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 Eloquence (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 31 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{SUBST:vfd}} at the top of the page adds one automatically.)

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

  • Richard Feynman Quotes--> Wikiquote --Jiang 08:20, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Right. Tualha 13:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Notice added. Tualha 14:51, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I would add Richard Feynman on UFOs too. I'm not sure how useful it is though. --Minesweeper 08:36, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Could move to wikiquote, if it's short enough for fair use. Tualha 13:53, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I would say move it to Wikiquote. - Mark 06:43, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not for source texts, and since the commentary seems to be nonsense, that would be all that remains. The objection raised by Anjouli needs to be addressed by those voting to keep. Maximus Rex 06:15, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Can it be moved to Wikisource, or somewhere it will be more at home? - Mark 06:47, 30 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)
    • Delete. This is not really worthy of being an article. Don't redirect it to Theater terms unless that is the only common context in which this is used. - Mark 06:47, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)


December 21

  • 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)
    • Delete. Davodd 07:24, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need to move to Wiktionary: an original studio album is simply an album that is both original and from a studio, much as a large white boat is a boat that is both large and white. --Delirium 07:31, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even worthy of a Wiktionary article, really. It might have been okay if it had more quality information or history, but it does not. - Mark 06:58, 30 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)
    • move to wiktionary and Delete. Davodd 07:24, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is as self-explanatory as original studio album above. It is a pleat that is like an accordion. It's not worthy of an article unless it holds more significance than is in the article now. - Mark 06:58, 30 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
    • Move to History of computers. Mathematics is as much a part of the history of computers as it is the history of their hardware. - Mark 06:58, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • 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
    • Move to the 11 September wiki. - Mark 06:58, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 22

  • 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)
    • Keep. If this is ever finished - it will be fascinating. Davodd 07:26, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

December 23

  • 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)
    • If an article is proposed for deletion here, a reason should be provided. Proposals for deletion without accompanying reasons should not, I think, be considered valid. (The way the subject happened to die is not a reason.) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 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)
    • Should be just a redirect to Zionism. --Zero 05:38, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      Update: Given Danny's improvements, vote to keep. --Zero 06:52, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Just lost five paragraphs due to an edit conflict. I wanted to describe the first few aliyot (1882-1939), and how they impacted the development of the Jewish community in Israel/Palestine. Too late to rewrite them. I will do it tomorrow. Vote to Keep. Danny 06:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's much improved. Anjouli 20:39, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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)
        • Yes, I agree. Not everyone here has memorized the tags or knows easily where to find them. Anjouli 17:36, 27 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)
    • Keep. Public domain and encyclopedic material. - Texture 16:22, 30 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)
  • 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

  • Léon Goossens- Leon Goosens- English Oboist only content. Antonio Lil Mis Thang Martin
    • It's brand new... give it a few days to see if it develops. moink 04:04, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Is that better now? Secretlondon 23:12, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • Not really...keep though, see if it grows any more. PMC 06:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Nicole Miller - Should go to 9/11 wiki. Gentgeen 06:51, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Agreed, delete and move. --Jiang
    • Yes, move and delete. PMC 20:35, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • If an article is proposed for deletion here, a reason should be provided. Proposals for deletion without accompanying reasons should not, I think, be considered valid. (The way the subject happened to die is not a reason.) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (moving to 9-11 wiki first). Reason: person has done nothing notable except die. Maximus Rex 06:48, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've moved it to the sep 11 wiki [15]. Maximus Rex 06:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 26

  • Bambuco - listing this for several reasons. (1) It's empty. People shouldn't be offered links to an English article that doesn't exist. (2) We've deleted this some time ago already, and back then it contained a machine translation of a Spanish text. (3) Apart from Interlingua, all of the inter-language links are useless. It contains a nonsensical machine translation of that same text on the German, Galician, French and Dutch Wikipedias. The Italian link leads to an equally empty page. -- Timwi 23:04, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article is an hour old - give the contributor a few days to do something meaningful with it. The subject gets sufficient google hits to suggest that it may well become an interesting article. -- Finlay McWalter 23:09, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It's an hour old now, but since it's going to be listed here for a few days, they have enough time anyway. :-p -- Timwi 23:11, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I deleted it before I discovered this listing. If the other language articles are garbage too, then there's no need linking to them. I was not the first to delete this on the same day. --Jiang 23:37, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • At Talk:Spanish Creole I have posted some info about this thing. Bambuco is traditional music from colombia and somebody who doesn't speak English posted this on en, fr and other wikipedias in the past. He/She was posting automated translations from his/her spanish articles in the spanish wikipedia. It was then deleted from en. on fr other users took care of the article and turned it into a useful and informative encyclopedic brilliant post. Somebody must write about this on en, sometime. See French Bambuco Article too. Optim 01:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Made an initial stub. Davodd 08:00, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

