adding of the links could probably be done more easily via some scripting or regexping. Dori 22:30, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've suggested at Talk:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus that this might be better in the Wikipedia namespace. If it is moved there, then I vote to keep. Angela 22:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Are there copyvio issues here? Is this straight from the TOC> - Marshman 01:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's from an edition of the thesaurus that's fallen into the public domain. Bryan 07:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Issue resolved by moving page to Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus. Dori 15:31, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Technocapitalism - advertising. The word has been 'coined' variously with various meanings is seems, mostly non-serious. User has also added links to it from various places. Morwen 20:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know if this meets the advertising criterion. The web page seems fairly scholarly and his list of published articles sure beats mine. The only commercial aspect to the site is the ability to purchase copies of some of the journal articles. If this is advertising, it is academic promotion rather than commercial advertising. Should we be concerned with this? Is this just a vanity page disguised behind academia? Do we want academics to use Wikipedia to promote their favourite subjects? My initial response is to keep the article, but I'm not sure. mydogategodshat 16:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Brad Garton - not famous. Secretlondon 20:35, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, famous enough, given the other things we've kept here. Fuzheado 00:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • WTC Temporary Memorial Design Number One, World Trade Center Temporary Memorial
    • Delete - "This Wiki page is an electronic drawing board for a temporary memorial to the September 11th attacks." No, wikipedia is not a drawing board. "We are setting up this Wiki as a collaborative drawing board where people can share their ideas and refinements to this idea." - same as above. This is not what Wikipedia is for. -- JeLuF 20:59, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I've moved the content to sep11. Delete or keep as redirect - doesn't bother me. Martin 22:40, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Period Mot useful as a Redirect -- Marshman 01:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Human-Truth Paradox nonsense. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Cosmic, duuude. Delete. orthogonal 23:06, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, zero Google hits. Fuzheado 00:56, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- twice. At least one kid in every highschool (or college freshman) philosophy class comes to the conclusion that there is no reality or something similar to this - Marshman 01:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The author concludes: "I will now leave you to ponder this thought." I have pondered, and conclude myself it's not encyclopedic. Delete. Kosebamse 03:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - We already have a very good article on epistemology. mydogategodshat 16:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • 2525 -- Pointless. No real content. Anthropos 21:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I normally redirect these to 26th century, etc - similarly for really old dates in the past. There's been some discussion of this in wikipedia: space, but I can't remember where. Martin 21:59, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Ummm... some future years are more famous than others.:) See the 50,000 google search for 'in the year' 2525 and the range of works which have flowed from those Zager & Evans song lyrics. Those familiar with the music of the 60s will probably very quickly recognise the tune in this midi music file . Jamesday 22:31, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 26

  • Rachel Scott - not every kid who died in Columbine now, please. Do we need an obituary wiki? Secretlondon 23:11, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • One, I already found a page on her that already existed. It was at: Rachel Joy Scott - See: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rachel_Joy_Scott&action=history WhisperToMe 23:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into Cassie Bernall. Andy Mabbett 23:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, one page on the story and victims should suffice. Merge -- Marshman 01:32, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The reason why I split the article about Cassie into a separate article is because the ESPERANTO wikipedia already has an article about Cassie. I feel that the Columbine Shooting Article should focus on the actual chronology of events and the general aftershock while the details on the actions on individuals should be left in his/her article (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have the same article, since they are famous together) WhisperToMe 01:59, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • my concern is that these people are only famous for being killed and that since they were killed they are portrayed as angelic. I appreciate that there may be some transatlantic cultural stuff going on here that I don't understand but it all seems really bizarre. I could understand if the author knew these people and writing the article was part of the grieving process... I agree that famous grizzly murders should have an article but I think this is a little over the top. Secretlondon 10:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • As with victims of Sept 11th, there should at most be a single victims page, though I'd prefer to see all these merged with the general article on the shootings. Bmills 11:14, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, for the reasons stated by Secretlondon. I'm sorry for their fate, but we can give in to sentimentalism. Why dont we make a victims page? Muriel Victoria 13:03, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think the OLDER Rachel Scott Article is over the top....

