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 FvdP (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 9 December 2003 (2 more). 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

Subpages

copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories --redirects

Guidelines for administrators

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


Boilerplate

Please add one of these texts to any page that you list on Votes for deletion, and to any page already listed that does not have one. The first example that follows can be added by typing {{SUBST:vfd}}

''This page has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], where you can discuss whether this page should be deleted.''''

''This page has been listed as [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|a candidate for deletion]]. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Votes for Deletion]] page to discuss whether or not this page should be deleted.''

December 4

  • Nathan Meyer Seems to be a vanity page. Google search for "Nathan Joseph Meyer" brings up 0 results, author won't discuss it on the talk page. --snoyes 01:39, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. I removed the one link that goes there, which was an attribution of the author on Kim Zmeskal. Since articles are submitted under the GPL, the attribution should not have been there - since this orphans the vanity page, it can be safely deleted with no effect. GRAHAMUK 01:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete...even if google for Nathan Meyer + olympics + toronto it doesn't bring up this guy. Adam Bishop 01:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think our new friend moved the page to Member page, which Ihave redirected to Wikipedia:How to log in. I have moved the page from Member page to its final resting place (hopefully) at User:Grcboy2. -- Cyan 02:57, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Regarding "author won't discuss it on the talk page", it was 19 minutes from the comment being made on the user page to the VfD nomination. I agree that the article shouldn't have been there, but I recommend more patience when dealing with users who have made mistakes. Onebyone 11:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • And the page will linger on Votes for deletion for 7 days, more than enough time to respond. I also marked it as on votes for deletion to actually get the persons attention, because s/he wasn't responding to other inquiries on their user talk page ... and still haven't. --snoyes 13:43, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I agree with the listing, I just meant that it was a bit harsh to say "author won't discuss it" under the circumstances. Onebyone 14:31, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete 7 days is enough for author to respond. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 03:08, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 19:36, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Nathan Meyer: I am Nathan Meyer, just for the record, I think its a little presumptious to hit on a guy who made his first contribution to this site. Anyway, it was not a "vanity page", I just thought that everyone would have a bio as well on here to give our work at little credibility. I think that's important, cause if we didn't, who would care what Joe Schmo says? Its a "vita" of sorts and important when you do any formal essay work.
    • That's the reason for your user page. Most of us don't have articles on here. -- Pakaran 02:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Chocolate (disambiguation) - An orphaned disambiguation page, which does not really serve a purpose since the two articles it links to are spelled differently, Chocolate and Chocolat (the movie). Mark Ryan 03:01, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no use. Onebyone 11:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I added VfD boilerplate text to the article. Bmills 16:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 06:14, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think a disambiguation page does any harm. If it was at chocolate rather than chocolate (dismabiguation) it would be different. Secretlondon 19:36, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep harmless redirect. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:38, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've made a poor attempt at making the article bigger. Checkout the latest. I'd still say KEEP. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete, I think new additions make it more useless. Rmhermen 20:17, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't really follow the definition of a disambiguation page: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflict that occurs when articles about two or more different topics have the same natural title. What exactly is the use of Chocolate (disambiguation). A search for chocolate goes right to Chocolate; a search for chocolat goes right to Chocolat. Kingturtle 23:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I realize that <Topic-related pages> is different from <Topic (disambiguation)>. I did a search and found lots of articles with the word "related" in them. So maybe the article can be renamed to List of Chocolate-related articles. Jay 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless retitled "Chocolate-related articles" and linked from the Chocolate page. That may be of some use, at least until full-text search comes back. Anjouli 05:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. You might be able to make a case for a disambiguation page at Chocolate (thanks for the effort, Jay). But at Chocolate (disambiguation)? It just doesn't make any sense. Anthropos 05:57, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Wage - definition already at Wiktionary Rossami 04:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this article would be alright if maybe it included in-depth data about average wages in countries around the world. But in its current state it is rather drab and uninformative. - Mark Ryan 07:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 11:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I added VfD boilerplate text to the article. Bmills 16:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. WP:WINAD. Maximus Rex 06:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Topic obviously has room for an encyclopedic article. Keep. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Make it a stub page, something will come out of it. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Keep. useful for Marxist dialogs, eventually. Kingturtle 23:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Relaxed - The article copies verbatim the wiktionary entry for relaxed. Nothing more chance 13:37, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. However, User:Patrick describes it as a stub in the comments, so maybe we should check what plans there are for it. Onebyone 14:31, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • My current vote is to delete, but I'd say this is a soft vote; if any modification is made to make it encyclopedic rather than fit for the dictionary, or any proposals are made clear for such plans, I'll change my vote. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:58, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as stands. I added VfD boilerplate text to the article. Bmills 16:57, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looking at the page history, Fonzy had it correct in moving to wikitonary, but made a mistake in blanking rather than deleting. Patrick then decided an stub was better than a blank page and reverted. There isn't scope for an encyclopedia article under this name, though there presumably is under relaxation... any takers? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:12, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Delete. There should be no article or redirect under relaxed - Marshman 02:12, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. WP:WINAD. Maximus Rex 06:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kingturtle 23:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Chadguay - It's a mystery to me where the zealotry to quickly revert the redirect came from considering this doesn't even deserve an entry in the first place. 213.73.231.245 20:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • 1,180 google hits Alexandros 22:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. About as stupid an entry as I've ever seen - Marshman 02:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it was a small part of an ephmeral joke. ping 08:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Tending towards "Delete", but if somebody wanted to look up this phenomenon, where would they go? Anjouli 12:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think it would work as a redirect, especially if that's what it was before. - Hephaestos 16:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. Added vfd notice to page.Anthropos 13:11, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, a small part of an internet joke. Maximus Rex 06:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kingturtle 23:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy - and its sister Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy 2 - I am not denying -or for the same price, agreeing with- its abstract content (that there were priests involved in those crimes), I am stating that the page does not deserve existence by itself in the WP. The list is ridiculous (again, I am not denying the facts but there is no way to credibly check what it meant to be a Ustashi member) for an encyclopeida: it would be OK in a monography, but should require a lot of documentation to support the claims. Pfortuny 21:58, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! 22 google results for "Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy", and most of them were from wikipedia. Alexandros
    • Delete as is unless someone bothers to re-work (and re-title) this into an article explaining the entire Ustashi movement. That would be a good keeper. Davodd 02:59, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kingturtle 23:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Gary Nichols non-famous. DJ Clayworth 22:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Soon. Sounds like a feud using Wikipedia - Marshman 02:00, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (or perhaps delete in favour of articles on court cases in which he has been involved, but leaning towards keep); he was involved in some court cases marginally significant enough for inclusion. But article needs to be extensively rewritten for NPOV and some of this has to be substantiated with sources, for example the serious accusation that he made death threats (if this is relevant enough to be in the article). Must be recast nearly totally. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:55, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - that particular court case is not important, it's just some random guy. Adam Bishop 07:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not famous enough. --Jiang|(Talk)
    • Delete. Secretlondon 19:36, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 06:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kingturtle 23:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 5

