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 Lupin (talk | contribs) at 10:52, 18 March 2004 ((Cloud City)). 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

If you were looking for an article on the abbreviation "VFD", please see VFD.



How to use this page [VfD]

Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Please use the "what links here" link in the sidebar for a page you think merits deletion, to get a sense of its context. Finally, explain your reasoning for every page you list, even if it is obvious.

This page is for articles that are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles which merit a change in the deletion policy. In the second case, visit Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and suggest a policy change.

Press the end key on your keyboard to jump to the end of the page, and click on the lowest edit link to add a new candidate.
Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month: 18th - 17th - 16th - 15th - 14th - 13th - 12th - 11th

Front Matter
Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

Boilerplate
Please remember 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.) Don't use {{subst:Vfd}} as this makes it very difficult to find old VFD tags which have not been removed.

Sister pages
copyright violations -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- cleanup -- translations

Related
Deletion guidelines -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- Votes for undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- maintaining this page -- inclusion dispute -- Old cases

Decisions in progress

Ongoing discussions

March 13

(March 12|14|^) | Drummer joke | MW:Religiousfigures | /Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee/ | Toda (tribe) | J.S.Baker | A.J.Muller | Mizan | zookeeper | Conventional medicine | underwater | Starcraft | List:unpop. professions | griefing | Snuffy's VCR | Meat-beat-cleaver-beat | Solar eclipses | desiccation | T.Longley | L.Longley | forced confession |

Drummer joke

I see no merit to this. Maybe if it were funny. Vote for deletion. heidimo 02:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, well known genre of humour. Saul Taylor 05:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into a bigger article of humor series: blondes, lawyers, sex, etc. --Humus sapiens Talk 07:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. We have Lightbulb joke, why not this? It is a well-established joke form. I wouldn't object to merging it into the joke article, although that is getting unwieldy already. Lupin 11:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/make into an article Music and musician jokes or something. Mikkalai 02:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Another thing: aren't jokes as original texts belong to wikisource? Mikkalai 02:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's not a list of drummer jokes; it's an article about drummer jokes. It seems reasonable to quote a few examples. Lupin 09:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Religiousfigures

  • This table is POV and wrong. It does not list all the relgious dieties in the world and offensively lists some non-dieties as "religious dieties". The items in the list do not constitute a series and I don't see the close relation among these figures to warrant categorization into such a table. --Jiang 02:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (with some tweaks). My first reaction was that it was a good list of "Top (however many) most discussed religious and spiritual beings" or something like that, but then I noticed David and Abraham--but changing the end to beings and human beings seems a little silly. Anyway, point is I agree the terminology could be improved, but I think it's a reasonable series, useful especially doing comparative 'spirituality system' work, so it should just be cleaned up. Niteowlneils 03:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • PS I think (and personifications) makes it clear that they aren't all being claimed to be religious, nor deities.
    • do you plan to list every holy man and god of every single religon in the world? If we do, the table will be longer than any article. If we don't, we exhibit a bias towards religions that send missionaries and colonize. --Jiang 04:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I certainly agree that an all-inclusive list would be too unwieldly. Since I'm not religious, I don't have strong feelings about whether it's kept.
Partly as Wiki practice, but mostly to get a clearer read on Wikipedia's culture and practices, I'd be interested in (preferably specific and constructive) feedback about if this major re-write/re-structure/re-context[1] addresses some of the concerns and if it is at all approaching being savlageable. Niteowlneils 07:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. 1.Unmanagable 2. Tinder for future flame wars. 3. List order is Western/Christian POV biased. 4. Factually moot. Davodd 04:00, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Won't MediaWiki:Cults come in the same controversial category. Jay 09:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [1] the idea that Muhammad is a "Religious Deity or Personification" is offensive to Muslims, and is wrong. [2] such tabular menus seem to add little to articles, and impose a non-neutral point of view about the relationship of articles. Sometimes they overwhelm the article they are added to (in terms of size and screen-space) [3] the person who creates such tables should not protect them. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Richard cocks 05:49, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Args omitted to avoid a religious war. --Humus sapiens Talk 06:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Impossible to maintain without POV. RickK | Talk 21:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information about religious figures should be written in ordinary articles and linked to in the normal way. I agree with Nunh-huh's second point above. -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is totally ridiculous, it's just as unmanageable as MediaWiki:Religion. --Xiaopo's Talk 07:56, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. See my reasoning at the MediaWiki:Religion entry on this page. In short, the "sidebar" extension of the series concept is a bad attempt to create a category system. These msg boxes also push real content from the first screen on readers screens. --mav 09:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's wrong in so many ways and I see no way to redeem it. - Seth Ilys 15:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move; don't just delete; useful notion. There is surely a place for such dense contextual lists[CLs], for navigation, cleanup/parallelization, and organization of overview articles; but where that place is, and how it should be referenced by relevant articles, I'm not sure. In some cases, it seems natural to include such lists (a list of major religions from the main page of each; a list of presidents from the page of each) bodily within the page. ([User:Sj/artofefficiency#Contextual_Lists Further discussion] on how to incorporate these lists.)

