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 Jiang (talk | contribs) at 21:12, 26 December 2003 (Ainariel Arnatuille deleted). 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 -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

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


December 19

December 20

  • O Fons Bandusiae
    • The page that was at Carmen by Horace. I think the consensus was to delete it, but I'm not sure if that was mainly because of the title, so I've moved it. If there's no opposition to deletion now that it is at this title, that's okay with me. -- Oliver P. 04:02, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep: ilya
    • It still needs a translation, but keep. --MIRV 09:13, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The "critique" is complete nonsense. (See Talk:O_Fons_Bandusiae.) But remove that and all you have left is an Ode (even if a translation [1] is added). Anjouli 05:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Would those voting "keep" please provide reasons for doing so? Other than the Ode itself, this is not factual. And we don't list poems.Anjouli 12:26, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete; encyclopedia articles should not be incomprehensible literary critiques. --Jiang 08:45, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Verisimilitude. Dictionary definition. Maybe move to Wiktionary? -- Vardion 07:30, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Not the sort of word one could write an article about. Tualha 14:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Verisimilitude was previously linked to from The Alamo and Timeline of fictional events. It is explained in the Theater terms article. Redirect it there? Angela. 02:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If the links in The Alamo and similar are pointed to the entry in theater terms, it might be okay, but the word "verisimilitude" can be used outside drama, and so I'd be hesitant create a redirect to theater terms for the word itself. But it does seem that "verisimilitude" is used mostly in drama (or at least, in drama and literature), so it might be okay. -- Vardion 06:10, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


December 21

December 21, subsection 1

December 21, subsection 2

  • Al Gore III. Three paragraphs about this kid, one about a car accident and two about a marijuana arrest. If this is all we can come up with, then delete. It seems to me like it's more an attempt at smearing his father. RickK 04:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't you have privacy laws in the US? Gore 3 is a private citizen and his misdemeanors are not the public's business. Adam 06:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not that I know of: in fact we have freedom of speech and freedom of information laws stating the exact opposite. Since he appeared in open court, the information is a matter of public record. That said, I make no vote on whether this article should appear, but if not, it should be based on Wikipedia deciding he is not worthy of an article, not based on privacy concerns, since what he did was fully public. --Delirium 06:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Do we have articles on Bush's daughters who I believe have also been in court on minor charges? Adam 06:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • We do. Barbara and Jenna Bush. Maximus Rex 06:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Well I would delete that article as well. I am opposed to having articles on private citizens whose only source of interest is that they have the misfortune to be related to someone famous, and particularly the children of the famous. This is just voyeurism and serves no legitimate purpose. Adam 06:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I'm not voting either to keep or delete, but to answer Adam. The only possible legitimate purpose I can see is as a test of the hypocrisy of the parents. These are people who advocate draconian punishments for using harmless drugs that ruin far more lives than the drugs themselves. If Gore or Bush were to advocate the same punishments for their children that they advocate for our children, I would vote to delete. Mcarling 10:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The place to say that is under Bush article, as in "Bush advocated the death penalty for littering, but when his daughter was arrested for littering he made excuses for her," (or whatever). It doesn't mean that the daughter deserves an article to catalogue her misdemeanors. Adam 09:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEP. We also have Chelsea Clinton. Many wikipedia biographies are on non-government officials. I don't see a reason to delete, but I'm not in full support of keeping. --Jiang 09:30, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. He is historically significant because of the 1992 Dem. Convention, which I added. I changed the article to remove the arrest record, which is of dubious historic importance. Davodd 09:38, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Chelsea Clinton is a public person in her own right and by her own choice. I am not aware that Gore III or the Bush daughters have done anything in their own right. Besides which Chelsea doesn't have any misdemeanors that I am aware of, so an article on her isn't just a vehicle for attacking her father, as Mcarling admits he sees the Bush daughters article as being. And what did Gore III do at the 1992 Convention, when he would have been ten years old? Adam 09:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect. It's interesting that his accident affected the Democratic primaries, but that's more about Al Jr. than Al III. I've merged it into Al Gore and I vote to make this a redirect to Al Gore (note that deletion policy deprecates "merge and delete"). Tualha 16:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move relevant into into Al Gore but keep as redir. Could become an article if he ever does something meaningful besides smoking pot.—Eloquence
      • The classic Wikipedia double standard the private life of a child of a former Dem US Vice President one time perhaps future presidential candidate not worthy but of course it worthy for the current US Gop president. This group sure make sense.
        • Where do you gather that from (the double standard)? Evil saltine 19:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I'm not the individual who posted about the double standard, however if you look at page history someone removed all negative content from the Gore child article while similar content is still the focus of the Bush child article. Maximus Rex 21:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • If you don't think this group makes sense, perhaps you should leave it to those of us who think it does. I note you are using the 64.12.97.6 IP address. Might you perhaps be the same person who vandalized Paul Levesque and Script kiddie? Might you now be trying to generate strife? As for your so-called double standard, the children of a sitting president are more notable than the child of a former vice-president, and there is more material in the Bush article than there ever was in the Gore one. Tualha 00:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete both the Gore III and Bush twins articles. I don't see why it's a big deal, or even newsworthy, that Gore's son was arrested for marijuana, and I don't think we should focus on the misdemeanors of Bush's daughters if we want to attack him, we should focus on his incompetence as President. Mike Church 21:27, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You're thinking too much. The article is not intended as an attack, only a statement of what we know. What you think is newsworthy is your mere opinion. What the media thinks is fact. Due the the media, this individual and the Bush daughters are not obsucre people like the 9/11 victims, and therefore deserve enclyclopedia articles. --Jiang 21:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree with Adam. Muriel Victoria 16:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Mcarling 18:01, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I also agree with Adam BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:17, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. AG3 is, for better or worse, a well-known person. His activities (and the Bush daghters', and Chelsea's) are noteworthy. This is an encyclopedia of facts and events. Let's record them. Ensiform