  • Chate - incoherent definition of personal slang. Mirv 13:54, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, even though the article has changed since listed. I added VfD boilerplate text. Bmills 14:21, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is a slang dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article Dogface
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:07, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too skimpy to be a stub article, and too obscure to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. - Mark Ryan 12:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary entry. Tempshill 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Simulacra. Dictionary definition. Bmills 15:03, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It just went up today, give it a while and see where it goes. If it stays the same, then VfD it. --zandperl 02:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've added the word to Wiktionary. Ortonmc 05:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. - Mark Ryan 12:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary article. Tempshill 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Whether kept or deleted, it belongs at simulacrum, not where it is. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Elections Group - I can't see how the name of a committee conducting elections in one British students' union can be made into a more general article. The committees are called different things in different institutions, and are pretty boring in themselves. Secretlondon 21:50, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not even worth really merging into the union's article itself. Delete. Morwen 21:52, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: Surely there is something more worldly and important to occupy this piece of Wikipedia real-estate? - Mark Ryan 12:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Obscure, and far more irrelevant than the title suggests. Tempshill 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Denmark Yaneza looks like a vanity page? Created and mondified only by User:Vera Cruz, who is hard-banned. Anthropos 22:59, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, looks like vanity. (wasn't Vera Cruz widely believed to be banned/unbanned User:Lir, or am I mistaken?) Maximus Rex 23:32, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Mark Ryan 12:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 13:29, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Illuminati order of the united states this page has been deleted more than once before. Maximus Rex 23:01, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought it had been decided to be moved to that page and kept? Ok, how about someone answer the question posted here -> (talk:Illuminati order of the united states)
    • Keep. Needs work to add historical context and NPOV. Davodd 04:45, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC) Either explain briefly what is group is, or delete. Davodd 19:58, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • There is no 'historical context', it's simply a club that has co-opted a famous name is using that name to sound important. We already have a page on Illuminati. This page was deleted before, so if anything it should simply be deleted again to stop wasting everyone's time. Maximus Rex 06:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 13:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Illuminati order verbatim of above. Maximus Rex 23:03, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Illuminati again, but it keeps being un-redirected. Angela.
      • Maybe protect as redirect in the proud tradition of Mekkah? If there's no debate over it... --Pakaran 01:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You know, maybe we should just turn this mess over to the Dark Side of Wikipedia and forget it. If it's going to keep coming back, I say these two pages should just be locked away where we can keep an eye on them... - Litefantastic 15:57, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Java humor - having an article for this makes no sense. Contributed by anonymous users. Either the title is wrong or the content is in the wrong article. Jay 23:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 05:29, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move the content to Java platform or wherever, and redirect. -- Merphant 06:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd say move only the first part about java and beans (though the bit about jar is inaccurate - jar stands for Java ARchive) Dysprosia 13:42, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 13:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Alleluia - dictionary definition....barely. Kingturtle 23:49, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 13:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, if it is improved. The word is important both to Judaism and Christianity. -Anthropos 03:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep DJ Clayworth 15:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Important or not, we can link to it from Wiktionary. Delete unless someone knows of significantly more content to add. Rossami 20:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 6