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Discussion moved to Talk:Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Toda (tribe)

  • uninformative and biased -- Drunkasian 08:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • revision does look better. i jumped the gun. change to keep :p
  • Probably vandalism. Utter rubbish. Terribly written anyway. Delete. Ludraman | Talk 08:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid stub now. Jay 09:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. Davodd 11:58, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: valid stub now. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version. RickK | Talk 21:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Revised version looks fine to me. Average Earthman 22:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

James S. Baker

  • I couldn't find anything on the guy on Google. I wouldn't call the accomplishments described in the article anything noteworthy, either. -- Djinn112 08:23, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems to be gone already. Any particular reason? Andrewa 09:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • An anon blanked it and put a speedy deletion tag on it - and someone deleted it without checking the history. I have restored. Secretlondon 12:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The anon user who listed for speedy delete was the creator, see [2], and IMO it does qualify. But thanks for the restore. IMO the only problem was that the reason for the delete should have been listed here for 24 hours in terms of current policy. Andrewa 18:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The only author of the page blanked it and added the speedy deletion tag, so I deleted it. I did check the history. There is no real reason to wait if the author the page agrees it should be deleted. Delete. Maximus Rex, 18:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
  • Firstly, this is certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. (Read the criteria!) Secondly, Wikipedia articles are kept or deleted according to the views of the Wikipedia community; the opinion of the original contributor has no more weight than anyone else's. Having said that, the information appears to be unverifiable, so I support deletion. (After five days, of course.) -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've read the criteria (again!) and IMO it does qualify, and if it doesn't then it certainly should. Is there really any doubt? Andrewa 12:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam Jacob Muller

  • vanity Dysprosia 09:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Another blanking and addition of speedy deletion tag led someone to delete this. I have reverted. Please could administrators check the edit history before deleting. Thanks. Secretlondon 12:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think once it has been listed on VfD it should stay here - even if the original author blanks after the VfD tag is added. Secretlondon 12:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete right away. Complete vanity. Tannin 13:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity is not one of the reasons for speedy deletion. Secretlondon 14:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Does not contain any allegation or information even colorably justifying inclusion. That he is a student at Pace University? That he is an atheist? These are just large groups, but there is no indication he is anything more than a member of these. Unless information is added to colorably justify inclusion here, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I think this does qualify for speedy delete as patent nonsense, see [3] for the last non-blank version by the creator, I also think this discussion is good and should continue here. IMO we don't know whether the author is the subject or not, but it's clearly a prank of some sort. Andrewa 18:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Adam Jacob Muller is only prominent for what the article says, then he does not deserve being included in an Encyclopedia more than myself. (Although I might be worth including?). Pfortuny 18:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even entertaining vanity. Average Earthman 22:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete ike9898

Mizan

  • Have not found any evidence anywhere to support the existence of Mizan or any of its "cousins" as cartoon characters in any media format. Looks like vanity to me. Darkcore 12:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've listed it for speedy delete as patent nonsense. The page states that the character was "Created as a stroke of genious by its creater", and is "not well known yet". It's by an anon user. Andrewa 18:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • But the speedy delete notice was reverted by a sysop. So I guess we just need to list it here. Complete waste of time IMO, but they need to call them as they see them fall. Is there really any doubt? Guess we'll see. Andrewa 12:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's allow it due process. But delete. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, no choice and no worries. But I think this is an excellent example of the sort of prank entry that could be well handled as a speedy delete. Andrewa 20:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Zookeeper

  • Dictionary definition. Darkcore 12:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Less than 24 hours old. Does not meet What to list and not list on VfD threshhold. Davodd 12:37, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was one of many professions listed on Requested Articles. Ample room for expansion. -- Seth Ilys 12:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have lots of articles on professions. There's no reason this one can't be improved. Angela. 15:33, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, either expand or else redirect to Zoo. Saul Taylor 01:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now an adequate stub. Andrewa 12:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conventional medicine

Quoting the creator of this article: "This article is a stub, created to help resolve an issue in Alternative medicine. Depending upon how the issue is resolved, this stub will either be expanded or deleted."

  • Delete - How the issue was resolved demands deletion. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as a main encyclopedia article. Not encyclopedic. Original research. Or, attempt at a public discussion. The material on this page belongs on a talk page somewhere. Dpbsmith 15:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The fact that this article needs work and was created for a dubious reason does not mean that the article of this title per se should be deleted. I vote to keep, but a lot of work should be done on it. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, or at least, keep the idea. The concepts of "conventional medicine" vs. "alternative medicine" should be covered in Wikipedia. But the current content does belong on a talk page, not in the article namespace. -- Seth Ilys 17:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but completely rewrite... possibly as a stubby explanation of the distinction between conventional and alternative medicine. The current contents of the article are already present on Talk:Conventional medicine. - MykReeve 19:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but address issues raised... They were brought here from the iridology and the alternative medicine pages. These are orphan issues. They were inserted in the stub to help deal with a Wiki tradition of deleting items before addressing them. Deleting this page too will only increase the number of orphans and future stubs. Besides, good documented information on this page is hard to find elsewhere, to say the least - irismeister 16:42, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

Underwater

Article is a dictionary definition, no valuable information. Sole content:

Underwater or U/W is a term describing the area below the surface of water. Many activities are conducted underwater, whether for recreation such as scuba diving, or for other purposes, such as underwater warfare. The deepest location underwater (and in the entire world, in fact) is the Challenger Deep located in the Mariana Trench.