December 27

  • Honor Elizabeth Wainio -> Wiki 911. --Menchi (Talk)â 00:05, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, move and delete. --Jiang
    • I second that. PMC 06:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • If an article is proposed for deletion here, a reason should be provided. Proposals for deletion without accompanying reasons should not, I think, be considered valid. (The way the subject happened to die is not a reason.) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (moving to 9-11 wiki first). Reason: person has done nothing notable except die. Maximus Rex 06:55, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've moved it to the sep 11 wiki [16]. Maximus Rex 06:58, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Brooklyn NFL: The title makes no sense and follows no conventions. Delete this page. I created individual pages for the particular teams. Kingturtle 05:17, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Demon pages discussion moved to Talk:Christian demonology/deletion.

  • Lourdes Leon Ciccone -- this person has done nothing of note -- Tarquin 13:25, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (non vote) can we come to a consensus on whether or not to keep articles if they're for nothing more than children of famous people? It would save time rather than listing them here individually. Francs2000 17:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Good idea. -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This should at least be a redirect to where the person (who is famous, even if not for actually doing anything) is talked about, so keep. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Lee Xiang - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • If an article is proposed for deletion here, a reason should be provided. Proposals for deletion without accompanying reasons should not, I think, be considered valid. (The way the subject happened to die is not a reason.) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (moving to 9-11 wiki first). Reason: person has done nothing notable except die. Maximus Rex 07:03, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • New Age Ancient Near East Chronology -- The body of the article is unrelated to the title and the rest is demeaning in Kenneth Kitchen-ite style thus neither is is NPOV. Any useful relevant info can be moved to relevant pagest such as Sea Peoples and Phoenicians while the rest is already said in a much more objective & detailed manner on the David Rohl page. Zestauferov 08:29, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Neil Dollard - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:05, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • If an article is proposed for deletion here, a reason should be provided. Proposals for deletion without accompanying reasons should not, I think, be considered valid. (The way the subject happened to die is not a reason.) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (moving to 9-11 wiki first). Reason: person has done nothing notable except die. Maximus Rex 07:03, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Joseph Vilardo - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As above. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (moving to 9-11 wiki first). Reason: person has done nothing notable except die. Maximus Rex 07:03, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Thomas Damaskinos - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As above. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (moving to 9-11 wiki first). Reason: person has done nothing notable except die. Maximus Rex 07:03, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Nicholas C. Lassman - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Why not just move all of the above to 911 Wiki with link via September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/City_of_New_York_casualties, or other suitable cat? I see no reason why you should not just do that. IMHO, should not need a vote. Anjouli 17:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote to move all to 911 and delete here. There are many good reasons 911 victims should be there not here. Most important - the 911 wiki doesn't have to be NPOV (so if some 911 victim was a deadbeat dad or convictions for coke dealing then the 911 wiki doesn't have to mention that, but a full encyclopedia entry would). Moving these folks' entries to their proper place saves them the Mother Teresa treatment. -- Finlay McWalter 17:59, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • There are many good reasons why the victims should be here. Most important - the Wikipedia has to be NPOV, so if some victim was a deadbeat dad or had convictions for coke dealing then we could mention it. That way we learn more about them! -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Note: when these articles are deleted, please remove the links to them, also. If its not ok to have an article about someone, it shouldn't be ok to have a red link to them, either. Morwen 18:01, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
      • Since they've been listed before, they can be immediately deleted. --Jiang 18:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree. Why are they here at all? I thought we had agreed that these pages were to be removed on sight. FearÉIREANN 20:44, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, people seem to accept that. Anjouli 18:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • Of course they don't. Obviously the existence of one specific fact about someone (e.g. that they died in a terrorist attack) cannot in itself be grounds for the deletion of an article. If it were, then we would have to delete articles on even the most famous people, if they were to suddenly die in a terrorist attack. Of course you don't want that to happen. You want articles to be judged on their individual merits, right? That's why we need to list aarticles separately, and not have a general policy to delete articles on people who have died in a terrorist attack. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Other than this page, User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects2 and Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles, nothing seems to list to the sample I've just checked. Andy Mabbett 18:37, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • If we take the last one, for example, it turns out that the casualties list above had a red link to his full name, Nicholas Craig Lassman. Ouch. Morwen 18:45, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
          • The whole casualties list should be dewikified. --Jiang
