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 Ahoerstemeier (talk | contribs) at 08:59, 26 January 2004 (User:Mrj). 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. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, and for every vote, even if you think it is obvious. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls for polls on current deletion issues.

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{msg: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 -- maintaining this page -- wikipedia:inclusion dispute -- Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

January 21

  • Technagenesis - idiosyncratic mumbling. Salsa Shark 04:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI:> 3180 God hits for: technogenesis. Optim 05:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) (?)
    • Delete, it seems to be a non-subject created by joining two unrelated terms. ping 06:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Seems to be a misspelling of technogenesis. (note by Optim: That was User:Spellbot, [1])
    • dictionary.com also does not have this word. DELETE. Optim 14:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Sportsman - dictionary definition. Unless people think there are things to be written about this subject that go beyond a mere definition, move to Wiktionary. -- Vardion 04:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Sportsmanlike? Sportsmanship? All should be in Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 04:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Sport (that way it won't be recreated). Maximus Rex 08:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. SpellBott 13:45, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to sport until someone can think of anything better to put there. (A general comment: That dictionary definitions should be included in Wiktionary goes without saying. The question to be answered here is whether or not a page can used here as well. Just saying "Wiktionary" doesn't help answer that question.) -- Oliver P. 02:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Tri-Cities (Tennessee) - author blanked it, someone say something if they want it kept. Dori | Talk 06:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • No particular desire to keep. But open to discussion. SpellBott 13:45, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The author has the ethical right to ask us to delete the article if this is his/her desire. Delete. Optim 05:04, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • The author has the ethical right to ask us for the moon! But we have the ethical and legal right to keep it on, as a matter of arbitrary policy if we find that policy convenient. For non-arbitrary (and IMO ethical) policy reasons having in part to do with their desire to hide something they said they wanted our help publicizing, we should, whenever submitter requests deletion and copyvio is not an issue:
        • Keep a permanent copy off-line
        • Delete from server only if a cogent and plausible reason is given
        • Refuse deletion from server and investigate further, despite such reasons, if a non-far-fetched scenario suggests potential harm from deletion
    • Keep, to avoid impression of a precedent for easy retraction --Jerzy 05:27, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • I personally think that this should be deleted in any case, or at least de-stubbified. Ilyanep 22:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No-one has suggested a reason for deletion, so keep. Perhaps when someone has thought of a reason why the content shouldn't be here, it can be listed again. -- Oliver P. 02:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Concepts and Goals of Constitution - it was blanked for being POV. Dori | Talk 06:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It looks like something that is being worked over. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for above reason. SpellBott 13:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The title is very ill-named (way too general) and ill-formatted; the content does not conform to Wikipedia format (by a large extent) and is non-encyclopedic, orphaned, written by an (apparent) non-expert and POV -- it appears to be one person's uncontrolled rant for a contemporary issue. Enough reason for deletion. The creator also created Council of Europe voting weights; I tried to rescue these 2 pages but it is so utterly horrible and useless that I gave up. I will list the latter for deletion as well. --Kaihsu Tai 20:46, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wrong title, and the article is like a jotted list of notes someone took from a lecture. Tempshill 19:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Celebration - POV student ramble. Davodd 09:21, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. So poorly written it set my teeth on edge, so I blanked. Bmills 12:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 13:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dpbsmith 00:14, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) P. S. A longer article on the rather controversial town of Celebration, Florida would be interesting... how is this modern capitalist version of the Utopian community doing?