December 21, subsection 3

  • Illuminus. More Illuminati personal views. RickK 05:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Rubbish Adam 06:13, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -mhr 06:55, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Note that New World Order has related changes that should be rewritten or reverted - don't know enough about it myself to tell if there's anything that should stay. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)]
    • Delete. Peace Profound. Optim 19:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Order of Melek Taus. Nonsense. RickK 06:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • More rubbish Adam 06:13, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete --ilya 07:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I am not aware of any "Order of Melek Taus", but even if it was existant, the article is garbage. Optim 10:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. "Melek Taus" is not nonsense, see Yazidi. But this article is bull. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the yazidi wikilinky. Optim 19:04, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Probably someone's invented occult philosophy or based on obscure fictional story. Exterminate. - Skysmith 19:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • U.S. presidential election, 2008. There is no useful information here, save the date of the election. john 07:05, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. In a couple of years this will be filled with enough info. --ilya 07:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, but in a couple of years we can create a new article. The current article is useless, and cannot be improved for a couple of years. john 07:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The next opportunity to add substantial content will be when the winner of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary is known -- probably either 3 Feb 2004 or 2 March 2004. The next opportunity after that will be when the winner of the presidential general election is known -- almost certainly early November 2004. Mcarling 10:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • How will knowing the Democratic nominee in 2004 give us any useful information on the election of 2008? I don't think there's any reason to have this article until after November 2004, at earliest. john 09:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Information already in 2008. Peace Profound. Optim
      • No vote. Optim 06:16, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete for now; keep after the 04 elections are over. --Jiang
      • Yes, this sounds right to me. john 09:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep now that it's rewritten. --Jiang
    • Mcarling is being a bit over-enthusiastic - there won't be anything except rumours to report about the 2008 election until after the 2006 congressionals. Adam 09:48, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete until we have worthwhile information to put in. Placeholders are pointless. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Lots of worthwhile information now. Keep. Tualha 23:10, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • With Sept 11, the immediacy of the info got high Google ratings. This shows the earlier in you are, the higher you'll rate. Even if its just a place holder, this site will be indexed by Google, and in 5 years, be given a better PageRank rating. - user:zanimum
      • I don't think we should keep or delete pages on the basis of trying to manipulate Google. Tualha 02:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The page has been substantially improved since being listed. Mcarling 16:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Great! Everybody of you could improve it ten times while we were taling about deletion - so now I - being not American citizen - can understand at least something about elections2008 [see my vote above] ilya
    • Keep. The 2008 election will be shaped by the 2004 primaries and election, eg, a Democratic victory in 04 would make 2008 an incumbency election - a sitting present seeking re-election - that would knock Hillary Clinton out of 2008. A Bush victory would make HC front runner for the Dems in 2008, in contrast. A Bush loss or victory would shape the 2008 Republican platform, on whether it continued Bush's policies or repudiated them, etc. We should be picking up these trends now and educating people as to how today's primary and caucus battles may well shape electoral battles five years from now. This article can be used over five years to build up a strong data-base of info. If we were talking about US presidential election, 2016 there would be no reason to keep. But election 2008 is already being shaped and should so have an article now. FearÉIREANN 21:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Go ahead and add that to the article. Mcarling 22:08, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, there somebody goes making it all good and stuff. I'll withdraw my call for deletion. john 07:38, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fabulous job at fixing this. Davodd 07:30, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)
