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 Onebyone (talk | contribs) at 00:07, 1 December 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

Please add the following message to the article you mean to list in vote for deletion:

''This page has been listed as [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|a 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 21

November 23

  • 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 [1]. (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)
        • Still being discussed. Going to be deleted soon. I will inform you there. Hashar 10:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Still being discussed. There is no evidence it is going to be deleted at all. The main argument given by Hashar to support deletion is that it is selfpromotion, which in itself is quite funny since the guy died in 2001. Anthère


November 25

  • 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)
    • I did an edit of it. but I don't know if I saved it from deletion. Kingturtle 03:47, 30 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)
  • 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)
    • marketing concept. deleter Davodd 21:10, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. superfluous Rollo 00:48, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Direction. Sub-stub, a definition that should go to Wiktionary. RickK 04:01, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Direction can have a lot about the cardinal directions east, west, north and south. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 16:20, 27 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)
    • Delete, unverifiable. "Hyperborea" and tone alone make the article suspicious. Maximus Rex 04:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • this is also linked to by Xiongnu. Both Xiongnu and Khwarezmia should be scrutinized carefully. -- The Anome 14:32, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Greco_Pizza_Restaurant - Not encyclopaedic --Hemanshu 09:40, 25 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)
      • Because one day it will clash with an article about something genuinely interesting or significant under the same title. It's useless clutter. - Rollo
    • Delete. Advert. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • And now there's Trenton Ray. RickK 02:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advert. This isn't a restaurant guide. Rollo 00:48, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Captain Submarine. I think we can afford coverage for a Canadian restaurant chain which planned to have 51 restaurants open in 2003. Keep Frank and Gino's, a test site for a restaurant franchise chain. Readingthe linked sites can help to understand why things may merit an entry and distinguish them from potentially being every single restaurant in every town. Jamesday 09:35, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Martin Fox - vanity (from cleanup). Secretlondon 19:52, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, delete vanity page - Marshman 01:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. orthogonal 04:10, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep--it's a reasonable entry that needs a little work to remove the superlatives, but that's it. --The Cunctator 00:25, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • 2156 - orphan, factual content differnt than only page that could possibly link to it. Anthropos 19:54, 25 Nov 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)
    • Delete, advert. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or rewrite. So far as I can tell, from both the webage linked to and the article, Technocapitalism is just a new spiffy name for effects that have been happening since the start of the industrial revolution. The idea seems to have little that is new or interesting, and the author of the linked website, Luis Suarez-Villa, uses excessive amounts of annoying verbage and overly long words for the sake of sounding smart and original. On the other hand, in my opinion, even stupid ideas should sometimes be in wikipedia, if only to be shot down. If someone is willing to rewrite it to not be a biased advertisement for some academics work (and possibly even explain what is truely new about the idea), then I think it should be in wikipedia. Otherwise, it should be ruthlessly deleted for the worthless piece of junk that it currently is. Jrincayc 21:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, on the issue of the quality of the article, the author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy between industrial capitalism (the cost of production theory of value) and technocapitalism (an innovation theory of value). Needs a major re-write and a name change. mydogategodshat 04:00, 27 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)
    • Delete first, keep second. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 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)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • There just has to be a bit more work. Could be put this on "hold" for now and if the projection in a week is not friendly for Wikipedia, then delete to your will. Paradox2 20:38, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Paradox2, your article will not be deleted for seven days from the time it is listed here. I hope you can improve it enough that people want to keep it. Good Luck. mydogategodshat 04:10, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You must be kidding. The incomplete subheadings are there to fool you, not to suggest there might actually be something forthcoming - Marshman.
      • Please watch and see what comes next, although i do agree that the current article is complete nonsense. Colipon 04:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for original 'research'. Maximus Rex 05:00, 29 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)
    • Delete unless there's some genuine content by the time the voting period is up. The song isn't enough IMO - that might justify an article In the Year 2525 about the song, but not 2525. By analogy, consider how irrelevant the song Summer of '69 is to the year 1969 compared with the actual events which occurred in that year. Onebyone 16:30, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The article now mentions the TV series and computer game set in this year, making it somewhat comparable to the 24th century in content. Jamesday 09:11, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 26