  • Eyebrow makeovers - HUH? Davodd 09:23, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. How-to. Bmills 12:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Why is how-to a reason for deletion when it is listed as a category scheme on the main page? Adding info on history or cultural significance might make it worthwhile. 198.234.210.2 15:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks? Secretlondon 13:27, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete for above reasons. SpellBott 13:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh please delete! Tompagenet 18:14, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. mv wikibooks OR copyedit (topic valid) JDR
    • It's another one of User:Craigbutz's student projects. Let's be _nice_ to them. Secretlondon 22:26, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can't they all be moved into Craigbutz's user space as subpages? Once his/her students are finished they can be moved back into the wiki-proper and then, if necessary, mercilessly copy edited and/or deleted. I would already have redone one or two of them if it wasn't for the fact I know this is an ongoing school project. There's certainly room in an encyclopedia for the history of cosmetics over the millenia! This probably wont be the only time there's a school project on here, perhaps we should work out a procedure to deal with them? Fabiform 23:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: the page has only been around about 10 days. I think we have a tendancy to delete pages too soon. Especially as it's a student's project we should cut them a little slack. However, these are being created by the students in the main public space of Wikipedia, so while "a little slack" means we should let the page stay, I think it still allows us to start editing the page immediately. If Craigbutz wanted the pages to be untouched by others then he would've put them in his own subpages. --zandperl 01:20, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The Giaour - text of Byron's epic poem. Move to Wikibooks? Lupo 12:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikibooks. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Moved. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Javier Ortega - not famous? Secretlondon 13:01, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • probably not famous. 4000 Google hits for "Javier Ortega" but not for the newswriter. 0 Google hits for "+"Javier Ortega", +newswriter". Few for "+"Javier Ortega", +Spain". can't find him/her. Optim 13:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • He's not english speaking, so he's not called a "newswriter." Try Corresponsal and you'll get at least 109 hits. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 22:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: not famous. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Timon and Pumbaa's Virtual Safari - seems to be a transcript from a DVD. Secretlondon 14:31, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Please. Spare us. [Sorry, getting carried away] IMSoP 15:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • a definite one to axe Tompagenet 17:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Hello! I don't know how to make a regular webpage! this is the only place I can put my text! By the way, me and my friends like it! wait! put it on my user page! there! resolved! Jack Zhang, Editor
    • OK, that was a good move. But the redirect shoud still be deleted. DJ Clayworth 20:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • FX Network - advertisement. Lupo 16:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. It's famous. It belongs here. →Raul654 16:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • The pages as it currently stands is just an advert. It should be deleted so someone who in the future does want to create a page on it will see that it currently doesn't exist and start a fresh article Tompagenet 17:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Too late. Keep. I think I fixed it for now, couldn't wait. Davodd 19:24, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • Agreed - I was wrong, keep new version Tompagenet 15:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Improved version is valid - Texture 20:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • GammaForce This is silly. -- user:zanimum
    • Delete. Vanity page. Rdash 21:28, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does not show how this organization is noteworthy. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Viturally content free, vaintiy page Syntax 02:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Paul_Mockapetris_(journalist) Have never heard about this guy in Spain. In my opinion this is a joke. -- Josep1c 19:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I added the vfd tag to the article. Nothing on google about this guy (I searched for Paul Mockapetris -dns +spain). Secretlondon 19:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • (not voting) Not to be confused with DNS pioneer Paul Mockapetris (engineer). -- Finlay McWalter 19:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 01:13, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This guy may really be noteworthy (chief journalist for a newspaper, for instance, whom User:Josep1c happens to not know about), but if he is, future contributors won't be helped by this prankish text. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Exchanged trash - I don't think this chinese neologism is saveable. Secretlondon 20:00, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Stub as is - I'd like to see this interesting bit of modern chinese culture salvaged. - Texture 20:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not Chinese culture, it is idiosyncratic opinion and false information, as long as it doesn't say who is using or coined this neologism (it seems to me like a political debate between Maoists and modern Reformers). My friend was Chinese, and at my university I know several Chinese students; they certainly don't look like "exchanged trash"! :) I found the article inaccurate. Most Google hits come from sites using WP as their source. This article is offensive to Chinese who study in other countries and it is not NPOV. We don't save any "culture" by keeping this article. Optim 00:47, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Junk. silsor 01:13, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wisp Unification Theory - idiosyncratic, website plug. Salsa Shark 22:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original research. — No-One Jones (talk) 23:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No theory should go unmentioned. Keep. - Arthur George Carrick 00:25, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It should if it is bogus and held by only one individual. Maximus Rex 22:51, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Creator may be wrong but at least he's not a crackhead. No vote. I will NPOV. silsor 01:13, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: self-promotional crankery. Luminiferous ether, "Einstein was wrong", etc., on the webpage. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • He can put whatever he wants on his own web site. As long as the article is NPOV, it's perfectly alright for us to explain this man's theory. Would someone care to download it that we might explain it in detail? We are allowed to use brief quotes and ideas belong to no one. - Arthur George Carrick 03:25, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Of course he (Kevin Harkess) can. However, Wikipedia needn't be his free advertising service. He's already got plenty of that -- newsgroups, web site, message forums. Everything I could find (Usenet, general web search) that mentions "wisp theory" was originated by Harkess. Interestingly there's no mention of wisp theoy at LOC, Amazon, or arXiv.org. Dear gods in heaven, please protect Wikipedia from cranks; Wikipedians might be too nice to defend themselves. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:12, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep another week, to see what silsor et. al. do with it. I couldn't find any references to the theory from reliable sources, so I'd tend to say delete, but one extra week can't hurt. Anthony DiPierro 14:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del [if it is verifiable, makes claims with evidence, and/or "accepted by a limited group" ... keep] ... Nvr heard of it myself - The wiki crackpot
    • Delete. It's some guy's personal theory, nothing more. Maximus Rex 22:51, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, 'Einstein is wrong theories' are all over the place, there's nothing special about this one. -- Ams80 23:22, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 22

  • Canadian flag football - contains no useful information not contained in Flag football; sounds like it was written by an eight-year-old. --Smack 05:17, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If left as is, delete. Utterly unintelligible. - Hephaestos 05:29, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I feel really sorry for these kids. I hope the teenager at the vocational school doesn't read that he writes like an 8 year old. Yes these articles lack thought and planning, but I don't think we should lynch them. Secretlondon 22:58, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I blanked as reading almost made my eyes bleed. Bmills 13:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved to NFL/CFL Flag Football (25,100 google hits vs. 262). Keep. Anthony DiPierro 14:11, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Acapedia - sub-stub about a former Wikipedia mirror. I can't see this ever becoming longer or more useful than it currently is. PMC 06:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless somebody knows something I don't Anjouli 05:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
  • Shemal - seems to be fake. I get nothing on Google from a search of keywords. Third paragraph seems to be a clue: "In the month of Ab a newborn boy child is cooked." Decumanus 08:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Fried Cheese Curds - looks like a joke that was then blanked. Not worth transwiking to wikibooks. Gentgeen 08:15, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Original article: delete. However, fried cheese curds are real. Cheese curds are, in fact, delicious, but must be eaten literally within hours of being made. It's not that they turn bad or anything, but they lose the unique fresh-dairy flavor and texture (the most obvious difference being that they do not make a squeaking noise against the teeth when chewed). After twelve hours (even refrigerated) they're no longer great; after twenty-four, they just taste like boring, stale cheese. Therefore they are little-known outside of Wisconsin (and perhaps other places where they can be had absolutely fresh). I've never had fried cheese curds, but I understand they are popular at carnivals and the like, they sound wonderful and I hope I'll get the chance to try them someday. I don't think I know enough about cheese curds to venture an article about them, but they deserve one. Seriously, if you're ever any place where you have a chance to try them, do. This is NOT a practical joke (like my daughter coming back from Australia with a jar of Vegemite and telling everyone how delicious it was), they're really good. Dpbsmith 00:08, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 23