    • See my comments on other victims above. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Etrécissements This appears to be yet another in a long line of previously posted (and subsequently deleted) painting techniques known only to a couple of obscure painters. Anjouli 19:20, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I wasn't around for the previous argument, but I say keep. Not much yet but I think it could grow. moink 20:08, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Only three Google hits. Two from Genovese personal page on Freewebs and one clone of a Wiki article. I don't think the term exists. Anjouli 20:23, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Jackboot This looks like a dictionary entry. 66.44.102.237 19:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary, delete. moink 20:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • No, that belongs in Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. --Jiang 20:44, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I disagree. A job description and its evolution is different from a particular person who did the job at one point. moink 22:12, 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)
      • Actually, listing on vfd and threatening to delete it is more effective than listing it on cleanup. We'll see how this goes after a couple days.
    • Keep. Optim 01:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but convert to a redirect. Anjouli 17:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm sure this will start an argument, but I've moved this from Dec 26 to Dec 27 since the article only got a VfD tag on that day. It's not fair to count days when the author may have been unaware the article was listed here. Anjouli 19:57, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • no argument here. moink 20:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You did the right thing. I've been sorely tempted to remove from VfD listings which don't have the boilerplate. -- Finlay McWalter 20:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • People would complain - but it might wake them up to the importance of VfD tags. Anjouli 20:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The plan is to move all the recipes to the Wikibook cookbook. I already moved the Vegan recipes and pruned the list here considerably. The problem is that we can't move the page histories yet. Still, I vote to move them to Wikibooks and delete here. Danny 21:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • And on that topic how do we feel about the majority of the articles on the howto page? Isn't there a wikibook for these kinds of things? Is this encyclopedic? moink 20:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (no vote) might I suggest deferring them until the recipe monster (and the numbers monster) is slain?
    • IMO, some definitely are encyclopedic and some maybe are not (and some I have not yet looked at). I vote to deal with them case by case rather than attempting to decide on them as a class. Rossami 22:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep unless every recipe in the Wikipedia is removed, which I don't think should be done. They're needed for the Cuisine of Albania article. Dori | Talk 00:59, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
      • The idea is not to delete the recipes but to move them to Wikibooks. The article on Albanian cuisine can link to there. All the other recipes will also be moved. Danny 01:02, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I don't see any of the other recipes being listed for deletion. Unless they're all deleted, I see this as discriminatory and not as policy. I think a vote on all the recipes is needed, and they all need to be listed for deletion together. Dori | Talk 01:09, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
          • I pruned the list of recipes a few days ago, taking out all the empty links. If you look at December 23, you will see that I began moving recipes as well. I started at the bottom with the Vegan recipes. Someone else started at the top with the Albanian recipes. Eventually, they will all be moved. We are just doing it a bit at a time. Danny 01:12, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Most of the numbers listed on List of numbers (not the list itself). Before you scream bloody murder, take a look at the actual information content. Most of these are trivia, such as "one hundred one appears in the movie 101 Dalmatians", and the little information that is there is already duplicated elsewhere (atomic numbers) or should be (factorisation table). These "articles" tend to become completely unencyclopedic free-for-alls where everyone can add every occurance of a number that is somehow verifiable and true. The ones we should keep are those that contain actual history or other useful information, such as zero. But "this is a prime number" (make a list of prime numbers instead) or "this number appears in movie XYZ" is not useful information.—Eloquence
    • Keep, but edit to remove the trivia (possibly after a full discssion of what does and does not constitute "trivia"). Besides which, any proposal to remove "most" of a set of pages cannot be decisive, since no definition of "most" is included. Andy Mabbett 20:57, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've provided a definition. If I list all individual number pages we'll be arguing about them for months. This is a case where it's orders of magnitude more efficient to pick a trusted sysop and let them wade through the crap and delete everything that's not worth keeping and merge everything that is, then go through a round of Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion if that's necessary. I think you agree that much of the information here is useless. So let's do this quick and painlessly. In order to keep the process open, the sysop in question could blank all the pages he wants to delete and do so a couple of days later, so that everyone can check the history first.—Eloquence
        • Much of the trivia isn't bad in itself. And in the case of 101, it provides natural disambiguation for US Highway 101. Several numbers will be important because of religious significance - 3,7,40,666 for Christianity -I couldn't say what numbers for other religions. How would your "chosen sysop" decide? What does it hurt to leave them? Rmhermen 21:13, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
          • I doubt anyone looking for Highway 101 would enter "one hundred one" into the search box. In any case, disambiguation is an altogether different topic -- some of these number pages might become disambiguation pages (although in this specific case I think a short disambig notice on 101 would be more helpful). As for "what's the harm", what's the harm of having articles about my old buddies from high school in Wikipedia? What's the harm of adding dictionary entries? Poetry? It does not serve our purpose as an encyclopedia and in fact harms our reputation and usefulness. See Wikipedia is not.—Eloquence
        • You've mentioned The ones we should keep are those that contain actual history or other useful information,; but that's no definition, Unlessyou;d now like to define actual history and useful information. "Must" is your word; not mine. Andy Mabbett 21:27, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • This is a vague common sense recommendation for a sysop who would actually do the job of determining what is useful or what is not for each individual case. In fact it doesn't even need to be done by a sysop, we could all do it collaboratively and blank all pages that are to be deleted.—Eloquence