  • Lekker - move to Wiktionary? --Pakaran 01:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Less than 24 hours old. --zandperl 02:58, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Is it even an appropriate English word? - Marshman 03:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. How is Afrikaans slang relevant to English Wikipedia? - Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. Doesn't matter if it's not English there. English Wikipedia Wiktionary welcomes definitions of foreign words. Ortonmc 04:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You mean "english wiktionary"? Noldoaran 06:36, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
        • Oops, yes, my mistake. Ortonmc 13:58, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • It seems it's already in Wiktionary. Delete. Ortonmc 01:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It is a common, not particularly interesting Dutch word. No need of an article here. Delete. -- Viajero 16:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary entry. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. Noldoaran (Talk), 06:25, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sverdrup 16:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Peng Guangqian - only 179 hits; orphaned, and the article does a poor job representing anything special/unprecedented in his statements. --Jiang|(Talk) 01:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think this should be deleted. Maybe it could be expanded. - Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • There's almost no information available to expand this further, except to properly represent the comments he made. We shouldn't be making articles for some random foreign ministry spokesman either. --Jiang|(Talk)
    • Delete. The one interesting fact could perhaps be incorporated into Politics of Taiwan. Ortonmc 04:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a stub about a person who may have some significance. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Secretlondon 19:38, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Kings Arms - plug for a pub in Dorset- it links from public house as a 'notable english pub', but there must be bucketloads of pubs in the UK with the name Kings Arms. If it is truly a notable pub fine, otherwise lets all just put in an entry for our favourite local- mine would be The Spread Eagle, Prittlewell.... quercus robur 02:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 03:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - a pub's a pub. And there are gazillions of pubs in the world. - Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. They're not just in the UK; there's a tavern in Colonial Williamsburg with the same name. Ortonmc 04:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a great pub. But there are many as good. delete. DJ Clayworth 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Some More - Delete. This song is not of importance. If it is, the article certainly doesn't tell us that. Kingturtle 02:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Songs are difficult to establish importance on. While some are clearly well-known, where does the line of importance get drawn? I'm inclined to leave these alone for now (keep) - Marshman 03:30, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Songs like American Pie are notable encyclopedia material, but I don't think Wikipedia has reached the stage wherein there's nothing left to do but write about our favourite songs. -- Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If the article can't explain why the song is noteworthy, it probably isn't noteworthy. Ortonmc 14:20, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We don't need an article like this on every song in creation. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't see anything particularly wrong with a page for a particular song. Voyager640 11:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, or move content to album article. Makes album article more interesting. - Patrick 02:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Angelian - A conlang without a user base, all google hits refer to pages created by one person -- JeLuF 05:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Some conlang creators have the obnoxious habit of advertising their creation any way they can. This guy isn't the first. We had this "Cimera" language a while ago too. --Menchi 05:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 06:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 19:38, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Terminology - one-liner dictionary defintion. Stub since February. Jay 07:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 08:38, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 14:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition (and not very accurate either). Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Noldoaran (Talk) 19:37, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Beowulf (text, translation, and detailed analysis) orphan, contains none of the content implied by the title, and even if it did wikipedia wouldn't be the place for source text and detailed literary analysis. Maximus Rex 07:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 14:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Someone started an ambitious project and gave up. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If this were complete, it would be a nice addition to Wikipedia. However, it isn't, and in this state, it's more or less useless. Metasquares 03:37, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley. Created in an attempt to circumvent the normal deletion process. This article was deleted at least 6 times already. Angela. 08:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Go for 7. Anjouli 14:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree. This is a user sub page. It is to the user to decide whether one of his sub page should be deleted or not. Ask Kyu, or wait for him to come back. If found offensive meanwhile, just blank it. Anthère


  • 3Dlabs. Advertisement. RickK 08:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Copyvio [1] Davodd 08:42, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 14:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • OK as rewritten. Ortonmc 16:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • They are a known company. If it's a copyvio, delete until a contributor comes along who has something encyclopedic to write. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Rewritten version is okay, and no longer copyvio. -- Finlay McWalter 14:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Davodd 14:28, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Wikipedia commentary and all its subpages [2] (Wikipedia:Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Avoid Cabals for example). Is there any reason these shouldn't all be moved to Meta? If they are moved, should the pages be deleted or left as interwiki redirects? Angela. 09:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Moved and deleted: things in the main namespace in particular should only be legitimate encyclopedia articles, not meta topics or redirects to meta topics. And interwiki redirects are evil as a general principle, not least because it's damn near impossible to edit them once set up (requires manual URL construction). --Delirium 11:19, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move. Noldoaran 20:42, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • U-commerce - idiosyncratic term, advert for a book written by the author(s) of the page. Daniel Quinlan 13:35, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Has moderate current use. (Google with the "u" in lowercase.) Anjouli 14:14, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't think the reference at the bottom makes the whole article into an advertisement. Ortonmc 14:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No analysis. Essentially a plug. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't think this is idiosyncratic or an advert. "U-commerce" gets 3,300 Google hits even when you exclude "Watson", the author of the journal article referenced. Angela. 20:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - at present this is an idiosyncratic term but I suspect it will gain currency in the near future. If it dosn't, this article will probably be merged into another information technology management page. mydogategodshat 02:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Akihabara Station This is more a request for comment than a vote for deletion. All these stations being added may be somebody's labor of love - but do we really want to (potentially) list every train station in the world? If so, we will need a lot more hardware. Anjouli 14:07, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- unless something encyclopedic can be written about it. Is there something remarkable about this train station? Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have lots of articles about UK train and tube stations, for example. More useful than all the articles about Pokemon, in my opinion.Secretlondon
    • Keep. I agree with secretlondon that I'd rather see an article on every train station in the world than an article on every trading card in the world. Onebyone 19:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm the original author of the article mentioned here. This is one of the 29 stations on Tokyo's Yamanote line, which is a central orientation point in Tokyo. It's as relevant or irrelevant as e.g. Tottenham_Court_Road_tube_station. I will admit I'm a bit of a newbie here and I think I should probably have either marked the article as a stub or waited until I've got some more text. There is also a Japanese version of the article. User:Ianb
    • Keep. I don't know whether we really want to list every train station in the world in English Wikipedia. But Japanese Wikipedia is trying to complete about 10,000 stations in Japan. In fact, Japanese Wikipedia looks an encyclopedia of railway, manga and other subcultures for me. --Nanshu 01:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Okay, you convinced me. Let's keep them. Anjouli 05:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor


  • Diao Chan - content is "Diao Chan was the Lu Bu' girlfriend". Andy Mabbett 21:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This turns out to be true. I've written a stub. Keep. Onebyone 22:14, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Her story is like "be a girlfriend of Lu Bu and change the world" :P. It is important, literally if not historically, in China. wshun 00:10, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the current version.. Gentgeen 02:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 7