  • Info-haiku and Wikihaiku - At first I found Info-haiku to be interesting and was looking forward to seeing it filled out. Then it was blanked and moved to Wikihaiku. I foundw zero google hits and suspect that it may be someone's fictitious invention. - Texture 20:33, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete invented forms. I'm about to remove the links created on the Poetry page. Bmills 09:34, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Tarquin 10:27, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not real. Angela. 18:16, Jan 24, 2004 (PST)
  • European Council voting weights, Council of Europe voting weights, Council of the European Union voting weights. Only the last entry is correctly named; the first 2 (orphaned blank) should definitely be deleted. The last one is orphaned, and the content appears to be one non-expert's rant about a contemporary issue rather than an encyclopedic entry. It is not useful in an encyclopedia. I tried to rescue it but decided that it was not worth my time. The issues are already presented in a NPOV and much more informative way in the article Council of the European Union --Kaihsu Tai 20:56, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • I deleted it. I felt it fell under a quick delete. In six hours or so, I will remove this entire entry from this page. Kingturtle 23:10, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Only 1 article was deleted; would you please get rid of the other 2 as well? Thanks. --Kaihsu Tai 18:14, 2004 Jan 23 (UTC)
  • ReclaimDemocracy.org -- user:zanimum
    • Why? Optim 03:19, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. POV stub but that's no reason to delete. Maybe list on cleanup. Andrewa 07:18, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV stub. Tempshill 01:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. If you think it's POV then make it NPOV. Saul Taylor 06:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • You have goaded me to action. Previous delete vote withdrawn as I attempted to un-POV it. I am still doubtful of the merit of a Wikipedia article summarizing the political aims of a political website that has 300 Google hits. Tempshill 21:24, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was POV. I think its pretty darn NPOV, actually. They just make themselves come across as more important than they are, like in the Campaign finance reform article. There's hundreds of activist sites we could cover, why them? Their views should be noted in general, but they themselves don't need to be noted. -- user:zanimum
    • Author of ReclaimDemocracy.org is the same anon as edited it into campaign finance reform. I could see deletion. Meelar 17:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • INFOrm -- Nearly no content apart from a link to a webpage that also contains no content. Also poses ambiguity issues with Inform. Only reachable if capitalized correctly -- i.e., oddly. 1/23/04, 9:28 AM EST. -- Adam Conover.
    • Keep. If we have a list of newspapers, we can merge it. Optim 00:54, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Agree with Optim. (i.e. keep and merge, not keep this page) Anjouli 05:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
      • The link to the external webpage could easily be merged into the list of newsletters on Libertarian socialism, but I believe that the page itself should still be deleted because of ambiguity with Inform. Adam Conover
    • Delete. Content free. Tempshill 01:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I merged the info in Libertarian socialism. The link now does not point to INFOrm but to the external web site. The info copied-pasted from INFOrm. Ambiguity is not a reason for deletion. Ambiguity is a reason for merge or addition of disambiguation messages. I think the merge I performed was right action, but if somebody has objections feel free to revert and explain us why this needs to be a separate article when the info fits very well in Libertarian socialism. Optim 11:13, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • In case you agree INFOrm does not need to be a separate article, it should be kept as a redirect pointing to Libertarian socialism. Of course if this journal is important and somebody adds more info we can turn it into a separate article again. Optim 11:18, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Optim, doesn't the redirect to "libertarian socialism" violate the principle of least astonishment? Also, here are two of the guidelines from Wikipedia:Redirect about when it is appropriate to delete a redirect:
        1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. (see meta:searches and redirects for proposals to lessen this impact)
        2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, "Charles C. Boyer" used to redirect to "Daniel C. Boyer", because Daniel was accidentally called Charles on one external web page. However, this caused confusion with the article on Charles Boyer, so it was deleted.
      • I think that in this case, the redirect at INFOrm causes a similar confusion with the page Inform. Finally, there are now no article pages that link to this article. Thus I still maintain that the redirect should be deleted. If a new article is created, it should probably be called "INFOrm newsletter". Adam Conover 1/24/04 2:19 PM EST
  • Elias Howe - I don't know whether what is claimed about this person is true, but in the present form this should be deleted. --snoyes 17:56, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 24

  • Wikipedia:Lists for deletion currently has only one item (was moved from vfd). It is underused (we just don't have many lists to use) and the cost of checking another page versus the benefit of having one less item on this page is just not worth it. Few people ever check and vote at any other the subpages and the items listed there don't get much input. I don't see the point of keeping this. --Jiang 01:11, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Agree. --Tempshill