Perhaps could be a disambiguation page, but no need to have a dedicated page. Friedo 18:59, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, not just a dicdef, but needs expansion. --Monsieur Mero 19:05, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and hope it grows. Note: some purists prefer the term "in-water," as in Lawrence E. Metrens, "In-water Photography: Theory and Practice," but it's probably a lost cause. Dpbsmith 22:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move it to Wiktionary? --Tagishsimon
  • Delete and move Underwater (disambiguation) in its place. Davodd 09:36, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Davodd. Delete to make room for the page move. I've already copied the relevant definition into Wiktionary. Rossami

StarCraft

Discussion moved to Talk:StarCraft RickK | Talk 02:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of unpopulated professions

  • You, too, can take random word roots and join them together! "When I grow up, I'm going to be a Geoexourologist!" Adam Bishop 22:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. ugen64 22:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone must have been very bored. Average Earthman 22:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though photobiologists are real enough and Kansas University Medical Center will tell you to become one. Actually the fact that one of the so-called "unpopulated" professions isn't unpopulated just shows that the prankster responsible for the page wasn't even a scholarly prankster. Dpbsmith 22:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. RickK | Talk 22:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, BUT! I find it curious that "List of unpopulated professions" is on VfD (exactly where I thought it would end up, and hence no research done) as a possible threat to the integrity of Wiki, but Science Vessel (StarCraft), Medic (StarCraft), Command Center (StarCraft), Nuclear Silo (StarCraft), Supply Depot (StarCraft), Engineering Bay (StarCraft), Barracks (StarCraft), Refinery (StarCraft), Missile Turret (StarCraft), Academy (StarCraft), and a whole slew of similar articles are encyclopedic? At least Loup is (I hope) modestly amusing. (I personally liked pediatric gerontologist). All these game preserve entries are just destructive. Am I cranky? Nah. Denni 23:30, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
    Denni, we write about fiction topics, but we certainly do not make up fiction ourselves. — Sverdrup 01:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    Delete this article, but Denni's got a point about the StarCraft articles as well. If nothing else, they may be copyright violations. MK 06:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete.Exploding Boy 03:20, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete obviously. But Denni does have a valid point. Fictional titles like "starcraft' should clearly indicate very early on in the article that they are fiction.
      • Comment: Yes, they should indicate this. Please fix them if you think it is important. Andrewa 12:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete ike9898
  • Rubbish! I'm a Neurothespian! At least I think about acting sometimes.... Ho hum. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Delete - I'm a psychopolynomialist (heehee) and I don't find this the least bit funny.' I rest my case, yerHonor. Denni 20:44, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

Trevor Longley

  • A fictional biography on someone who supposedly was a star tennis player starting in 2007... ugen64 22:21, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • For clarification, there are two Yahoo! hits for "Trevor Longley" (both of them the same info): he apparently won 2nd place at some Bahamas event. The same link is the only one that appears on a google search for "Trevor Longley" Bahamas, and nothing for "Trevor Longley" tennis. ugen64 22:27, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, patent nonsense. Seems like a good candidate for speedy deletion. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense. RickK | Talk 22:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly not patent nonsense as Wikipedia defines it. (Read the page!) But seems to be unverifiable. Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I guess you're looking at the current stub and not an earlier version such as [4]. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • No, I was looking at the original version. "Patent nonsense" means text that is literally incomprehensible. If something is written in comprehensible English prose then it is not "patent nonsense", however much one may disapprove of it. -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm curious to know how claims about future tennis championships might be verified, then. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Lemuel Longley below. But I'm glad someone else seems to think that patent nonsense includes things like the original article. Surely, this is a simple prank? Andrewa 11:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Griefing

Snuffy's VCR

  • Probably rubbish. Not referenced, artist not properly seperated from album title. This is sandbox material. Jfdwolff 22:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be a Marilyn Manson CD. Delete if not improved before deadline. Dysprosia 01:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Moncrief's comment below. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meat Beat Cleaver Beat

  • It must be Saturday night and someone is wasting his time. Jfdwolff 22:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be an early Marilyn Manson tape. Everyking 23:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really don't have patience for articles where the author can't be bothered to provide even the most minimal context about what he or she is trying to describe. If I can't figure it out by reading it, then I can't be bothered to vote to keep it in Wikipedia, even if it presumably *might* get more context at some later point. Moncrief 06:33, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree w/ Moncrief's comment. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I tried to clean it up a bit. At least now you can understand the subject. Everyking 22:12, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Solar Eclipses

  • Solar Eclipses as seen from Beijing, Solar Eclipses as seen from Tianjin and Solar Eclipses as seen from Shanghai. Source text. Better at Wikisource? Angela. 22:52, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikisource. --Menchi 00:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Source text from where? If something comes from another source, please tell us the source! If these pages are copied from other sources, they could possibly be deleted as copyright infringements (in the selection of data and the way it is set out, not in the data itself). If they are not, I'd suggest keeping them as useful reference tables. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The source is [5]. It's just data. I can't see that that is copyrightable. Such things are removed from Possible copyright infringements whenever they are put there. Why should it be kept here? Wikipedia is not a place for source texts. Angela. 03:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the link. If the page is "just data", and assuming it is uncontroversially accurate, then it could be argued that the table is no more a "source text" than, say, the periodic table. On the other hand, the bit that says, "This is a computer generated table, errors can not be excluded," raises the question of possible disagreements with other sources. We should really only have reference tables if the data in them is universally accepted. You can't really do NPOV in a table. So I'm saying delete after all. :) -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • They're computed by myself. I computed these tables with Skymap Pro 7 Demo and scripts in VBScript written by myself in the summer of 1999. I think it is not too long to put it at Wikisource, and I'm planning to put additional information on it later. Yaohua2000 12:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Oh! So maybe we can just delete it as "original research". :) -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've moved the mostly to Wikisource. Yaohua2000 17:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Desiccation

Dicdef, substub. RickK | Talk 23:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, now reasonable stub. Andrewa 11:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect. Ooops...! But a credible misspelling, and the current dessication article is a dicdef substub. Andrewa 20:26, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a misspelling of dessication. Queerwiki | Talk 19:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lemuel Longley