  • Mijyoka - no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Notify Japanese Embassy and delete. --ilya 07:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Slang or dictionary, and, uh, pretty obscure at that. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Optim 19:04, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hypocoristic. Dictionary definition. Has been moved to Wiktionary via m:transwiki. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Note that it's linked from James and Tanya - do we want articles about personal names? Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Undecided about first names. Do other encyclopedies include them? Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Original studio album. Dictionary definition. Not sure if it's worth moving this to Wiktionary. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Theoretically could be worth an article, except the term is so glaringly self-defining, with so little (as far as I know) nuance it doesn't seem worth it in practice. Ditto the other terms mentioned in the article. -mhr 07:21, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del provided transferred to wiktionary, but only iff other users agree with the wiktionary addition, otherwise keep and expand. Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Paddler. The exact same text exists at Wiktionary. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Fuzheado 08:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • del.Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Testa. Dictionary definition. Has been moved to Wiktionary via m:transwiki. Angela. 07:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Fuzheado 08:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • del Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 21, subsection 4

  • Illuminated, by the same user as Illuminus, is worthless. john 09:52, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete and transfer to wiktionary, but not is its present form (rewrite needed). if no transfer to wiktionary then DELETE. Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Why rewrite and delete? Let the Wiktionarians do it. Tualha 02:50, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 11:40, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Accordion pleat. I can't see this ever being an article. Angela. 11:20, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. No opposition to delete nor keep. Wiktionary maybe? if it is a general term it can be moved there. Optim 12:06, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete provided transferred to wiktionary, but only iff other users agree with the wiktionary addition, otherwise keep for now. Optim
    • Keep for now. Hard to say whether the topic deserves an article. I put it on cleanup, let's see if someone can fill it out. Tualha 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • History of computers. It is currently a redirect to History of computing hardware. I couldn't move the 2nd article to the 1st, so I removed the redirect text in the 1st article, but I still couldn't do the move. "History of computing hardware" is a cumbersome attempt by a mathematician to distinguish the history of computers from the History of computing (the article's former title), which encompasses not only computers but pen and paper as well. His point is valid, but the new title he chose for the article is unnecessarily awkward. --Sewing 17:14, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am thinking whether History of computation is a better title than History of computing. btw There is a Timeline of computing, too. Optim 17:47, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree History of computing is not ideal. But isn't History of computation also awkward? Anyhow, it goes back to Michael Hardy's argument that "computing" (and "computation") is not just about computers but about mathematical techniques that precede computers. I think History of computers is the best option: it is simple and unambiguous. --Sewing 18:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • History of computation still seems nice and more correct to me. Optim 19:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think the term computation is more often (academically) used for the theoretical side of things (algorithms, complexity,etc.), computers seems better for the practical side to me. --Imran 22:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That's right. We can have a Computation article for the academic theoretical history and a Computers article for practical-business computing. how do u think? Optim 00:49, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, who wouldn't be interested in the history of computers? Lirath Q. Pynnor