  • 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)
    • Delete, advert. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 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)
        • Well, some cleanup stuff is so bad it should be deleted, but usually that just means the articles should have been listed on VfD long before. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 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)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse and Who ate all the pies are short notes on British soccer chants. At best merge into a single Soccer chants page. Bmills 15:42, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. First is offensive and should not be a title of an article, but it can be in a soccer chants article (no redirect). The latter could also be merged, I also slightly favor no redirect as well since articles on every chant/slogan will make searches for material including words more difficult. Navigating from Soccer to Soccer chants or whatever is easy. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • The former I redirected to Victoria Beckham, and listed on wikipedia:redirects for deletion (bearing Daniel's comments in mind). No opinion on latter. Martin 21:21, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • First is offensive as a title. A page on chants linked to and from soccer makes sense. I've tried to improve it a bit now with a few links. Keep the chants page now. seglea 22:41, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, put slogan into appropriate article. Delete the redirects too. Fuzheado 09:04, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • These chants are part of football culture and therefore valid. Although potentially offensive as a title in its own right, I think the article itself shows that it is a serious piece of work. Given that wikipedia has all sorts of articles you could class as offensive, I can't see why these ones have been singled out.(comment written by article author Astrotrain)
      • How can an article simply about the chant ever become substantial? Surely it would be better to write about it in the context of the long and varied story of David and Victoria Beckham - otherwise it just seems a tiny article on a childish chant that got sung at Man U games from about two seasons. (I write this because I notice you undid the redirect that Martin put in). Pete 17:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the title, I cannot see how it is encyclopedic to cover them individually. A single chants page would make a better and more useful article. Plus, I believe the VfD notification should remain until a consensus is achieved. Bmills 16:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Incorporate both in one soccer chant page to rule them all, delete the redirects. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 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)
    • Delete. Original research and essays. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Entirely unenlightening. Rollo 01:31, 30 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. Title alone is stupid, content is worse. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 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)
    • "Believe in deleting it". orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Wit - dictionary definition -- JeLuF 20:50, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 06:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Against deletion. the article has the potential for further expansion and elaboration. For example you would'nt find a list of witty people in a dictionary. There are other things that could be added such as examples of witty quotations etc. --Steeev 17:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep if expanded. There is already a Humour article. In the right hands, this page could be used to explain the differences between wit and humour. Bmills 17:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We could redirect to humour, for example, rather than deleting. Oppose deletion. Martin 00:41, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Light Upon Light - From Cleanup Andre Engels 00:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Cleanup commentaries:
      • what is it? DJ Clayworth
      • the author was the same person who inserted a link to that site into Islam - advert. silsor 00:54, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We are not Google. Anjouli 04:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, sub-stub since it doesn't explain why the phrase is notable other than being in the Qur'an. Onebyone 16:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Darrick Patrick - self-promotion? Only 5 google hits for this new director of importance. Kingturtle 03:32, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought today was Thanksgiving, but it looks like it's Easter again. Delete. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 20:44, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Retarded MCs - self-agrandizement? Only 4 or 5 google hits for this important group. Kingturtle 03:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Steeev 17:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I see bunny rabbits with eggs, and I see a Delete. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 20:44, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 00:16, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)


  • Church of Jesus Christ Elvis. The article itself says it's only one website. And the article's wording is pretty unclear about its subject matter. RickK 06:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:12, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I recall seeing a documentary (unfortunately cannot remember where and when) about how some Elvis fans do regard Elvis as a messianic figure. I have also met a person who claimed to have been a bishop of the "church of Elvis". How serious the would-be "worshippers" are, may be of course hard to discern. Maybe this could be added to the Elvis article - Skysmith 10:29, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Possibly worth an article in (apparently) tongue-in-cheek beliefs, as, for example, (early) Brianism? orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Herbs in Polish mythology. Would Wikipedia be liable if someone tried one of these herbal treatments based on what they read here, and suffered either no cure, or a poisoning? RickK 06:47, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Greetings Rick - I have removed the "offending" information. Although, that the herbs page was not supposed to be for any kind of home remedies, but merely a cite of old Polish folklore. ~Margi B.
      • I've reverted your blanking Margiand added a link to risk disclaimer. I'm firmly against censureship, even self censureship. theresa knott 08:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I appreciate the help. If nobody minds, I'll go head and replace the link to the front page. ~Margi
    • (See also Disclaimer) Anjouli
    • Keep. And I think the disclaimer is a bit OTT - we don't have similar disclaimers on analgesic or organ transplant in case a reader is stupid enough to use that informaion as if Wikipedia were a qualified medical practioner. Onebyone 00:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Oh, thanks, now you tell me. After I went to all the trouble to get that human kidney. And just what am I supposed to do with it now? orthogonal 03:56, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We might use a more succinct disclaimer, like the one on legal matters. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Floro Dery. Self-promotion? RickK 06:49, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:12, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If the claim in the article about Transformers_(television_series), is true, then he's at least slightly notable. Article is currently a bit fannish, though. Onebyone 02:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Search "Floro Dery" + "transformers", it seems to check out. Onebyone 03:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ensorcerum supposedly a "Troll Metal" band with 1 member, 0 relevent Google hits. Maximus Rex 06:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:14, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it under a bridge, and hope it doesn't regenereate. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • - Marshman 20:44, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 00:16, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)