  • Roy Roger's. Yet again another ad for a restaurant chain, plus the name is wrong. The apostrophe is in the wrong place. Do we want to have a disambiguation page at Roy Rogers? RickK 00:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, fix the name. We have lots of sites about businesses - it could include history of the business, etc., to make it encyclopedia-ish. DavidWBrooks 02:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Again, there is a whole list of these, should we delete them all? - Hephaestos 02:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it and create a disambiguation page at Roy Rogers. As has been said, we've got a bunch of these already. - Metasquares 03:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's better than having an article about a single pub or restaurant. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hotels in Delhi - wikipedia is not a travel guide; this would belong in WikiTravel. The listing in the article contains no additional information and is not entirely inclusive. --Jiang, Talk 01:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Noldoaran (Talk), 06:13, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lists like these are of encylopedic value. Also see List of buildings in Bucharest. Jay 11:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • How specifically are they encyclopedic? Hotels, expcept old ones, are not by themselves tourist attractions. People do not go to the hotel for the sake of visiting the hotel. Besides, links to Raddisson are generic in nature. --Jiang | Talk 23:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Jiang on that. Hotels are not synonymous with tourism. Hence the article can be renamed to List of buildings in Delhi rather than Tourism in Delhi. Jay 09:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Hotels are not synonymous with famous buildings. If you renamed it, almost the entire listing would have to be changed to something different. Therefore, it is necessary to delete. A move won't do with the current content. --Jiang | Talk 06:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Assuming that a famous building is a building that has a Wikipedia article, Hotels in Delhi is a right candidate for deletion because none of the entries have articles on them. My point of reference was List of buildings in Bucharest, the entries in which are not Wiki links either. Jay 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This would belong more in a page like Tourism in Delhi or something like that. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RK
  • Didactic. Dictionary definition. Onebyone 02:38, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm, is that page a meta-didactic page? Voyager640 11:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't seem to have much substance to it, does it? - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RK
  • Criticisms of modern medicine wikipedia is not a place for editorials and criticisms, it's an encyclopedia. ThereIsNoSteve 05:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Save. This page was setup for failure by RK, but I saved it and removed the POV by a simple re-edit.Deleting it would be an act of POV.--Mr-Natural-Health 07:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Whatever can't be reasonably merged into Medicine and Homeopathy should probably go. But perhaps bits can be salvaged that way. Bryan 06:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Content is already better covered by other articles. This is not an encyclopedia topic. Fine for some other site. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If you want separate criticism articles, then I suggest you pay a visit to Internet-Encyclopedia where it is not only encouraged, but it is required. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This "article" is just one man's POV essay. RK
    • Rant, delete. Morwen 16:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Ranting. Throw anything that can be salvaged -- anything that's not just Mister Natty Aitch's ranting: stuff that can be attributed to named, reliable sources -- into Medicine or Allopathy; delete the rest. --Mirv 19:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ariddia. Undeleted. [3]. Angela. 05:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Completely bogus, even more imaginary than most imaginary micronations. Maximus Rex 05:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only 3 results on google. Noldoaran (Talk), 06:12, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • NationStates is a game. Ariddia is one of the fake countries made up in order to play the game. It is not even a real "micronation". Why was it undeleted? RickK 07:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Procedures are working well, both RickK and Angela did the right thing IMO, first deleting complete nonsense and then undeleting for discussion when challenged. But it is in fact nonsense, so delete in due course. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I was once amused by these kinds of articles. Once. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Mauro Gandini. Created by an anonymous user and current content seems to indicate a vanity article. The statement about him being a fan of some football club is not Wikipedia worthy. RedWolf 06:21, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any notable references on Google suggesting this person is notable. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Religion-driven politics is a screed about something that doesn't even really deserve to be a topic, and basically contains NO FACTS. Dump it. Meelar 03:21 Dec 7, 2003
    • I removed some NPOV material from it. I think it has some potential, if someone fleshes it out a bit. Voyager640 11:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No useful content, not a suitable topic. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It could have some potential for looking at the influence of religious groups over various governments )(such as the Roman Catholic church in Ireland and Italy). It looks as if somebody intended to continue this article, but it's been almost five months, so I doubt the author will be back to finish it. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge the 1 or 2 useful phrases into Theocracy (which is thin) and delete. Davodd 13:22, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This "article" is no good. RK 15:52, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Needs to be NPOVed but the topic has been discussed in the anthropology of religion and the sociology of religion for half a century. To delete it is a POV act. - Keep, NPOV, and Merge into Sociology of religion. mydogategodshat 19:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've changed my mind. I started to re-write it but found it to be a monumental task. Just dump it. mydogategodshat 07:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Tego Calderon in Spanish. To top it all, to those of us who understand Spanish, it seems like the man wrote it himself because it says something like to all who talked about me, you will have to face me, Calde. He IS worth an article, just not anything like this. Antonio 10,000 sex partners Martin