  • Hector Tamayo - move to 9/11 wiki. Secretlondon 19:05, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes. You always do a good job cleaning wikipedia, congrats. Peace Profound. Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, move to 9/11 wiki. -- Finlay McWalter 02:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Jiang
  • Blender v.6 - rumor and speculation. No blender version exists with this number, and it's unnecessary to have separate articles on different software versions anyhow. -- Wapcaplet 21:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We have separate versions for Microsoft Windows. Is Blender so important to have separate enties for its versions? Dont think so. Optim 22:12, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Blender (program). Anything particular to this version should go there anyway. Tualha 00:41, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. As was said, this exists only as rumor, and it isn't really necessary to have separate articles for different versions of the same software. Metasquares 13:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 22

  • Lazy, just incase nobody noticed. Incredibly poor dictionary definition, with 2 pages linking to it (which I'm changing to point to wiktionary) --Steinsky 02:32, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • VfD added there. Any ideas of rewriting? If no, delete. ilya 02:43, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Nah, I can't be bothered. Delete -- Finlay McWalter 02:45, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Don't think there's enough that can be said about the word to justify an article. Delete. Don't bother moving to Wiktionary, they'd hate us :) Tualha 02:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete
    • Delete. Dictionary defination, and a poor one at that. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:11, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • , Sorry, I can't be bothered to vote. Andy Mabbett 00:03, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • What is a law?: Isn't Law enough? --yacht (Talk) 03:11, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, redundant. delete --Jiang
    • Delete. Jfitts 17:40, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article isn't even close to the mark in any case. But to answer your rhetorical question: No, Law is not enough. That particular article concludes its second paragraph thus: "This article takes an English-speaking point of view and deals with other legal traditions and codes by way of comparison only." No, that is not enough at all... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 21:34, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)


  • Creole from Spanish or Machaco language -- ostensibly English, but I can't understand a word. Has something to do with Spanish dialects. Tuf-Kat 04:42, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • The article is awful but I suggest to keep it. Maybe Spanish Creole would be a better title. Someone MUST perform a rewrite ASAP (well if I have time, I will do it, but I cannot say for sure). Some links from google, I dont know if all of them are relevant but may be useful to somebody who is going to rewrite the article: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Peace Profound. Optim 05:11, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • btw I can understand the main notion of the article. Well I will perform a small rewrite now just to make sure it's proper English, but I dont have time to do research on the web, I will just read and rewrite what the article says in better English. Somebody else plz fix it and make it better. Optim 05:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Great work! I change my vote to keep, and move to Spanish Creole or other more appropriate title. Tuf-Kat
    • Keep it. Although I can not understand papa about the dictionary text in the article, the subject is interesting and I myself, a Spanish speaker all my 31 years of life, did not know this existed in Colombia. But it needs work, perhaps someone who knows about the subject can help? Antonio Falcon Martin
    • Keep and list on cleanup or pages needing attention. Bmills 12:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Spanish Creole. Optim 03:14, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Please have a look at Talk:Spanish Creole and let's take a decision on what to do with this machako thing. Should we add this info in Spanish Creole? Obviously Machako does not need to be a separate article. Optim 04:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Talumena, homemade conlang. No significant Google hits. --Menchi (Talk)â 11:39, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not widely used enough. Angela. 12:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe move the info in a list of constructed languages? Optim 21:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move basic info to Constructed languages and redirect. Rlvaughn 21:59, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like this language has only one frase written in it (see site). If yes, delete. ilya 23:46, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree. Rlvaughn 02:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Tictiger No significant Google hits. --Menchi (Talk)â 11:39, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not a real word. Angela. 12:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Same reason. Bmills 12:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 23