Same as Trevor Longley mentioned earlier here: a fictional biography on someone who supposedly was a star tennis player starting in 2007... --Vikingstad 23:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Surely these two are obvious pranks? Created by the same anon user, the original versions are strange, IMO patent nonsense but I've had some comment suggesting not everyone would agree with me as to what this means. Even if they are based on real people (I don't know), it would be easier to start again. Andrewa 11:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: patent nonsense, though not patent nonsense. I think patent nonsense needs to be expanded to include histories of future events, which seems to be a fairly popular topic among the 12-19 crowd. But the WP defn of "patent nonsense" is a topic for another page, & maybe I'll get up off the sofa and find the appropriate forum for that discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and we can recreate if he ever achieves anything. Average Earthman 12:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Forced confession

  • One line nonsense, and the topic doen't seem to lend itself to an encyclopedia article. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • (No vote). The current version is obvious nonsense but I'm sure someone could write a decent version. Saul Taylor 00:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Expanded/rewrote, but still probably needs some work. Keep. Dysprosia 03:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already a good stub, and I've expanded it a little more. Andrewa 11:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 14

(March 13|15|^) | Freenet | Bombadier (rank) | JS Woodsworth | futuristic | D.Pak | C.Ketu | MW:Jesus | How to:make sunscreen | Wakkawiki | eximro | DragonBallZ Powerlvls | parkade | mortgagor and mortgagee | Goosebumps: THM | Dark Frith | Fashion arts by anon-User | I PAT | J.Esposito | (recursive WP inexpressibility) | Cloud City | Pirate pizza | roaf |

Freenet

Bombadier (rank)

  • Bombadier (rank) needs deleting (spelling mistake) now redirects to correctBombardier (rank)
  • Keep common typo in the U.S. -- 667 Google hits on Bombadier (rank) and 12,200 Google hits on Bombadier. Davodd 05:16, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful redirect. I'm not altogether sure I would have used the right spelling in searching for it, myself. And just BTW, this isn't the right place to list redirects for deletion. Andrewa 11:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

JS Woodsworth

  • Merge into J. S. Woodsworth and redirect (or they should both redirect to the merged content at J.S. Woodsworth--whatever is standard) Niteowlneils 02:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep the one with the periods (full stops). RickK | Talk 02:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirection doesn't involve deletion, so this doesn't need to be listed here. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If that's true, this[6] needs to be updated/clarified. I have very little interest in the topic, and it's going to take a lot of work, so I'm not going to do the merge--if I just make it a redir page, someone would have to merge from the old history, which seems more cumbersome. Niteowlneils 03:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It is true. Merge and redirect is a sensible way to vote, but not when you're listing the article on VfD in the first place, because if that's your vote then you shouldn't have listed the article, you should have just done it. There's no need to merge histories when an article becomes a redirect, only if one with significant history is to be deleted. Is that clearer? Andrewa 06:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Oliver Pereira has done a nice job of clarifying the section that had misled me. I won't make the mistake again. Both articles are quite long, and I have no interest in the subject, so there is no way I'm going to attempt the merge--hopefully one of the article's primary contributors (the newer one is entirely the work of one person--too bad he didn't find the one that already existed) can take it on. Niteowlneils 19:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem is that there are three articles that need to be merged. RickK | Talk 02:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Um, actually, one of the two period ones is just a redir already. Niteowlneils 03:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I will admit to more than a little consternation here. The J.S. article and the JS article have been merged, and the result is almost entirely the latter, but the page history is only the former. There is no record at all of the many hours of time I put into this piece. Note that I have no problem with merging - I subscribe fully to the concept that once your baby goes to Wiki, it's not yours any more. That should not, however, mean that all trace of parentage is lost. Denni 20:35, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Futuristic

  • Dic-def. Isomorphic 04:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redir. Davodd 10:11, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Pak

  • Vanity. --Minesweeper 04:39, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some kid. Maximus Rex, 04:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • May it be deleted. Isomorphic 04:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Never to arise again. Kosebamse 06:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Har har. Delete. Meelar 14:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice one whoever added see also: nerd, geek. - Richard cocks 15:46, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. BTW, I was born exactly 6 days after this guy. =) --Monsieur Mero 19:13, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • You could always write an article saying that. ;-) DJ Clayworth 16:18, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Candomble Ketu