    • Delete. Just another place nobody looks at. Anjouli 05:23, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • Delete. -- User:Docu
    • I support the merging of that page back into this one, but I think that redirecting it here would be more sensible than deleting it. People who have missed this discussion will quite likely try to visit the page, and should be directed to the right place. -- Oliver P. 02:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect here, as Oliver P. argues. --Jerzy 05:30, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • How to find a book should be moved to wikibooks. --Jiang 01:49, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Jiang Anjouli 05:23, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • Keep, it's a how-to and it's useful. Here it benefits from wikilinks not available there. Could use some rephrasing. -- User:Docu
      • Not everying useful belongs here (see wikipedia:what wikipedia is not). It can be easily wikilinked using [[en:LINK]] as is already done for many entries there and in other wikis.--Jiang 00:07, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Maybe it should be changed to exclude How-tos as well. Currently, those are part of Wikipedia. Another option would be to consider How-to: as a (pseudeo) namespace for this type of article. BTW interwiki-links aren't quite as efficient as the regular ones. -- User:Docu
      • Most of "What wikipedia is not" was probably written (like the article proposed for deletion) before wikibooks existed. It's perfectly suited for wikibooks, IMO. --Jiang
  • Theory of the Unconscious Guardian smells like personal promotion. The title has no google hits in English and only two (from the same members.fortunecity site) in spanish. --Jiang 02:32, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think we should keep Wilfredo G. Santa in WP, but the number of articles relating to him should be kept in proportion to his importance. This material could go on his main page. Anjouli 05:32, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • I think a merge with Wilfredo G. Santa is OK. How do you think? Optim 10:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • merged. look below. Optim 10:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The Protective Unconcious Theory - yet more Santa spam. Salsa Shark 10:40, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I took the initiative to move the information of Theory of the Unconscious Guardian and [The Protective Unconcious Theory]] into Wilfredo G. Santa. The "theories" pages became redirects but they still have the vfd notice (the redirect will not work until the vfd is removed). Please dont remove the vfd until 7 days pass or we have a consencus on whether to delete them or keep them as redirect or whatever. If somebody has objections to the merge, you can revert and tell us why the theories need separate articles when even the main Santa article is disputed for inclusion. The "theories" articles are included in the Santa article under their own sections. Now we can continue the discussion on whether we should delete the theories completely or keep them in the Santa article or keep them in their own articles or whether all the Santa story should be deleted. Optim 10:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Gaebler Children is probably too obscure. --Jiang
    • No vote. There is a fairly famous (at least in mental-health circles) hospital called Gaebler Children's Center. If the article had that title and some substance to it, I would vote to keep. But it's border-line. Anjouli 05:27, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • Keep. Optim 05:48, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Uncertain. A minimal but adequate stub. But is it really a valid topic, or is it an obscure institution that is part of the alleged Santa spam? Andrewa 15:25, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is about Santa, I suppose it's not famous. Just checked better on google and seems that it was closed in 1992. I didn't find much info. probably it will never grown in a full article so I vote to delete the article or make it a redirect and include the info in another article. do we have a list of psychiatric institutions or something similar? Optim 16:09, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Have you confirmed the information? If so, I think we should keep it (at least as a redirect to wherever the information might be moved to). There is still no agreement that obscurity is a reason for deletion. -- Oliver P. 02:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Amoral - dicdef. Merge into Morality and delete. -- UtherSRG 16:33, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there any reason not to redirect to morality? -- Oliver P. 02:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, do not merge. Valid stub, should definately not be merged w its opposite. Jack 08:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Clancy of the Overflow - move to Wikibooks. Poem can be found on several websites, including here. - UtherSRG 16:41, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, provide descriptionJack 08:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete if not converted into legitimate article by the time waiting period is over. --Jiang
  • Wikipedia:Anybody means everybody - trolling? It is only thing this user has created. Secretlondon 22:43, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's an editorial only thinly disguised as a poll. Perhaps it has a place in the Wikipedia namespace, but not where it is. If moved, delete the redirect.