            • Or we could do it collaboratively by making a new page and inviting people to discuss it there and hopefully come to a consensus. As I'm sure you know, there would be a lot of disagreement about what to delete and what to keep. Giving more decision-making power to one sysop than to anyone else is completely contrary to the wiki philosophy. Your suggestion of blanking the pages first is hardly a meaningful concession to the wiki way: you're sugesting doing the deletions "a couple of days later", giving people little chance to protest before the deletions are done, and pretty much ensuring an angry backlash on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Five days is the bare minimum for discussing even single articles that are listed on Vfd; for a whole bunch of them, the time should be lengthened, if anything, not shortened. Even if the discussion time is lengthened to a something more reasonable, forcing people to go through the edit histories of blanked articles to see what content is being discarded would just make life difficult for them. Of course, any sysop - or any other Wikipedian, for that matter - can go through the number articles and decide what ones they want to go. But instead of blanking the ones they've selected, they could just list them on a single page for all to see. Disputing the list would then require editing only one single page, instead of going through a whole bunch of pages and blanking or unblanking them. If you think that "we'll be arguing about them for months", that should be enough to tell you why your idea is a bad one. Trying to force the deletions through by unconventional means won't make the arguments go away; it will only exacerbate them. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
              • I will proceed as described. Most of the pages in question have no meaningful content whatsoever.—Eloquence
                • I would like the chance to judge that for myself, and to allow others to have that chance, too. To save myself and others the bother of having to hunt through the page histories to see the content, I will revert your blankings. -- Oliver P. 06:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                  • You have not suggested a practical alternative, so your reverts are unacceptable. Checking the histories doesn't take more time than reverting my edits.—Eloquence
                  • Well, I thought that reverting your edits would only need to be done once. Checking the histories of blank articles would have to be done several times: once for each interested observer. And I have suggested a far more practical method than blanking pages. Namely to list those pages you don't like on a single page. That way, people can see at a glance what pages are being discussed. My reversions were perefectly acceptable, being merely to re-establish the state of the pages before this dispute started. Your reversions back again are nothing less than edit warring, and therefore a serious breach of Wikiquette. I will not repeat my reversions, since I have no wish to get involved in an edit war, but I would ask any uninvolved sysop reading this to revert back and protect the pages as a more civilised alternative. -- Oliver P. 07:07, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                    • Sigh. There's almost nothing worth salvaging on these pages. All this does is prolong the inevitable. I would appreciate it if you would trust me a little more.—Eloquence
  • You might want to edit the numbers one through ten, or develop a WikiProject to make it clearer if you'd delete everything past polygon at Eight (current version or not. -- User:Docu
  • Keep all which aren't (as good as) empty when time is up on this nomination. Onebyone 03:27, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some are usefull articles already; many others are stubs with potential for further development. -- Infrogmation 18:44, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • To be counted as a "stub" there must be some non-trivial information. "120 is the number after 119 and before 121" is not useful, nor are basic mathematical properties such as "is a prime number" (just wait until someone creates a Primebot, that will boost our article count) or "occurs in the movie title XYZ". I've started with the blanking of non-useful articles, but I won't accept any ultimatums. Any help would be appreciated.—Eloquence
  • Why not just merge the articles on numbers greater than 99 into pages on blocks of ten integers each, like an article called Numbers from 100 to 109? Denelson83 06:52, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Artillery Officer Candidate School Content is a comment about the Tommy Franks article and should properly have been entered at Talk:Tommy Franks, to where I have now copied it. Can anything be made of the article? Anjouli 21:05, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article at that name can not be saved. Any relevant article belongs either at [[Fort Sill]] or [[US Army Artillery School]] which includes the Artillery Officer Basic Course, Artillery Officer Advanced Course, Artilleryman Advanced Individual Training, Artillery NCO Training and any number of artillery-specific technical courses. The informal name is the "Redleg Schoolhouse". Note that none of courses are titled "Candidate School". Rossami 21:56, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have now deleted the comment text from that page as I could see no sense in keeping it there when there was a copy of it in the correct place. Since the page is now empty, I think it is a candidate for immediate deletion under the "no meaningful content" rule. Anjouli 04:15, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 'Celt'. Merge with Celt? Anjouli 21:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, merge and delete. PMC 22:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge content; making into redirect would be okay. -- Infrogmation 18:44, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect. See the deletion policy. "Merge and delete" is not an option, because using other people's work and then deleting its attribution to them is an infringement of their copyright. Even if it weren't illegal, it would still be bad practice. Merging and redirecting preserves all information, is undoable by any other Wikipedian if necessary, and - best of all - does not require discussion on this page. :) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Zone (japanese group) - can't find any evidence of their existence or encyclopedic worth. Tuf-Kat 02:48, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • There's an external link on the page which proves their existence (unless Sony music are lying to us all). Delete, no indication in the article of encyclopedic worth... Onebyone 04:01, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 30