    • Keep. If he's worth an article, you should at least be able to write a stub saying why. Replace the current entry with it. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the title, not the text. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Buss - To buss actually means to kiss. Neither of these quite similar meanings presented on this disambiguous page, which is an orphan, are usages for the word Buss. Kingturtle 11:30, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (The Arabic for "kiss" is "boosa")Anjouli 06:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You can add that origin too in the article. I have cleaned up the article and added more entries. Jay 09:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've added the 'kiss' meaning. Buss also stands for other things, so more entries can be added. Jay 12:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Currently a dictionary definition plus the rather silly "buss is a misspelling of bus". "Aardvark" is a misspelling too if what you meant was "bus", but that fact isn't mentioned on aardvark. Move to Wiktionary and delete. Onebyone 13:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Changed my mind now it's improved. Keep. Onebyone 11:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep: valid disambiguation page. Martin 16:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine - the entire article is a photo caption. Davodd 11:37, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Should be part of Wikipedia:Cleanup. Jay 12:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • That's why I nominated for delete. There is nothing to clean up. Davodd 12:58, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
      • Oh well ! nothing to clean up. Delete. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Should we really have articles for faculties of each university? Even if there is to be an article with this title, it certainly shouldn't be what's there right now. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not an article. All the text has been directly lifted from an Indianapolis press source, so it also may violate copyright.Dogface 20:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Accumulation - orphan, and I can't imaging any situation in which the word "accumulation" (by itself) would be better linked to a Wikipedia entry than a Wiktionary entry. Anthropos 12:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with Anthropos. Accumulator makes for a good article, accumulation is somehow too generic. Delete. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Acting Sheriff - orphan, an unsold tv pilot from 1991 [4] -Anthropos 13:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. At best, it should be a sentence in an entry on the actor mentioned. Deserves no entry on its own.Dogface 20:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Turing Machine simulator - there must be hundreds if not thousands of such projects, and this is not an interesting example. Morwen 14:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected. Deletion unnecessary. Martin 16:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Michael LaLonde - vanity. Secretlondon 18:08, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 20:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Obviously he made it himself. But, his website is pretty popular, so this isn't complete vanity. Someone could make an article for the website, and make his name a redirect, or something. Isomorphic 22:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • AOLiza - a year-old stub w/ nothing more than Wiktionary content. --zandperl 21:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Order No. 227. Stub, no context. If it can't be expanded, delete. RickK 21:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Is this better? I'm sure there is a lot more that could be written. Secretlondon 21:26, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Even though short, this was informative. Rossami 20:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Political dispute - supposedly a draft policy, but one that no-one other than User:142.177.etc has agreed to. Angela. 21:43, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it is an interesting piece. Though it probably should be on meta, because it applies to all Wikipedia projects :ChrisG 23:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's just an old rant from a banned user. Don't move to meta, just delete. Maximus Rex 23:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Destiny Completely Thorough Encyclopedia. Moved to Meta. Angela. 23:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, from both en and from Meta, this vanity page. -- Mattworld 23:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Created by Sterling D Allan out of pique because his vanity page has been listed here. RickK 23:04, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is meta being used as a dumping ground? Or is that its purpose? Maximus Rex 23:09, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, there are a lot of similar rants on Meta, so that seemed the place for it but maybe not. Angela. 23:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, and it should be removed from Meta, too. David Sterling is trying to use Wikipedia to support, advertise, and promote his own nutty free energy schemes. He made his own WikiProject, which I'm about to list here. Everything he's written needs scrutiny. Isomorphic 23:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Isomorphic has not even paid close enough attention to see that my name is Sterling D. Allan, not David Sterling. Is that any indication of his standard of "accuracy"? Or does it prove a tendency to a knee-jerk reaction without first giving a matter serious consideration. I've seen working devices. All he has is his prejudice. Vote him off the island. He has no business being a sysop with his narrow-mindedness. It's people like him that stone the prophets and torture the bearers of truth. He's the one that is out of line. Sterlingda 09:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • For the record, I apologize for giving your name incorrectly. I do, however, know your user name and your work quite well, which is what matters here. Please note that I don't know most other Wikipedians' real names either, although this is because they don't create vanity entries, not because I've misremembered them. Also, since you're concerned with accuracy - I'm not a sysop. Isomorphic 10:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • After posting my comment and retiring to bed at nearly 3:00 am, it dawned on me that you might not be a sysop, and I should have checked that before posting it. Sleep won over accuracy that time. Tit for tat, you got me back. Let me ask, though, how much time have you spent reviewing my FreeEnergy.GreaterThings.com website. Sterlingda 17:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete; create permanent forward instead; I moved it to within my user directory. User:Sterlingda/Wiki_All where it is obvious that it is a personal opinion. I spent a lot of time composing that piece specifically for Wikipedia. Your objectivity is called seriously into question the louder you cry for censorship of critique intended to help Wikipedia become even better. Sterlingda 09:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. And beware of utopians. Bmills 10:13, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • "beware of utopians"? It's bad to dream of a better world? I feel sorry for Bmills. Where would this world be without its dreamers? Sterlingda 17:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ownage - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dysprosia 23:32, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Ugh, 13375p34k. |)31373. --MIRV 23:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Incorporate into leet. Leet isn't reason enough to delete it on its own, but the article is neither well written nor very informative, but wouldn't hurt to put into leet. --zandperl 01:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • "0wn" and its variant "pwn" are already in leet -- I see no problem with incorporating this variation.--MIRV 01:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 8