http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rachel_Joy_Scott&diff=1816055&oldid=876990 The person who wrote that may have known her and/or perhaps may even have been affiliated with her website. I never knew her, however. I don't live in Colorado. Also, she was already listed on the list of people as a "martyr". I changed it to "Victim of the Columbine High School massacre" so it could be NPOV WhisperToMe 16:36, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Shadow People. Nonesense. Andy Mabbett 23:49, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Nonsense, you say? The Shadow knows! Delete. orthogonal 00:31, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ghost stories! Delete! Thanks! - Marshman 01:32, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Bogus. Delete. Kosebamse 04:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • With over 6,000 Google hits I would think seriously about keeping it. Redirect to Ghosts?
    • redirect to Ghosts DJ Clayworth 16:03, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Freestyle rap - Found another one. Nothing more than what looks like a short line from a rap song. There. That's much better. Denelson83 02:12, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does this one even merit discussion?It's a good stub now. Keep. -- Tlotoxl 04:12, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Rubbish. Delete. -- Ortonmc 05:01, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Since Cimon has made it a potentially useful article now, I withdraw my objection. -- Ortonmc 05:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, on the original form of the "article", it could have been deleted on sight. But I went and stubified it, so I guess it can be kept. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:22, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, a valid topic. Either a standalone article or a redirect to rap.
  • Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz - is this a joke? Vancouverguy 02:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • No, I've seen Big Bird sing this song on TV. It's real. Bryan 02:33, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't delete this. It brought back childhood memories and it is a valid encyclopedia article. Alexandros 02:41, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless rewritten as an article - Marshman 03:00, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is way less obscure than a lot of stuff on WP. -- Merphant 04:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I like the song too :) But merge to Latin alphabet or English alphabet or whence it came. Dysprosia 05:09, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If it must be merged, perhaps Big Bird would be a better place to put it? Bryan 05:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. Merge with Big Bird, Bmills 11:14, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Good to know that's real. Seeing the word "fagget" in there made me wonder. I guess that was the vandalized version. Vancouverguy 14:37, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Fat Little Bastard --Alexandros 02:55, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Amazing. The mp3.com page only has 223 views (well, 224 now) and music is at least as annoying as advertised. Funny, but anyway, the entry is obviously self-promotion for a very small act. -- Tlotoxl 04:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • From Cleanup: Pakistani literature, Post-colonialism in literature, Postcolonial literature, Postcolonial theory
    • Delete. Literature lists only, no text, nobody working on the subject any more. -- JeLuF 05:50, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Is "nobody working on it" a valid reason for deleting a stub? Just asking. No opinion either way. Anjouli 09:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I would have thought that lists of non-western literature belong in an encyclopedia. Someone will come along to work on them soon, I'm sure. Secretlondon 11:01, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Let's keep it. Anjouli 12:36, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep all. I've expanded the Postcolonial theory page and removed the stub note. Bmills 15:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • In fact, why not move all these to Pages needing attention? Bmills 15:17, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Earl Washburn
    • Has a 'this page is on VfD' notice (or at least had such before being blanked), but is not on VfD. Apart from that looks like bollocks. Andre Engels 12:47, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • it's a smartbee one - it history has 'del' in it for early october but it was blanked rather than deleted. Secretlondon 15:10, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Bee mine
    • It's an explanation (not a very good one) of the slogan on bad Valentine's cards. It's also a humorous discussion of why you couldn't actually mine bees, seeing as they are animal, not mineral. I can't decide whether there's a decent article that could exist at this name. Jwrosenzweig 16:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Tao of rock
    • Nearly contentless with vanity links to a couple of blogs. No pertinent google hits. Jgm 16:31, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Seems to be a modernized version of a "believe in yourself" (self-actualization) pep rally - Marshman 17:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1821036"