  • Herald E. L. Prins. I would have said it's self-promotion, except that the article's title misspells the gentleman's first name. Is Professor Prins famous enough to warrant an article. RickK 07:05, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, only 4 Google hits that aren't wikipedia. Maximus Rex 07:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That Google count is if you put in his misspelled name. If you put it in spelled right, you get about 80 hits. But they are nearly all listings of his book, in Amazon & other bookshop sites, or entries in bibliographies. You'd get the same for any academic (heck, you get more than that for me). I doubt it makes him (or me) count as famous. Do we really want to list every moderately active researcher in the world? If we do that, we'll never have room for all this Polish mythology. The key question is how crucial his work on the Mi'kmaq is, and we need an anthropologist to tell us that. Though I suppose if he was really famous, nonanthropologists would have heard of him. At least I've heard of the Mi'kmaq. seglea 08:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Waleska Martinez, a 9-11 victim. Maximus Rex 07:46, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Is anybody checking these 9-11 victims are genuine, or are we just moving them? Anjouli 05:29, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 27

  • Dan Savage. This is the article formerly located at Santorum.
    • Since its initial listing it has changed in both content and title. I think it's changed enough to keep, though it may need editing. Martin
    • Keep. The page is now about the author, and not only one of his controvertial works. --zandperl 04:26, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I object strongly to the removal of the link to ths page, from Rick Santorum. Andy Mabbett 11:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, I don't understand why it was listed here. theresa knott 11:33, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Because people strongly objected to the content under its old title and content, and I wanted a positive affirmation that these problems are now resolved. Martin 18:16, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anjouli 12:24, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think he easilly passes the standards of fame and google hits, and perhaps the article needs edited rather than deleted. It could certainly use more non-santorum content JackLynch 06:55, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 28