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 20:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • maybe move to meta? Jack 08:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 25

  • Sidney Morgenbesser - looks to be a personal page? A few returns on Google, but the article itself is of no value. RadicalBender 15:46, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like avanity page. Bmills 15:57, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete. vanity page bursting with its own importance LadyPuffball 04:05, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete for above reasons. Anjouli 05:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • Delete. Perhaps a copyvio? See this page. In any event, it's just a short resume and some "stories" that are really recycled jokes. -Anthropos 19:16, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
      • Note - moved here since originally no VFD message was added to the page. -Anthropos 14:01, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 20:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI: Google gives 425 hits for "Sidney Morgenbesser". Optim 07:11, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Jack 08:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, vanity --Jiang
  • White Lodge - If this thing refers to the "Great White Brotherhood" I dispute its factual accuracy (OTO is not a member of the GWB, AFAIK). I also think this nonsense has no part in our encyclopaedia. Optim 05:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Piece of bogus created by banned user Khranus. Would delete it right away were it not listed here. Kosebamse 08:15, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 20:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del --Jiang
  • Albert Jacher - vanity page. - Hephaestos 18:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - vanity as shockingly proven below. - Texture 20:26, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity is a mortal sin. *grins* - UtherSRG 20:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you for placing Albert Jacher in Vfd page and making it a subject of discussion of wikipedians before trying to delete it. It is a wise practice to consider a deed before one does anything. In previous times my texts were just deleted without any consideration and hasitation. I find the present time practice as 'significant improvement'. I invite openminded wikipedians to discussion about me and my ideas, inventions, revelations. Thank you. -- Albert Jacher, Messenger of God 20:18, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)
    • SuperVanityFest. I say that that guy has a heck of an ego. Ilyanep 22:18, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Imran 22:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This page was created and deleted 10 months ago, the outcome should be the same this time round. -- Ams80 23:06, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Anybody who could get on television is quite important! :-D He could have this all on his user page. Keep as redirect. - Arthur George Carrick 23:12, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --snoyes 23:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think we should consider banning User:AlbertJacherHolyProphet for repeatedly failing to abided by wikipedia rules/policy, he has recreated deleted articles and virtually everyone of his edits outside of userspace has been reverted (in some case such as on religion multiple times. --Imran 02:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Imran!Whan an interesting idea: To ban permanently someone who proclaimed to be a god's messenger as a punishment for editing 'religion' multiple times... Those who have the most to share about a religion, are to be banned for that reason. What a pitiful paradox! Thank you for disscussion. -- Albert Jacher, Messenger of God 03:39, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Del --Jerzy 05:35, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Spam. Delete and ban. Salsa Shark 05:43, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Only 45 Google hits for "Albert Jacher". Optim 07:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Vanity pages" should not be deleted. Jack 08:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, vanity page should be deleted. --Jiang 08:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Facial. Not encyclopedic. Angela. 22:07, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - list of supplies for doing a facial - no content - Texture 22:08, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is one of User:Craigbutz's student's articles. It's a work in progress. Secretlondon 22:11, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Either Delete it or fix it. It looks very incomplete! Ilyanep 22:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It was started on Friday. We know they are school kids - I don't think we should pounce on them. Delete if its not fixed by the end of the project.Secretlondon 22:19, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I thoroughly agree with Angela here - I don't want to discourage contributors, but this is not encyclopaedic, and it is just some items. Tompagenet 00:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We should give it some more time. See my above comment on eyebrow makeover. My only concern with this particular article is the sexual term of the same name: move this page to Facial (beauty) or something similar, or create a Facial (disambiguation). Unfortunately that will expose Craigbutz's students to imappropriate sexual content, but that's his job to monitor, not ours. --zandperl 01:31, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Secretlondon. Do not delete now. Keep. Optim 07:04, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, encyclopediic. Jack 08:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, no useful content --Jiang
  • List of prime numbers - should not be here. This is not the place for a list of numbers. -- Ams80 23:39, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I dont see why not, as long as we keep the number articles - keep --`Jiang