  • Language Policies - A list with nothing in it. Angelique 23:47, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Equivalent linked to but doesn't exist on French Wikipedia. Was it deleted there? Delete unless it has something in it in a week, and provided also that the categories of policy listed are not idiosyncratic. Onebyone 00:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This topic could develop into a good article. Give the original author another week in order to place something meaningful in here, otherwise delete. - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This looks liek a valid entry; could we get someone in here to fill it up? The groundwork is very good; someone just needs to expand it. - Litefantastic 15:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This looks like the basis for a very good article. I suggest it will take more than a week to write it though. If the categories are idiosyncratic then they can be easily changed. Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • I am the original author. I will put some contents very soon. I was slowed down because I needed to ask permission before using copyrighted information. This page could indeed be very useful to many. The source I have (in French) contains stats on the linguistic situation in most States of the world and the use of language legislations by these States. What do you guys mean by the categories being idiosyncratic? (Sorry, English is not my first language). -- Mathieugp 17:34, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe there are other good sources in English that I am not aware of? Everyone is more than welcomed to contribute to this article with me. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, if it helps, I'm a native-born American in college and I don't know what 'idosyncratic' means.
  • Pupilos De Chavelo - personal anecdote of AntonioMartin, not encyclopaedic. --Wik 23:52, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be moved to his personal space. I'm currently cautiously in favour of keeping redirects to such things, I don't see that they do any harm provided they don't result in an ugly disambiguation page. Based on a google search, I don't think this will. Onebyone 00:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move the content to his user page, but don't place a redirect here. This article isn't about him. - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to user space and delete redirect. --Jiang | Talk
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Energy - I'm very uncomfortable with the notion of a WikiProject dedicated to flooding Wikipedia with fringe science. Isomorphic 00:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It just seems that this guy wants to use part of Wikipedia for his own Wikipedia-within-Wikipedia. Delete. - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - sounds like a magnet for original research (and controversy) -Anthropos 18:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - it will be a magnet for unencyclopedic fringe science.
    • Delete - Marshman 04:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:42, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete. This feature could be the seed that grows into one of your most famous contributions to the pool of valuable human knowledge. Sterlingda 08:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • comments originally posted at User_talk:Sterlingda
      • Hi, the Free Energy Wikipedia Control Panel seems a good idea. I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Free Energy Wikipedia Control Panel that the page be moved to a title which conforms with other WikiProjects, which as far as I can tell is what this is. Angela. 10:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I did not make this comment in regards to deletion. I just wanted the page out of the main namespace and have not looked at the content enough to know whether or not it ought to be deleted and don't intend to look it now as I'm on a wikivacation. :) Angela. 20:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • [comment] Replied at my talk page (probably a lot in common with what Angela just said) Dysprosia 10:50, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) [Does not imply approval or disapproval]
        • If Sterling can write about various free energy technologies that are well known (something like the hydrogen-water thing is good, there is current interest in this now, so nothing esoteric), and from a neutral point of view with appropriate mention of criticism then I have no qualms, but the contents and progress of this project may need to be closely monitored for appropriateness and not a location for primary research. Dysprosia 10:57, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • You will see on my FreeEnergy.GreaterThings.com site that I provide both point and counter point, including links to skeptic pages even when I myself believe the technology to most likely be legit. In the Pure Energy Systems open sourcing encyclopedia project I have launched, objectivity and solid scientific rigor will be our goal. Remember, as items are submited to Wikipedia, you will have an opportunity on a case by case basis to scrutinize them. I think that scrutiny would be a good thing.
      • I agree with Angela, the Free Energy project is a great idea. I look forward to reading about the topics it suggests. Tarquin 10:26, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • comment: This page has been copied here: User:Sterlingda/Free Energy as an preview of how it would appear in a back-up form if it is deleted from its present location by Wikipedia. Sterlingda 08:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Zoomie. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. RickK 01:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This should be in the Wiktionary
    • Maybe we need an article on military slang - if there is not one already. Copy the contents to somewhere.Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of an article on military slang, but "zoomie" should probably not be in it. Term not actually used by any US soldier or marine I know. (And I doubt any other country's soldiers would either. Interservice terms have to sound derogatory or they're not any fun.) Rossami 20:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Heroic medicine: needs to be NPOV'd or deleted.
    • Keep. It just needs to have someone knowledgeable add to it, and keep it balanced. - Mark Ryan 03:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. DJ Clayworth 15:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems neutral enough apart from the last sentence which is misleading. Keep it but keep an eye on it. ping 07:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Florence Daniels - nice human interest story. Not encyclopedic subject matter. Anthropos