  • Famous pairs is just an unformatted, un-linked, ALL CAPS list of pairs. -- Khym Chanur 00:30, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • Blatent nonsense. Delete. Vancouverguy 00:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Delete. RickK 00:34, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not mine, but I'm willing to have a go at formatting, linking, and un-caps locking it. It could serve useful for anyone looking for famous pairs. PMC 00:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Even if properly formatted, it's listing for the sake of listing and could never be complete. Onebyone 01:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Most of our lists will never be complete, that itself isn't a reason to delete it. If someone is willing to fix formatting, I suggest they do that and move it to a more appropriate title such as list of famous pairs or list of commonly associated pairs.
      • Whoever made that vote needs to sign it if they want it to be counted. Delete this comment when you've done it. Onebyone 11:08, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I bullet-pointed it so it looks a little better. But overall, I'd still vote for a deletion unless there is a lot of progress made on it. MK 03:39 (EST) 28 November 2003
    • Keep. I've seen stranger things here... But needs serious cleanup and linking. To Oneybone: can you point a wikilist that is complete? :) Muriel Victoria 11:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Very disappointed. I thought it was going to be about breasts. Arguably, Hannah and her Sisters are not a pair. Anjouli 12:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • )f some interest as a reference, and otherwise hard to grep on. Keep. orthogonal 17:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Interesting concept. I'd say no worse than lots of other liusts. Fix and keep - Marshman 20:44, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'll fix it. Give me a day or so and I'll have it re-formatted, etc. PMC 23:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete JackLynch 06:59, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Proposed Afghan Constitution - Afghan Constitution Commission was getting huge and unruly. While parsing it down, I cut the Proposed Afghan Constitution out and gave it its own article. However, I am not sure if Wikipedia is a facility for full-texts of Constitutions. It may have to be deleted. What are your thoughts? Kingturtle 07:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC) P.S. By the way, when counting up the votes, DO NOT count me as a vote either way. I am not sure which way to go on this question.
    • I think it's better to link to the text on an external (and authoritative) site. Onebyone 11:10, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 12:56, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Afghan Constitution Commission - will move to wikipedia:redirects for deletion. Martin 19:35, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Maybe in the end of this process, this could turn into a redirect, but I think the community needs first to further discuss the article's potential or lack of potential. So, for now, I have removed the redirect. Kingturtle 21:01, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's fine. Wikipedia is not a collection of source texts, which is what normally applies here. Still, since we won't be deleting this article, it's probably not best placed here. Martin 00:43, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually, I suppose what should appear at Proposed Afghan Constitution is a history and summary. Kingturtle 21:15, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Air Nauru - Too short. And "loss-making"? That sort of sounds like a put-down. Denelson83 09:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I could work on it. Aviation is one of my favorite subjects Antonio Wildcat Martin
    • Keep. Just looks like a stub to me. "Loss-making" is fine, since the information is in the public domain. Anjouli 12:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • keep. DJ Clayworth 18:45, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valuable subject and anyone with experience with Air Nauru can confirm "loss making". Plane frequently does not appear if temporarily usurped for private flight of head guy in Nauru. Should ber a good topic to research - Marshman 20:15, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Now greatly improved. TwinsFan48 29 Nov 2003
  • List_of_television_stations_in_Europe - ad for an Indian film company. Anjouli 12:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 12:23, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 12:57, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • Do we need to discuss? Blatant ad can be deleted immediately by sysop surely? Anjouli 13:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete a "typo"; Delete w/o listing. Not a valuable redirect - Marshman 20:09, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Looks ok now. Was it misspelled before? Anyway, I vote keep what I see there now - Marshman 03:01, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The list page itself has been entirely rewritten, and contains no advertising material. Could those who suggested deletion above check the new content? The redirect, given Marshman's views, I will list on wikipedia:redirects for deletion. Martin 00:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, yes of course now keep it. But both the title and the content have changed! Like grandad's axe. If you replace the rusted head and the rotting handle it's fine. But it's not the same axe you objected to in the first place :) Anjouli 18:13, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Lead (II) sulfate just tech data DJ Clayworth 14:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with having technical data ? The page needs work but I don't see the need to delete. theresa knott 15:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep; but needs re-write into plain English, plus some background - when was it discovered? What is it used for? Is the current version a copy vio? Who can't spell "sulphate"? ;-) Andy Mabbett 15:46, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • IUPAC? -- Karada
      • Keep. Sulfate is acceptable; more correct in my experience (maybe American/British thing?) sulfate/sulfide - Marshman 20:09, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It is, of course. Maybe I need to follow Andy around explaining his humour. In the UK we have sulphur/sulphate. Secretlondon 20:13, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a copy vio, and actually a copy vio of a UK site. Maximus Rex 07:16, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Warring States Period