  • USA for Africa. Very bad prose. Either needs massive copy-editing, or deletion. -- Khym Chanur 03:53, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a copy vio [17]. But leave it for a few minutes and I'll work on it. Anjouli
    • How does it look now? I've turned it into a stub. (Should USA for Africa have a credit/link under Live Aid? Not sure if that was under the USAforA banner or not, and have no time to look it up at the moment. Anjouli 04:39, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Danish nation. Other than a couple of political rant home pages, I can find no trace of this concept or terminology anywhere - except on Wiki clone pages. Elsewhere, "Danish nation" is simply used to mean "Denmark". Anjouli


  • M.R.M. Parrott - personal promo -- Tarquin 20:56, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • not a valid reason, even if true (all authors entries are promos)
    • a valid reason: a page about an (mostly unkown) author by the author isn'ät exactly an encyclopedic entry. Should be deleted or reduced to a more NPOV page till we *) 21:52, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
      • don't see that reason in the guidelines.
      • maybe you could offer some NPOV suggestions or just edit it yourself? while you're at it, you could dial back the insults on the Talk:M.R.M._Parrott page.
    • Keep, as long as that Barnes and Nobles part is deleted, cause THAT does look like he wants people to go buy his books at my favorite, by the way, book store! Antonio Sleeping Beauty Martin
      • done, thanks for the suggestion. didn't see it that way before...
    • Delete. Self-promotion (and it doesn't even have to be promotion) itself is frowned upon in the guidelines. —Sverdrup(talk) 04:07, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • didn't see that in the guidelines in so many words, and it is not self-promotion. it is an entry about a writer who exists in the history of ideas - you know, the sort of thing encyclopedias are all about...
    • Keep! Author has 10 published books and seems well-respected. If it had been written by a disinterested third-party rather than the author, would you feel it was POV? Well, perhaps it is slightly POV. I would say this article was a candidate for reworking rather than deletion. Anjouli 04:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • any suggestions for edits from POV to NPOV?
  • Donald A. Peterson
    • Undeleted by me because it wasn't properly listed the first time round. (See here.) No reason for deletion that I can see. -- Oliver P. 06:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There was a general consensus on this page that Sept 11th victims without otherwise encyclopedic lives should be moved to the Sept 11th wiki and deleted. For fairness we should do it to all of them. Delete both this and the next two listed. And I think from now on they should be candidates for immediate moving and deletion. moink 06:30, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • John J. Wenckus
    • Undeleted by me because it wasn't properly listed the first time round. (See here.) No reason for deletion that I can see. -- Oliver P. 06:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2056214"