  • Saint Paul Academy and Summit School - what has been decided about schools? Kingturtle 00:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. I dont see any problem with this being in WP. Optim 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Heeds more history of the structures, alumni, etc. Davodd 19:51, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Comoros (old article) -ancient and therefore forever useless. It's a waste of time for anyone ever venturing to that page. --Jiang 01:12, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete in the name of good housekeeping. Bmills 09:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Chomsky not the kind of information what will turn into brilliant prose - should redirect to Noam Chomsky. --Jiang
    • This looks rather similar to the Santorum brouhaha. -- VV 05:45, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. Optim 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Might marginally belong in a slang dictionary. Or not. Bmills 09:20, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Just moved all non-Talk links to Noam Chomsky Seth Ilys 00:17, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 1. Thomas Rank. Appears to be made up. Angela. 04:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • IMDB has nothing about this. Delete. Optim 04:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:16, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 18:01, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Every entry by this anon. User:68.44.158.138 appears to be nonsense. I'd say this is a vandal? - Marshman 18:06, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Posted a request to stop on talk page. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rahma Salie - another September 11 victim. Adam Bishop 06:00, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete/move to the Sept 11 wiki. Bmills 09:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree: Delete/move. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • NialScorva - A 12-hour-old corollary to Godwin's law, posted on Slashdot, with the article title being the Slashdot username of the user who posted it. --Delirium 08:02, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 12:14, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 17:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Make a note in Godwin's Law and delete. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Don't make a note under Godwin's Law, this topic is completely made-up. Maximus Rex 19:56, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need to wait, either, IMHO. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought Godwin's Law was deleted already? Delete them both; just made-up stuff from Usenet discussions - Marshman 01:35, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Aliyah. Dictionary definition. Angela. 11:58, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an important Jewish cultural concept and could merit a much larger article. But I agree it's not up to much in its present form. Anjouli 12:12, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Added an external link. Can become a better article. Maybe I will fix it a bit in the future. Optim 14:15, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Knuckles' Chaotix - Contains no definition, hard to understand. Evil saltine 13:25, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Metasquares 13:48, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be deleted without listing IMHO. Just rambling - Marshman 17:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Something to do with Sonic the Hedgehog? Don't care. Delete. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Hasn't this exact same article been deleted before? Delete again. Salsa Shark 21:11, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like notes on some video game. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It is in fact notes on Sonic the Hedgehog and a group of characters within it. They're not particularly notable characters, so there's no point in them having an article to themselves. Delete. PMC 07:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hello programming language - personal promotion. No Google hits -- Tarquin 16:06, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete ad. See also the very related Lambda programming language. Bmills 16:08, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • (At first glance) Lambda can at least be used to write more than one program. Keep it. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Self-promotion. Actually a good example of Esoteric programming language but an inappropriate article. - Texture 18:28, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. If that language only has one operator, what use would anyone have for it in the real world? - Denelson83 19:15, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Esoteric languages are one thing, but this is pathetic. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The above comments leave me to believe that you did not see the joke in the article. I think it was hilarious. I also think it should be deleted. But it is a fine candidate for "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". Jwrosenzweig 23:56, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think HQ9+ is superiour to the alleged Hello programming language, anyway. Κσυπ Cyp   00:04, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bibliography of Richard Vallance's Sonnet - The absolute most pathetic thing I've ever seen. - user:zanimum
    • That strikes me as Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. As such, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Raul654 19:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wacky. Delete. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Half of it's in a foreign language, too. Delete it. Mike Church 21:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. FYI: Tried some ISBN codes and most of them work (i.e. they are real books). The French part is translation of the English paragraph. The line "© by Richard Vallance, July 25, 2003" is contained at the end of the... "article". Optim 23:01, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No one ever said this wasn't real, Optim. It's just redundant to have a bibliography to work, and work, especially this Sonnet thing. If we has an article on Richard Vallance or on Sonnet, it might be of use, but with neither, it seems silly. Couldn't people just go to a bookstore or library to see the bibliography? - user:zanimum