    • Maybe there is an article somewhere about crime that this can be merged into as a kind of case study about bag snatching? I know it's becoming a crime wave where I live. Otherwise, delete. - Mark Ryan 03:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. This is a nonsense and belongs in a tabloid newspaper maybe but not in an encyclopedia. Such things happen everyday, non notable. Secretlondon 13:04, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Fluff - self-referential. Anthropos 02:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless as an encyclopedia article. - Mark Ryan 03:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Almost as fascinating as my belly-button lint. Isomorphic 03:43, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Noldoaran (Talk) 19:41, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Vinod Scaria - this article is self-promotion. and although Vinod Scaria retrieves many hits in google, most of them seem to be other bits of self-promotion. Kingturtle 04:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Language style makes it obvious he wrote it himself. Delete. Isomorphic 07:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Writing an Extemp Speech - inappropriate and original research Dysprosia 04:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Badly written and not encyclopaedic. What is an "Extemp Speech"? - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Supposed to be "extemporaneous" - using a slang expression is just the start of the problems with this effort. delete - Marshman 06:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't even understand "extemporaneous" - is that "very good", or something?. Delete anyway. Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • "Off the cuff", roughly. "Writing" an off the cuff speech seems to be something of a contradiction. Delete. -- Finlay McWalter 18:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think that was the authors point: here is how to "cheat" at presenting an extemporaneous speech before judges - Marshman
    • I agree. If the contributor wants to have another go, they could start with an article explaining the concept. Deb 17:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Scott Turow - useless one sentence stub. - Hemanshu 05:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have enlarged it with a list of books he has authored. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Cleanup is the best place for such articles. -- Cyan 05:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Cyan made it look more useful. --zandperl 13:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've added a thing or two myself, and I think it's worth keeping at this point. Jwrosenzweig 22:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands - someone just created this page as a redirect to Social Democratic Party of Germany just because Giessen contained a link to it. I've fixed the link in Giessen, so it is now an orphan. -- Timwi 12:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • P.S. Sorry about the misleading edit summary.
    • I created it because I think that political parties should have a redirect from the name in the original language, I was suprised that the German SPD didn't have one. It's a redirect and it's doing no harm to anyone. Secretlondon 13:21, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Obviously useful to have around as a redirect, as the author of Giessen can attest. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as long as it is only a redirect, and not the home for the article. Rmhermen 15:34, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • They way I've set up political party artcles is that they are always under the English language name - and the native language name is a redirect. Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • The German name of the party is Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands. -- Timwi 16:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Sangir- This may or may not be something that can be used. It is a stub and has little content, but what is there seems accurate enough. Thoughts? - Litefantastic 19:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikipedia:Cleanup. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Had no VfD boilerplate on - one added today - needs to be moved to December 9th. Secretlondon 13:09, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Cognation - nonsense. Secretlondon 19:34, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • While this article did take me to micronation, a concept I did not know about before, it seems from the context that this is a "category 2" example of a micronation - "exercises in personal entertainment or self-aggrandizement". Not encyclopedic. Delete Rossami 20:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • How silly. Hard to believe there exists any connection between a serious researcher (or research effort) and this "concept" - Marshman 03:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Mechanism - needs a proper article. This isn't even close. - Hephaestos 20:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't delete. It's barely a stub, but there should be an article there, and something is better than nothing. Isomorphic 07:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Mechanism (philosophy). This is something of a stub--and a stub that only deals with half of the ultimately intended subject-matter at that. But I should hope it's informative enough to work for now. Radgeek 21:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Assessment of Adolf Hitler -- unbelievable page. It contains two things right now: a mostly amateurish psychoanalysis of the man, then immediately dismissed as "of limited value", and an explication of Daniel Goldhagen's all but discredited thesis as though it were fact and widely accepted. Any good info here could easily be merged into Adolf Hitler, which I should add also gives an explanation of Hitler's rise to power which is very different and far more accurate. -- VV 22:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The psychology of Hitler is a perfectly good subject for an article. The fact it is by no means a perfect article is irrelevant, it just needs work like many others. It is a daughter article of Adolf Hitler. There probably should be an Adolf Hitler series table to keep the relevant articles linked. : ChrisG 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm not opposed to daughter articles per se, but they should have enough content to warrant detachment, such as History of the United States. The actual usable content in this article is no more than a few sentences, which can just be a section or part of a section of Adolf Hitler. I'd feel differently if it was an expansive entry on his psychology (and then probably named Psychology as per suggestion below), but until it is we don't know that it ever will be. -- VV 21:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's embarrassing, but there are lots of worse articles in Wikipedia (alas). --Zero 04:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This makes a stab at being accurate, but there really is no way to know; therefore, it relaly isn't good for anything. Delete. - Litefantastic 12:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Had no VfD boilerplate on - added now - so needs mving to Dec 9th. Secretlondon 13:04, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • I forgot to do that, my bad. I'm not sure the fourteen hour delay is worth worrying about, though. -- VV 21:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As mentioned in the article's talk-page, renaming of the page to Psychology of Adolf Hitler would help. Else the article would appear to be Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not (Personal essays). The content seems ok and needs some NPOV. Jay 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Here's an example (and summation) of its content: The fact, if it is a fact, that Hitler was emotionally or psychologically disturbed does not explain how he was allowed to seize control of a great and cultured nation and lead it to total physical ruin and moral degradation. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV and unnecessary, not to mention not terribly well written. All the contents seem to be idle speculation with little in the way of genuine fact. Anyone could make up something like this. Unencyclpaedic, without a doubt. 80.255 21:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 9