  • Huh? RickK | Talk 07:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Aha. The article just stared to be created. Get off the author's neck, man. Aren't there any decent time-out rules here? You didn't even take any trouble to check the validity of the topic. The actual place of this notice is in the Cleanup. Mikkalai 08:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No, the actual place would have been quick delete, but I decided against it. There was nothing there to indicate what it was or what it was supposed to be, and no indication that there would ever have been anything. This is the right place until we decide if this is necessary, even in the current state it's in. RickK | Talk 23:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think RickK put it very well above. This article is strange. The title isn't even referenced in the article; I have no idea what it means or how to find out. I've been criticised for describing things as patent nonsense recently, so somebody else check it out please. And while I do agree about time-out rules (and no, there aren't, and yes, there should be) there seems to have been no attempt to fix this, despite five more edits by the anonymous author since the VfD notice went on. Most peculiar, momma. Andrewa 11:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: The title has been referenced in the article, although not bolded or in the first sentence, since the original revision. I agree with Mikkalai; this was created by someone who started working on the Candomblé entry, as could be noted by either checking the IP's edit history (or, hopefully, by checking "What links here" for that page). +sj+ 10:27, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Working backwards through the links, I am guessing that this should be somehow associated with Yoruba mythology. None of my references have been able to verify or clarify this, though. I agree that the current article is incomprehensible and out of context. I vote to move it to Clean-up for a week. Delete as unverifiable only if it can't be cleaned up. Rossami 13:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: useful, informative. Candomble is a Brazilian religion of African origin, widely practiced. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe move to clean-up. I've added context as to what the article is supposed to be about (it was formerly a red-link at Candomble). I do not know enuf Portuguese, nor anything about Candomble, to know if this initial content is relevant. Niteowlneils 19:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Very much keep with the latest improvements. A religion with the highest priest female? Most notable. Niteowlneils 19:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or maybe merge with Candomble. After reading Anne Rice I was wondering if Candomble was real or just fictional: it was my intended search topic for the evening. In other words there is some interest in Candomble and so it is a valid Wikitopicping 07:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have been trying to flesh out the Candomblé entry, to which this is subordinate. As a Brazilian, I thought I knew enough about the topic to help.HA! Turns out that "candomblé" history is about as complex as that of Protestantism (and about as old). There appear to be some 1.5 million Brazilian who declare it as their main religion, and probably 10 times as many who are nominally catholic but nevertheless go to candomblé "masses". There are three major "sects" (and dozens of sub-sects) which have roughly similar pantheons, but call them different names, use very different liturgical languages, have different hierarchies, etc. It is a major research topic for anthopologists, historians, etc. So methinks that each "sect" definitely deserves a separate page.Jorge Stolfi 08:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Jesus

This is a see also list masquerading as a "series". It is not. A series should have some short of logical order to it. This doesn't. Any series on Jesus would be on the life of the historical figure. I don't see the connection among these articles.--Jiang 07:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. MediaWikis are not See also: lists. Davodd 09:27, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. msgs are very good for keeping a topic together, and I don't see the problem of the actual table. We could consider moving the table to a se also location in the articles though. — Sverdrup 11:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or make into a footer. What Davodd said. --mav 12:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article series are a bad idea, except in cases where there is an uncontroversial natural (e.g. chronological) order, and even when there is, the chronological list should go in the relevant overview article, not in the MediaWiki space. -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I note that this box on those articles existed well before this msg tag did. Votes for deletion is not for editorial decisisions like this. Morwen 15:24, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your strict definition of series[7], especially as used in various Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom elements such as MediaWiki:Headgear. Some things don't lend themselves to a particular order, but still can be usefully grouped. The connection is that they are all Mikipedia articles about Jesus. The roots of the word series, after all are to join, link together. Your objections to this one article also applies to many of these[8]
That aside, I agree very much with Morwen, that VfD is NOT the place to bring semantic complaints.
On the otherhand, maybe it's good you brought this issue into public discussion, instead of just silently going around removing tables that don't fit your definition of "series"[9] Niteowlneils 22:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I did bring the issue up about the poetry series, both at Talk:Poetry#Poetry_series and Wikipedia talk:Article series#Advice wanted. My comments and concerns were not addressed and I removed the "series" only after waiting a few weeks, having received no further response. Isn't whether to keep an article or not an editorial decision too? Couldn't we just lash it out on the talk page of the article in question? The msg involves more than one article. VFD is intended to give more visibility to the issue. Items that have logical grouping belong in a see also list, no a series. --Jiang 22:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, if your main objection to all the "series" you've deleted/challenged is the definition of the word, change it to "group", or "collection", or whatever term floats your boat. But note that series, meaning any related collection seems to have a lot of currency here. Wholesale deletetion just because of an objection to a single word doesn't seem very reasonable. Niteowlneils 23:10, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's not just about the word. It's about the purpose these boxes serve. I don't see what these accomplish a simple see also list does not. The boxes stand in the way and anything that stands in the way must have more importance than being a related topic. I also objected to having a "University of California group" at Wikipedia talk:Article series. --Jiang
  • Keep. This is an abuse of process. MediaWiki messages should only be listed here if there are no pages using them permanently. Morwen 07:59, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is that so? Why made up that rule? Where do you suggest we discuss this? The table does not belong in any single article. Obsolete Mediawiki pages should qualify for speedy deletion. --Jiang
    • Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent. RickK | Talk 02:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least make it a footer. See my reasoning at the MediaWiki:Religion entry on this page. In short, the "sidebar" extension of the series concept is a bad attempt to create a category system. These msg boxes also push real content from the first screen on readers screens. --mav 09:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How to make sunscreen lotion

Article title says it all. Isomorphic 09:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WakkaWiki

Just a link, not an article. Ludraman | Talk 14:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Cleanup - it deserves an article. --Monsieur Mero 19:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Version 0.1.2, released Feb 2003; version 0.1.3 promised "soonish" in Oct 2003, but still not available? Seems like it is going to be quite some time before this software is notable. Niteowlneils 20:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into some existing List of Wikis. +sj+ 10:32, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Eximro

Only 9 Google hits, all of which appear to be user names. --Magnus Manske 18:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Powerlevels

Not verifiable, not encyclopedic. Was speedy deletion, but should be in VFD (Can count me as delete). Dori | Talk 19:42, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I had never heard of this, but the core subject [Dragon Ball Z] apparently appeared for about 7 years, and I believe this offshoot is verifiable[10]. Unless we want to get rid of all articles about manga features, I see no reason to delete, but maybe it could be merged with the core article. Niteowlneils 19:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author admits that it probably isn't very accurate. If there is something worth saying about these power levels, it can be said on pages about the characters or something. Everyking 20:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Info can go on other DragonBallZ and characters pages. --Lowellian 22:17, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be just a bunch of opinion presented as an unintelligible list of numbers. Bryan 22:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this! ike9898
  • Delete. Unofficial, probably fan estimated data. Crackshoe 02:19, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No power level list can be accurate, and I marked this for deletion because it is even more inaccurate than the average power level list. (Which is still inaccurate.) PLEASE delete it!