December 24

  • Deloping. Source text. RickK 02:35, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added VfD to article. (Where did the VfD tag and notes at the top of this page go? It was handy and a reminder to newbies. Somebody restore pls?) Anjouli 04:00, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • They were deleted 18 Dec by MyRedDice, along with my request to use them, with the comment "(remove instructions again - KISS)". No one seemed to mind (and/or notice) at the time so I didn't bring it up. People did seem to put the notices up more for a while. Tualha 05:15, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The original text above "the text of the code" is fine - also larger and better than some things we have voted to keep. Might be better to link to the text of the code as an external link [13] (NB a later, slightly different version) or move to Wikiquote. User is unregistered, but apparently has a few useful contributions. Don't bite the newbies. Anjouli 04:13, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Lipan Apache: 2 or 3 speakers, (1981 R.W. Young). Whether or not this article deserves to be kept, it certainly doesn't deserve to be kept under this title. RickK 03:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added VfD tag. (Title suggests this may also be copyvio.) Anjouli 04:24, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not sure how this poorly written statement could be copyrighted; but the title is wrong. Move to Lipan Apache to discuss its merits there. Is it a "real" language? - Marshman 04:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rectitude. Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:14, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 04:19, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (Added VfD tag to article)
  • Elon Peace Plan. The article is nothing more than an advertisement for a program of ethnic cleansing by someone at the far right of Israeli politics. It used to be a modest and reasonably nonpartisan report on this (quite unimportant) "plan", but a fanatic has taken it over and deleted everything that is not straight out of the plan's propaganda blurb. I tried to prevent this, to no avail. We should not allow Wikipedia to be used for political activism in such a blatant fashion. --Zero 04:51, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Deletion is not the solution to an edit war. Would some sysop please revert and protect the page while this is sorted out? Tualha 05:08, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Some NPOV editing would be good. Especially about "Population transfer was used successfully between the Greeks and the Turks in Thrace". It should be changed to something like "according to...". Optim 06:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • That's some pretty crazy shit. It's basically implying that the Armenian genocide, Pontian genocide, and related "population transfers" by the Turks were something that should be emulated. Wow. --Delirium 07:19, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, put into NPOV and protect once its properly edited. PMC 07:43, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The page describes a serious attempt to solve the core issues of the conflict. NPOV editting should be performed as needed. Please note the current form of the page, with exerpts from the plan document, was done in response to Zero0000 claim that the page did not reflect the content of the plan. OneVoice 11:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • See what I mean? OneVoice is editing this page so as to promote this "plan". He admits it! Can someone please explain to him what Wikipedia is about? --Zero 12:01, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to pages needing attention. -- Finlay McWalter 12:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and fix. --Raul654 04:09, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Things that open the door to Demonic Oppression. Ideosyncractic rant. RickK 07:04, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Davodd 07:09, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, pointless and excessively POV. PMC 07:41, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, unless it's copyvio. Jesus Saves! 10:14, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unrepairably POV. Delete. Salsa Shark 10:16, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Utter tosh. Delete. (Note also Christian demonology and sub- pages thereof.) Andy Mabbett 10:19, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Pathetic. Delete. Pfortuny 11:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bollocks. -- Finlay McWalter 12:08, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What an interesting article. I find these things quite fun to read actually. It's utter tripe, of course so delete without reservation... I would also suggest Modern Deliverance for deletion. -- Francs2000 15:16, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • These are part of a long series under Christian demonology, with some better written (less POV) than others. Seems like we are going to need to decide where to draw a line, since some should probably be kept or merged - Marshman 01:31, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There are some strange people out there... Tualha 15:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Also Power of the