  • Palestinian views of the peace process -- The little of objective value in this rant should be merged with another article and the remainder given a timely burial. -- Viajero 01:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The article was created as an op-ed piece and there is no chance that it could ever be fixed. --Zero 04:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 05:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Student Pugwash USA. As I just said in the mailing list, I normally don't object to things on Talk pages, but this is an exception. RickK 03:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Can you expand a little on your resons for objection? Anjouli 05:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It looks like the author of Student Pugwash USA used the talk page of the article as a forum for some of the org's members to review a proposed "mission statement". Accepting this would not be a good precedent. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.
    • I abstain. Seems a worthy cause and there are worse things happening on WP. I agree it should be discouraged, but I would not go so far as to delete.Anjouli 13:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Carmen by Horace. Huh? RickK 03:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Added Vfd text to page. Anjouli 05:41, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Um, nice brief analysis of Horace's Ode 3.13, but it lacks a translation, it's mistitled, and it's not very encyclopedic. Delete, or move to the appropriate place. --MIRV 04:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not even convinced this is Horace. About 45 years ago I used to know Carmen Saeculare (Phoebe silvarum Diana potens.. blah blah - or something like that.) Could be wrong, but I certainly don't remember this bit. Not much point in quoting a bit out of the middle without the rest anyway. Anjouli 05:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Just looked it up in The Oxford Book of Latin Verse. It is Horace, but it's Bandusia, not Carmen Saeculare. (They never made me learn that one!). Delete - for various reasons. Anjouli 05:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This is actually Odes 3: 13, just like it says in the article. It is also a new users first article, so let's all jump on it. I think it could be usefully merged with Horace and the author, who clearly knows his/her Horace, might be encouraged to improve that somewhat inadequate page. Bmills 09:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm all for encouraging newbies, but it is titled Carmen, which it is not. It is another work entirely. Do we let that pass? And what's all this about the possible influence of Montenegran folk-tales on this Ode (or odes)? Montenegro did not exist before the 75th century [5] and Horace died in about 8BC. Anjouli 12:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Someone who knows enough about Horace to be sure it's the right thing should move it to Bandusia or whatever title is appropriate. Then either delete, write about Carmen Saeculare, or point it back to Horace. Onebyone 14:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • carmen just means a poem or song (thus Carmina Burana, etc.). Horace didn't give his poems titles, and carmen is not the title of this poem/ This belongs wherever Horace's odes are discussed. There's no more reason to have Carmen by Horace than Poem by Horace. Binky 21:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. 80.255 21:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Baka Baka - list of poems by user, bizarre formatting. -- Pakaran 04:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Eric Pheterson - Does this look familiar? Yes it does. Same vanity page that just got deleted. Wasn't sure whether to list it here, or as a candidate for quick deletion. Isomorphic 06:03, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, again. I believe it was here that is was discussed before. Noldoaran (Talk) 06:13, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Not again. . . This is the third reincarnation of this vanity page. Bury it at a crossroads with a stake through its heart. --MIRV 06:17, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Marquee Moon - Impressionistic article on the album by Television. Unless anyone wants to make an article out of it, it should go. Bmills 10:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • AIDS kills fags dead - It's back. This time as a Lest We Forget lament for AIDS victims. Not an encyclopedia article. Bmills 11:53, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) (content before blanking is at Talk:AIDS_kills_fags_dead -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC))
    • Mr. Bmills, you are right. This is a hideously POV page and rather nonsensical. --Merovingian 11:58, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • How about changing the text to '"AIDS kills fags dead" is an annoying article that keeps reappearing on Wikipedia even though we keep deleting it'? That'll stop it reappearing all the time... Otherwise delete... Francs2000 12:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • A nice little personal essay, but it has no place in an encylcopedia. Delete. Tannin
    • It doesn't even pretend to be encyclopedic, does it? Kill this article dead. --MIRV 12:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Also, we should decide here and now that the next time someone recreates this entry, it may be deleted immediately, with no requirement for yet another seven-day wait. (And I don't care what content it sports, the title itself is sufficient cause.) If it comes back, let's just delete it right away. Tannin 12:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Absolutely! Purges must be necessary from time to time. A chronic problem needs an immediate solution: deletion, no challenge. --Merovingian 12:29, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • I concur. Dysprosia 12:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • And I. At least this version is not offensive. I note that Tannin has blanked the article, which I think a bit unfortunate. The least offensive bit is gone while the offensive title remains. Bmills 12:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a very sweet essay written under a homophobic title which the author presumably had to recreate as no normal pages link to it. It was written/created by Radgeek who's only been on wikipedia for 24 hours. It all seems very bizarre. Secretlondon 12:33, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • The rotten newbies are bizarre by nature. --Merovingian 12:39, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
        • It's never a newbie. Secretlondon 12:47, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
        • Now that you put it that way, you're right: first they're IP #s, then they get themselves names, then the Wiki dies... --Merovingian 12:53, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
        • While generally in favour of being kind to newbies (just starting to not be one myself, IMO), I think this discussion is irrelevant here. Newbie, oldie, this title should go. Bmills 12:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Nuke this thing. Regardless of content, 'AIDS kills fags dead' is just not something we want to show decent society. Die! With avengence! - Litefantastic 12:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Precisely. You wouldn't find something like this in Britannica *snork*,... now would you? Appearance is everything. --Merovingian 12:46, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Make the subject a protected redirect to Bigot. Otherwise, it will keep returning.Dogface 13:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • That's a good idea, or block it in some other way. Francs2000 13:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Blockage = relief. --Merovingian 14:46, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think Radgeek should be pounced on, he's made good contributions to philosophy articles. If this page was going to be redirected and protected, the logical target is Anti-gay slogan, where all other variants of AKFD redirect to (such as the capitalised version). It's not logical for different pages with essentially the same title to redirect to different places. However, I believe it was decided a while ago to delete Akfd entirely... Evercat 13:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry for the anti-Radgeek attitude. Your redirect suggestion is quite good. --Merovingian 14:46, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • "No normal pages link to it" (Secretlondon)? What about Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States, Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K (!), and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans)? And if we had not been so hypocritical and left AxelBoldt's (absolutely NPOV) article at AIDS kills fags dead we wouldn't have any problems now with users -- whether newbies or not -- recreating the article. So the best thing to do would be a redirect to wherever the original text is hidden now. --KF 16:09, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's a surprise for you, eh? In point of fact, the reason I posted this was primarily because I encountered the link under Wikipedia:Top 10 Google Hits, A-K and, after considering a researched NPOV article about the AIDS holocaust, and then decided that I have better things to do than educate anyone who would go looking under that headline. So, instead, I just posted what I posted so that some measure of sanity would be there until the article was tossed into a (hopefully permanent) garbage bin and the associated links were tossed along with it. Wildly unprofessional? I suppose that it is; but it's something that I feel very strongly about and that leads me into rash actions. In any case, I'll atone by adding some more philosophy material. Ciao. Radgeek 21:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • ROSS advert; unpopular -Anthropos 12:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know sir, this looks innocuous; clarification? --Merovingian 12:54, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an ad. Anything that begins <foo> "is the most powerful..." blah blah blah blah blah is nothing but a blatant advertisement. Destroy with extreme prejudice. Dogface 13:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You're right there. It is an ad... --Merovingian 14:48, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Useless stub; advert. —Noldoaran (Talk) 17:23, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Yoko Syndrome - unwikied orphan; the subject alread treated in articles on Yoko Ono and the Beatles. This specific phrase gets 19 hits on google. -- Infrogmation 13:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Obviously a rant. I took one least-POV sentence from there as an offering to The Inclusionists and put it in Yoko Ono. Gee... they really hate this woman, huh? Give it up and get over it! --Menchi (Talk)â 13:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. As a non-Christian, I have to say the (Bob Dylan anyone) Christian-period dig at the end is off focus and unnecessary. Bmills 13:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Synopsys - Huge POV company profile. Company is important enought to justify an article, but this ain't it. Anjouli 13:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like a lift from the company Web site. Delete. Bmills 13:46, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Copyviol, perhaps. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • opird from here. My guess would be that someone from the company created the page and they own the copyright, so not really a copyvio. Bmills 13:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Could they be this pathetic? They are quite a large company, I think. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The IP 207.83.113.69 that wrote it is from Synopsys's network. Definitely self-advertising. -- Jake 14:23, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Delete. Secretlondon 17:18, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite. Isomorphic 19:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • PAW An orphan that disambigs between four obscure acronyms, none of which has an article. DJ Clayworth 14:13, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • One of them has an article now. Don't know if the others ever will though. Wait and see. Isomorphic 19:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Palestinian refugee - merge what is of value in Palestinian exodus, delete the rest (cf, this comment from Talk page: This edit war seems to be a rehash of what has already been rehashed at Palestinian exodus which in my humble opinion is a better article to rehash the rehash. BL 12:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)) -- Viajero 15:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a good idea. Bmills 15:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Disagree. It's a legitimate article designed to discuss the definition of Palestinian Refugee. Furthermore the term "Palestinian Exodus" is NPOV. If anything, that article should be brought into this one under this title.Leumi 21:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Anglo-Saxon Military Coalition - the term has no currency as a title, just as a descriptive phrase. Google knows nothing beyond Wiki-derived items. Anthropos 17:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Secretlondon 17:18, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If the term ever becomes curretn usage, then someone can write an article. Bmills 17:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Salem bin Laden
    • After removing the vague, contextless, POV, there's nothing left. Tuf-Kat 21:09, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Salem bin Laden. A rant. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Does this even need to be discussed? Delete, clearly. -- VV 21:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Overhaul, remove POV comments, but keep. If the information is accurate there's no need to delete an article for simply not being well-written. 80.255 21:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If anyone wants to, they can always start again. Onebyone 22:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Archinatural - I have no idea what it is, and neither does Google. It was anon. added to Architecture in September 2002, and quickly separated into it's own page. Anthropos 21:53, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1917551"