Parkade

Dicdef, should be deleted and transwikied to Wiktionary. Isomorphic 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)



Mortgagor and Mortgagee

Dicdefs, don't see the articles going anywhere, perhaps should be merged or just redirect to Mortgage

  • Yeah, probably merge/redir into mortgage--however, note that these may have been created because the mortgage article links the words, so if redir'd, links should be removed as self-referential. Similar issues may apply to the deed link/article. Oh, and also send to wiktionary. Niteowlneils 21:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. Once someone moves them (transwiki is still too confusing for me), I will update the links in the mortgage article to point to Wiktionary. Rossami 14:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Goosebumps: The Haunted Mask

This is about a single book in a children's horror series. There are no pages about the author of the book or the other books in the series. Certainly not encyclopedia material.

  • Keep. It was a pretty famous series back in the early or mid '90s. Everyking 20:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Everyking: I understand the Goosebumps series was notable, but this article is not about the series, it is about a single book in the series.
    • I don't see why the individual books aren't notable if the series is. And besides, it says this particular one had a TV movie made about it. Everyking 21:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep, but maybe move to be a stub for just "Goosebumps". Niteowlneils 21:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty undecided whether each title in the series needs it's own article, especially if no one is willing to create the content, but I have created a main Goosebumps stub, as the series is very notable. The specific Goosebumps: The Haunted Mask article should either be kept as is, or should be merged into Goosebumps, at least, maybe, until someone is willing to create articles for all the title. Niteowlneils 21:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't think we should create an article for each Goosebumps book, anymore than we should create an article for each television episode of a famous series. Delete this article, but move the info to the Goosebumps article. --Lowellian 22:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's as valid as any article on The Simpsons episode list or the Star Trek episodes lists. -- Matty j 23:53, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • We should keep pages on all books for which we have verifiable information. Even if there isn't enough material for an article about a single book (it seems in this case that there is), the page should be kept as a redirect to wherever it is covered, whether that may be an article on a series or an article on the author. A page on a minor topic should always be kept as a redirect to the article where that topic is covered, to preserve authorship information, to enable people to find where the information is now, and to prevent duplication of content. -- Oliver P. 00:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! There's no reason to delete this. It was a popular book series, and this was one of the more well-known stories in it. I don't see the problem in writing articles on individual books in the series; after all we have articles such as Encounter at Farpoint. Wikipedia is not paper. -Branddobbe 06:00, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. At some point we could hopefully have an article on every book ever written. RickK | Talk 02:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wiki is not paper. - Wikipedia 00:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dark Frith

From Wikipedia:Cleanup, I don't believe this to be factually accurate, no verifiable hits on google. -- Graham  :) | Talk 20:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if it is factually accurate the article is not important enough for an encyclopedia.
  • Delete. Even checking Dark Firth for possible misspelling found nothing. Niteowlneils 20:19, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fashion articles by User:68.38.52.3

Specifically:

  • Vampyre Fashion - not encyclopedic, not a term in common use (most hits on Google are to Wikipedia-derived articles), and spelled in an unusual way; after all, the vampire subculture article already exists
  • Black metal fashion - not encyclopedic; is the fashion of black metal really that different from other fashions such as Goth or punk? Are there experts on this type of fashion? At best, the info should be moved to an article about the musical genre or the punk fashion article.
  • Industrial fashion - see comments above about "Black metal fashion"
  • Death rock fashion - see comments above about "Black metal fashion"
  • Cyberpunk fashion - see comments above about Black metal fashion; also, I've never heard this used as a term, and Google hits are to Wikipedia-derived articles; what is the need for this article when there already exist cyberpunk and cyberculture articles?

The information in the above articles could probably be adequately covered in Gothic fashion or punk fashion. --Lowellian 22:07, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. They deserve individual articles. Fashion is important to culture, even in its more bizarre forms. Everyking 22:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, but only if they're actual fashions. I'm skeptical whether "vampyre fashion", "black metal fashion", etc., are actual fashion movements. --Lowellian 22:52, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Erm, "post modern computer components"? Delete. -Seth Mahoney 04:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete on the grounds that they're not widespread fashions, unless someone can convince me that they are valid. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:42, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Those don't represent "fashion movements", they're subcultures and scenes. Most of them are associated with music genres. I can vouch for the existance of the music genres, and music scenes almost always have an associated fashion. Also, if the decision is made to delete, the content should go into the articles about the music genres or subcultures, not into a one or two umbrella fashion articles (because I don't think industrial or black metal belong under any article about punk or goth.) These subcultures are complex but the distinctions are important to those in them, and whoever deals with this should be someone who actually knows something about them. Isomorphic 23:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with main culture articles. -Sean 08:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I PAT

An overly simplistic equation describing human impact upon the environment. The equation itself is not encyclopedic. - Seth Ilys 22:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. - Seth Ilys 22:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a real theory. Everyking 22:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that; but in that case, it needs a lot of work and a much better title. -- Seth Ilys
  • Keep. No explanation on the page, no explanation in the single page linking to it. But google does suggest it is real, so list on the pages need help instead.Average Earthman 13:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to clean up. I=PAT appears to be associated with Paul Ehrlich. I=PAT is way too simplistic to be useful but appears to gotten some press over the years. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John Esposito