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's garbage. You're just wasting the time of people who click on a blue "discuss this page" link and see nothing/gibberish. Current policy asks for immediate deletion.--Jiang
    • Delete. Onebyone 21:32, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Should not have been undeleted. Secretlondon 23:45, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is No meaningful content or history (eg "sdhgdf") not explicit enough? --Minesweeper 09:30, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Frog
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Only content is "eyes". This pollutes the page history for no reason. Delete. Angela 02:12, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's garbage. You're just wasting the time of people who click on a blue "discuss this page" link and see nothing/gibberish. Current policy asks for immediate deletion.--Jiang
    • delete Secretlondon 00:16, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is No meaningful content or history (eg "sdhgdf") not explicit enough? --Minesweeper 09:30, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • Budding
    • Undeleted. Stubbage. Keep. Martin 19:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • keep. Why don't you people just leave stub alone ? :-) Anthère 19:52, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • keep. --Jiang
  • Talk:Augustus De Morgan
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Excuse me for being so blunt, but undeleting nonsense and listing it here is a big waste of time. Why are you doing this? Maximus Rex 20:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • No need to apologise. I'm undeleting because I don't feel sysop deletion is the correct response to harmless and playful comments on a Talk page, nor do I feel it is supported by current deletion policy. I'm listing here because, by my understanding of the current undeletion policy, it's recommended when undeleting. Martin 23:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's harmful when you waste someones time by fooling the person into thinking that there's actual content on that page and it's blank. Then the person wastes even more time to click on the page history to find gibberish. It's not playful. It's vandalism. I call for immediate deletion. --Jiang
    • Only content was "hello juan pedro". This is absolutely supported by the "No meaningful content" rule. We should not be encouraging people to do this and it should not have been undeleted. Angela 02:12, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Should not have been undeleted. Secretlondon 23:45, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is No meaningful content or history (eg "sdhgdf") not explicit enough? --Minesweeper 09:30, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Carlos Leon
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Only content is "how can I keep contact with Carlos Leon". No reason to keep this. It should not have been undeleted. Angela 02:12, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's garbage. Why am I repeating myself? You're just wasting the time of people who click on a blue "discuss this page" link and see nothing/gibberish. Current policy asks for immediate deletion.--Jiang
    • Delete. Should not have been undeleted. Secretlondon 23:45, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is No meaningful content or history (eg "sdhgdf") not explicit enough? --Minesweeper 09:30, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Speech
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:39, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is just an anti-semitic rant and is off topic. Secretlondon 23:42, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
      • Hence it's been removed from the page. Erasing it from history is a step further - is it a necessary step? Perhaps. Martin 00:04, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Huh? Erase it from history? Because some things are so bad it's taboo even to admit they were ever said? Anti-semitism is ugly and distasteful; it should be met with refutation, not the collective amnensia of the "memory hole". Erasing history is double-plus ungood. orthogonal 09:47, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Off-topic rant. Delete. If it can be blanked, it should be deleted. --Jiang
    • Off-topic to an extent bordering on vandalism. Delete. Onebyone 00:02, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is No meaningful content or history (eg "sdhgdf") not explicit enough? --Minesweeper 09:30, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. The content here is meaningful (if not entirely coherent), and thus is not at all similar to a nonsensical series of characters such as "sdhgdf". Onebyone 00:07, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Forty-two
    • Undeleted. Keep. Martin 19:51, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. Content was "I am here by mistake. Bye." What value does this add? I can understand if we kept on-topic political rants on talk pages, but you waste people's time by leading them to read this. --Jiang
    • Delete. Onebyone 21:32, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Should not have been undeleted. Secretlondon 23:45, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • I beg to vote for Deletion. Lord Emsworth 01:56, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is No meaningful content or history (eg "sdhgdf") not explicit enough? --Minesweeper 09:30, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • Hertz doctrine - Hearst doctrine did not survive the deletion process, but out of it came the nearly identical Hertz doctrine. I think it should be deleted too. Kingturtle 20:58, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (again). The "Hertz doctrine" is made up term that hasn't been picked up. There are 12 Google hits for the term, including a cached copy of vfd. Changing the name of the page is not a reasonable reason for it to be undeleted, since both the Hearst and Hertz doctrines don't exist. Having a page on the supposed "Hertz doctrine" ('we're number one!') would fall under original research since its use seems almost non-existent. Maximus Rex 21:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I believe you're conflating the concept of original research with that of advocacy through titling. They are distinct, and original research has nothing to do with this entry. The important points to consider are:

-- The content of the entry is a valid description of a real concept/phenomenon
-- The entry title is a coinage to describe the phenomenon which may be reasonably construed as if not to be disparaging, to be satirical
-- The coinage is not in broad usage
--There are no alternative coinages in broad usage to describe the phenomenon
From those points, what seems to me to be the reasonable question is whether to keep the entry as is for the sake of simplicity, or to rename the entry to a less catchy, longer name (and keep the redirect) for the sake of avoiding "officializing" the satire. If the second is to be preferred, we would need suggestions for a reasonable entry name, such as George W. Bush administration doctrine of military preeminence. --The Cunctator

    • We already have an entry on the "Bush doctrine". Any relevant information could go there. Maximus Rex 21:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Clearly advocacy, (very poor satire?), and pretty much POV not some "phenomenon" - Marshman 02:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Shall we have articles/redirects for every neologism initiated by every syndicated columnist in the country in the past N years that gets >1 Google hits? If someone feels this content is encyclopedic and should be kept, move the relevant information to Bush doctrine, perhaps, but remove all references to "Hertz doctrine" since that phrase has gained no currency in the year since it was "coined". --Minesweeper 09:30, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)

November 29

  • Overhand knot with draw-loop and Klemheist knot - articles that have sat around for months and that contains only an image, is that something I can delete on my own, or does it need to be discussed here? Kingturtle 00:13, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • In this case I'd say follow this routine: move picture to Knots and make the page a Redirect to Knots. Then you have no need to list at VfD or delete anything - Marshman 02:43, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure moving them to knot is a good idea. These aren't the only two. See List of knots. I don't know what to do with them but I don't favour deletion. Angela 20:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd agree not to delete. Maybe someone with a good knowledge of knots could consolidate the information to fewer pages. - Marshman
      • Keep and leave it to be expanded. The examples on the List of knots tell us that there's material for an article and too much material for even combining articles alphabetically. Jamesday 08:12, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • James Daniels - cannot verify his racing. Kingturtle 00:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Here's a link to a PDF with a race car driver by that name in Atlanta. davodd 12:16, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, sub-stub about an amateur racer. vanity. Maximus Rex 23:28, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Lipnice - does this need its own article? I say no. Delete. Kingturtle 00:34, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd say keep if someone from near there wants to give the town more credit than just as a party place - Marshman 02:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This article is better than many created by the US town bot. Onebyone 14:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Now much improved.
  • Unspun - "coming soon" since March 2002. --Wik 01:30, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. An advertisment - Marshman 02:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 14:40, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, an advert for a website that has been "coming soon" for over a year! Maximus Rex 21:04, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hank Eskin - a web designer advertising his services. Secretlondon 21:33, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Everything in this article that's worthwhile is covered adequately by Where's George. (Adding signature, oops) Onebyone 23:59, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Where's George - Idiotfromia
    • Delete. The important informaton can be moved into Where's George. Actually, maybe a redirect is in order. RickK 23:51, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect. When Hank achieves notoriety beyond Where's George, then an article about him is in order. Jordan Langelier
    • Agree, Redirect. The vanity page is poorly written, so cannot be doing Hank any good. Where's George is an interesting article and can contain the worthwhile stuff from this article - Marshman 02:52, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete and recreate as redirect as author has requested his personal details be removed from the article history. Angela 18:58, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 30

  • Michael Wilbon and David Remnick, are they famous enough to be encyclopedic articles here? --Yacht 04:20, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • I think Wilbon should be kept...he writes articles covering the big sporting events (Super Bowl, World Series, NBA finals, etc) for the Post...plus PTI is pretty popular. All in all, is there any reason not to keep it around?
    • With 7,750 Google hits I'd say keep David Remnick. Anjouli 05:31, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep both, well known journalists. Fuzheado 12:32, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Remnick, editor of The New Yorker. -- Viajero 20:17, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Catarrhini, what's this? --Yacht 04:34, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • -yes, this needs to go - it cuts across the hierarchical series on the order Primates. Could be useful as a page that just redirects into that hierarchy I suppose. seglea 04:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • List of men's magazines, is this redundant topic needed? We already have List of magazines which does a better job. Davodd 13:47, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • These are all 'adult' magazines. It probably wants renaming. Secretlondon 13:50, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • I not entirely sure what a 'lesbian man' is, which seems to have been given a position on this list! Move to list of pornographic magazines for men, perhaps. 80.255 14:22, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • FHM isn't pornographic. Martin 19:15, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • That would depend on how you choose to define pornography. It certainly contains material I would consider to be approaching it. 80.255 19:19, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Pizza Pizza - advert. -- Viajero 20:13, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, it should be easy to fix, it's a big pizza chain in Canada. (And is it even really advertising right now?) Adam Bishop 20:19, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I guess it is big enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia. wshun 21:05, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

December 1

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1848388"