      • So when do we stop - one can easily show there are an infinite number of prime numbers. There's absolutely no point in having this. Otherwise we will have to accept a list of square numbers, cube numbers, numbers^4, and so on. Tompagenet 00:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • As what seemed an obvious case for deletion to me isn't to others, I'll add my reasons. For a start it's badly named, 'List of prime numbers' is ambiguous, is it those primes less than 150? Is it the first x primes? Is it all the primes? If it does stay it should go to another title. Secondly, if one were so inclined, thousnads upon thousands of numerical sequences could be given their own article, all of which would be as useless as each other as there would be no convenient searching available. A project for this already exists -- http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/, with a specially designed searching facility which makes it useful. I'm not saying that I can't see the point of any lists of numbers, for example the orders of the finite simple groups are expressed at Classification of finite simple groups, this is useful information, appropriately represented as part of an article. Also, with Wikipedia being editable as it is, I would never use this page as a source of information, if this page grew to primes less than 10^4 I would have no quick way of verifying whether 9883 had been included by a vandal. There are a wealth of other sites which can provide this information in a more reliable way. -- Ams80 00:25, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for the simple reason that there's nothing here that isn't duplicated at Prime number. What about putting a list of prime numbers at Wikisource? -- Seth Ilys 00:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Well I suppose that's for WikiSource to decide, but I can't see how this would get round the objections Ams80 makes above, and it would open the gates to many, many similar numerical sequence articles - how many millions of numbers would have to be listed before the article was deemed a waste of space. Someone would almost certainly start a "List of natural numbers" page as well... Tompagenet 00:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Wiki is not paper, so is wasted space really an issue? Project Gutenberg includes the entire human genome, which is dozens of megabytes in size... I was just suggesting that (for the season Ams80 details) Wikisource might be a more appropriate place than here for an extensive list of primes, because a list of primes is essentially static. But I don't feel it's appropriate for Wikipedia because it's a subset of a preexisting article. -- Seth Ilys 01:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • The "Wikipedia is not paper" is a frequently mentioned point - but i wonder how much people would still be saying this if the prime number articles had the first trillian primes - even if this was split between pages. Honestly asking, and honestly not trying to be awkward, but how does WikiSource address Ams80's concerns? It is freely editible, difficult to search and duplicated better elsewhere. Tompagenet 01:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to Prime numbers, which already contains a list only slightly smaller than this one. The superfluous lists described above are generated by simple functions f(n), which is probably why square numbers, doesn't bother with a list beyond the fifth, whereas prime numbers does. Onebyone 00:53, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed, redirect. --Jiang 01:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect. --zandperl 01:33, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but not as a redirect. Keep as is. An encyclopedia is a reference. A quick reference to the list of prime numbers is useful. Kingturtle 02:14, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, we seem to be reaching an agreement that the page should be kept. Whether that should be as a list or a redirect can be thrashed out on the talk page... -- Oliver P. 02:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect. --Sean 03:24, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep- It is of general academic interest, for example, it may be interesting to note in what number the numbers end, and get an idea of what is likely to be a prime number and so on...Also, from my limited knowledge, I recall that there is no formula for generating prime numbers and hence the list is useful as someone else has said earlier. A redirect to Prime numbers wouldn't be useful because it would limit the list KRS 04:48, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, useful to students and others Jack 08:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikiculture doesn't exist yet. --snoyes 23:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Sure, its creation was a bit premature, but it may become a prominent Wiki soon. -- Seth Ilys 00:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. When it becomes prominent it can have an article. --Imran 02:00, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - looks like advertising by the owner - Texture 02:58, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I wouldn't mind the advertising so much if it actually linked to something operational. An article to go along with that link would have been nice as well.--Nelson 05:47, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • move to meta, or wikipedia space. Jack 08:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I cant see why this would be suitable for meta or wikipedia. Please click on the link. --Jiang
    • delete, "". --Jiang 08:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 26

  • Timeline of U.S. economic indicators is hopelessly outdated; wikipedia is not a place to write news articles. This "timeline" contains little information and I don't think it will ever get any better. (Content should be moved to relevant current event months, but the stated date lacks citation.) --Jiang 01:46, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • USS Jebediah is a fictional nuclear sub that Homer Simpson served on temporarily. The article is a stub which I doubt will ever get bigger, and has only been worked on twice, most recently 6 Nov. --zandperl 04:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Hopefully both Epopt and I are considered to have good judgment about whether this should be its own article; although it's always going to be short, at the very least it has value in stating that there is not a real boat of this name. Stan 04:53, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There is precedent in other boats never built and in listings of fictional boats. - UtherSRG 05:44, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep.--Nelson 05:50, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are numerous other articles about things that appear in "The Simpsons"; there is no reason to single this one out for deletion while retaining, eg, Duff Beer and Kwyjibo. --the Epopt 05:52, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I can think of no reason to delete it, in fact. --User:Moncrief
  • User:Mrj - if I am not mistaken there is no such user (that page has no "User Contributions" in bottom as it has for any real user). I am just not sure if such a page can be deleted by the nonsense-deleting-shortcut or not. andy 08:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2233852"