Maybe a copyvio, certainly partisan, and tells us nothing about the subject. Secretlondon 22:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • It is from [11], so move to copyvio? Morwen 22:33, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

That which is inexpressable in a wikipedia page

POV, too cutesie for an encyclopedia, and defeats the whole point of Wikipedia, which is to attempt to explain everything and anything, even those articles linked to on this page. Delete. Moncrief 23:58, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • you CANT explain everything and anything. otherwise we wouldnt need films movies art or anything else.
  • Delete. Duly noted the irony that its only links are to Wikipedia articlesTheon 02:47, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete! Exploding Boy 05:12, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Cloud City

Just a joke. There is a place called cloud City in Star Wars and maybe also in Care Bears, but this article has NO salvagable content. ike9898

  • Delete. Content is all nonsense, not a stub. akaDruid 13:17, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silly and pointless.Average Earthman 13:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. RickK | Talk 02:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Someone has removed the nonsense and turned this into a legitimate article. ike9898

Pirate pizza

Apparently a recent special at a restaurant in Vermont. Beyond trivial ike9898

  • KEEP, it's a popular culinary invention.
  • Delete. Once the provably false information is removed (I can order one like that at my local pizzaria, and it doesn't cost 22.50 here), it contains nothing of substance. Syntax 02:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't need an article about every unique menu item in every restaurant around the world. Fuzheado 06:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's truly absurd. Made me laugh though. Moncrief 06:30, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or else we'll have to add "Hawaiian Pizza" (Canadian Bacon and Pineapple, at least for west coast US), and who knows what else. Niteowlneils 19:50, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. RickK | Talk 02:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. But replace with an entry about Japanese Pizza [12] Mdchachi 04:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Roaf

Vainty page from someone who was once in an insignificant band. Roaf himself contributed the article. ike9898

  • Delete unless some form of verification is provided. Saul Taylor 02:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 15

(March 14|16|^) | Masha Allah | MW:Religion (again?) | List:severed penises | J.A.Sayers | Power Rangers char-pages | "miserable failure" | MW:Cults | V.I.Pudovkin | To You Beloved Comrade | businessman | MW:Vfdheader (commented out on this page!) | Sweet,Innocent |

Masha Allah

  • Redirect to Allah? RickK | Talk 02:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No it's just an expression. Don't know what should be done with it though. Dori | Talk 03:07, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Are there enough similar expressions (e.g. "Deus vult") to make one page of them all? -- Nunh-huh 03:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is English wikipedia, not arab or farsi. Mikkalai 07:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed opinion after looking into Allah. Allah akbar, indeed :-). Mikkalai 01:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: significant phrase in a foreign language, will be encountered by English speakers. A page discussing all the "God" phrases in the world would be interesting, although I'm too lazy to do it. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • In all languages? I am lazy to even think about it.Mikkalai 01:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A good idea would be to look at List of Latin phrases and create List of Arabic phrases, composed similarly: with subarticles only for phrases that have something to say about. Allah and 99 Names of God articles contain seeds of this arabic list. Mikkalai 01:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Anthony DiPierro 18:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Religion

If this is to be inclusive, it will become larger than the articles themselves. If not, this will be POV. These articles are not intimately connected and should not even be a see also list. The list belongs at list of religions. Just links that to the article. --Jiang 02:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with Jiang. Each article can link to list of religions if desired, but this message won't work. Isomorphic 04:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No way to be neutral, and not terribly useful. Tuf-Kat 04:50, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I still don't see any benefit in this sort of message. (See Wikipedia talk:Article series.) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to MetaWiki as an example of how not to use a MediaWiki... then delete. Davodd 07:27, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons Jiang mentioned. --Xiaopo's Talk 07:32, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, abuse of process to list here whilst things are still using it. Morwen 08:00, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • then the entire vfd is an abuse of process since articles being nominated are still being linked to and avalable for reading/editing. --Jiang
  • Keep. I understand that some of you arent sysops, and therefore cant edit the pages in question - at least make proposals on the talk pages or on the pump, or cleanup. But I notice how reflexive people are - even on a wiki, where something can easily be changed to suit a purpose, people rather gripe and delete than actually be bold and do something about it. So, the real issue isnt this article but every mediawiki sidebar like it, and this isnt really the place to deal with it (maybe at Wikipedia talk:Mediawiki namespace). The point of the sidebars is to bind articles together with some topical cohesion. Articles in the sidebar are'nt going to be over-specific, but all the general categories should be filled. In most cases, it doesnt make sense for the sidebars to be sub-topical, rather paralell and general - to logically link to other articles. In case any of you here are new, this is exactly what the mediawiki namespace was made for, and has been a long time in coming. If you had been around longer, you might more quickly see the need and the potential. -SV(talk) 08:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • the pages should not be protected and if you think they do, then you've been living in a hole for the past few weeks. trying to list every religion in the world in a sidebar was on obviously ridiculous (and not issue with the entire sidebar scheme), as i've demonstrated by populating the list with polythestic religions. Now that you've changed it, I am less strongly for deleting as I once was, but prefer that this goes as a footer since it is no different from see also lists, which are placed towards the bottom of an article. --Jiang
  • Delete (strongly)- All this is is a really bad way to have an ad-hoc category system. The msg just pushes real content aside (such as images and tables that have content about the subject). Just link to religion which in turn should have a link to a list of religious topics. You can also directly link to such a list in each of those article's "See also" section. But having that list in every related article is extremely insane. I strongly support the deletion of this and related MediaWiki pages. --mav
  • You are having a vote about whether the boxes should be on the pages; not a vote on whether this should be deleted. MediaWiki messages are solely a technical measure, if they had not been invented you would not be able to put the <tables>s on vfd, nor do you need to use vfd to remove the msg tags from the articles. Morwen 11:30, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we are having a vote on whether the boxes should be deleted. The mediawiki page makes up all the boxes. This is doing to creator justice by having a larger community decide. Now that we have mediawiki pages, things are different. Would you be saying the same if we had mediawiki from the start? --Jiang
  • Keep I'll be neutral. Jiang: what is it that makes you think that everytime there is a selection, it is POV? We are an encyclopedia, and we have to be able to do encyclopedic overviews/summaries/selections. (I also agree with Morwen (above). VFD is neither editorial nor WP:cleanup) — Sverdrup 15:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't oppose lists. I oppose lists as sidebars since the immense number of entries will not fit. --Jiang
  • Delete. Very much delete. There are many belief systems for which different people would have different opinions about whether they constitute a "religion" or not. And the list would have to be very, very long were it to include every belief system that anyone considered a religion. --Lowellian 21:03, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impossible to list every religion topic, and the very act of selecting which topics should be included is POV. RickK | Talk 02:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • My comment above: We are an encyclopedia, and we have to be able to do encyclopedic selections. This is the daily work in organisating the categorisation and navigation in wikipedia. — Sverdrup 08:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of severed penises