demons. -- Tarquin 18:00, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Somebody maybe can fix the crap and make it encyclopedic by providing references (if they exist) and performing NPOV editing. Only some parts need to be deleted. These articles belong to the canon of human knowledge, in this case your christian religion, just to the most extreme versions of it. In case you are questioning, I am neither christian nor religious. I see no point in deleting something that can be fixed. Maybe sometimes deleting is just the easy solution. But my formal vote is neutral, so feel free to do whatever you like with this terrible crap, i dont care. Optim 18:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV mumbo-jumbo that cannot be fixed - Marshman 01:24, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Patricia Churchland. Misformatted, nonsensical rambling that bears no recognizable relation to the name of the page. --Naddy 15:06, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Mount Sinai (disambiguation) - Currently a redirect page to Mount Sinai, Egypt. Nothing links to it. To quote someone or other, "Delete in the name of good housekeeping." -Anthropos 17:30, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it can be deleted if it is unused. Question: what is the problem with unused redirect pages? I need to know. Optim 18:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. To answer Optim, commonly, redirect pages won't have anything link to them. That's because they're there for the search engine (and potentially for links in from outside pages), not for linking within the wiki. WP has an explicit policy about this; see Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect?. We should IMO avoid going on a Jihad to delete redirects unless there's real evidence that they're never used. As the saying goes, "It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -mhr 18:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much for the immediate reply. I tend to create some redirects for my articles, so I was afraid whether I was doing something wrong! For example for AKS primality test I create redirects such as AKS algorithm, or for Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis I create AMORC or AAORRAC (alternative names). I often try to eliminate links to redirects by changing them to link to the real article, I think this is also good for WP. I hope I do the right thing. Optim 19:10, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • the problem I see is that this page states it's a disambiguation page in the title, when it really is a redirect. There should be a Mount Sinai disambig page, as I can think of more than one, i.e. the mountain on the Sinai penunsulia, a prominent hospital in the U.S. Gentgeen 19:15, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Now it's a small disambig page with three articles it points to. Gentgeen 06:51, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Useless page -- Redir to Mount Sinai Davodd 07:36, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...and thus we come full circle! :-}
I don't have any emotional attachment to deleting (or keeping) the page -- I'll quickly bow to the prevailing thinking. However, shouldn't this type of disambiguation page be used for "primary topic" disambiguation, and thus, should it not be linked from the primary topic? See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types_of_disambiguation. I don't see the point of having this page if we're also going to have disambiguation done at the Mount Sinai page (which is currently a disambiguation page). -Anthropos 08:03, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Get off my phone Somewhat approximating a dictionary definition, tiny, and not going to get any bigger. moink 18:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. Who can verify this info? Optim 19:07, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Seems legit but apparently not used outside of Glenn Beck's radio show. TMC1221 19:23, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary and delete. I have worked in broadcasting for years - it is real [14] -- but this is a dictionary definition of regional industry lingo at best - not worthy of an entry here. Davodd 19:24, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Davodd, Wikitionary and delete. PMC 19:49, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete after move to Wiktionary - Marshman 01:21, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Optim 07:02, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ray Gardener was created by an ip with a history of vandalism. --Jiang 22:52, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Seems to be an advert Archivist 22:58, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 01:17, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 25

December 26

  • Iraqi Information Minister - not an article, doubt if it'll ever become one. --Jiang 20:29, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Someone could find info on what the job description is, etc. Questions of whether the minister dealt in "information" or "propaganda" could also be explained. moink 20:37, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to cleanup. Potentially an interesting article, but certainly not one now. If cleanup fails, then deletion is appropriate. -- Finlay McWalter 20:40, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2042399"