  • Nonsense. RickK | Talk 04:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. not nonsense and true. --Jiang
    • moved to penis removal. --Jiang 09:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • [[penis removal now has VfD tag, preventing redir--should be left as simple redir. Niteowlneils 20:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not nonsense, though I don't know that its really necessary. -Seth Mahoney 04:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not nonsense, but delete anyway. "List of" articles are nice if they organize related information in a useful way, but this does not. Also, it makes me nervous. Isomorphic 04:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not nonsense, but as stated above, one has to judge a list by its logical purpose, otherwise you're left with an endless proliferation of lists that never further the goal of accumulating knowledge. Nobody in their right mind is going to look this up. Any information about these cases can and should go into individual articles. So delete. Keep in light of all the info that's been added, but change the title, since it's no longer primarily a list. Everyking 04:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Interesting conundrum. All in all, if we're going to keep it (and I'm not sure either way, actually) I vote to rename it. After all, it's not the penisis themselves that are important, but the people to whom they were attached. I vote to keep, but change the name to something like List of men whose penises have been severed, or perhaps even List of men who have undergone involuntary penectomies. But if we keep this list, surely we're going to need List of women who have severed their partners' penises too? Exploding Boy 05:06, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've tried to add some substance to it and tried to make it about penis severing.
  • Undecided. Wrote the original when I saw that someone had a link to "List of severed penises". I thought the idea of making that link blue instead of red might be funny. There's some very good information in the article, as it is now, but I'm not sure if it all merits its own article and a list format, per se. Perhaps the information in that article could be relocated to castration or genital mutilation. Nice job, all, on turning a half-joking stub article into one with some serious merit. By the way, the stub tag is hilarious in the context of that article. I vote the tag should be kept even when it is a complete article. :) Mike Church 06:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep it and rename it "List of Castrations", "List of Famous Castrations", "List of Castrated Men", or "List of Famous Castrated Men." I prefer "List of Famous Castrations" 66.63.126.171 07:05, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to something else. It is no longer just a list but explores the topic. --mav
  • vote to rename Penis-related violence. Exploding Boy 07:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with a medical overview of the consequences of castration or mutilation of the penus. Antonio all extra inches still here Martin
  • Keep as redir to Penectomy. Davodd 18:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto Davodd. Niteowlneils 19:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The stampede to rename has resulted in misinformation. A penectomy is a surgical procedure. It is not a name for every lopping-off of a penis.(e.g. Osiris.. e.g. Bobbitt). Info should go back to original place. - Nunh-huh 22:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerry Alan Sayers

  • Article by a new user about himself. Not apparently important. Also, whatever redirects he's created (i.e. Dusty Sayers). Isomorphic 04:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete. We do have a rule on vanity pages. Danny 04:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would've suggested moving it to their user page (User:Dusty), but that page already existed before they made their vanity page. Maximus Rex, 04:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The article space should be for encyclopaedia stuff only, so pages in the article space shouldn't redirect out of it. And as far as I know, we don't have a rule on "vanity pages". In fact, we have Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which I think forbids the term from even being used. However, delete if not verified. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Unknown, but seems to have done a couple significant things in his life...Antonio Where are my screws??? Martin
  • Keep. Barely lists colourable basis for inclusion with online strip, but -- more detail on acting? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:00, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity, nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; looks harmless and has links to a couple other interesting things.
  • I apologise if I have stepped over the line or broken Wikipedia ettiquette. After writing a couple other articles, I suppose the power of creating public information went to my head. I have tried to expand the entry a little bit to make it more interesting and useful; if that is inadequate, I will not be offended if the consensus is to delete my entry. If the vote of a new user with an obvious interest in the page counts, I ask the the page be kept on-line, but if not, I hope at least the other articles I have added, and may add in the future, are better. --Jerry Alan Sayers

Pages on Power Rangers characters

kelvSYC 05:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Somewhat marginal, but I think enough could be written about each of these to make lumping them together into a single article awkward, and there's no sense in losing the information, since it is significant to pop culture. Everyking 05:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. NO need for deletion. RickK | Talk 05:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, sadly enough. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:40, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all: useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, or we have to delete hundreds of articles on Middle-Earth, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. Niteowlneils 19:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I guess we're on the slippery slope: additional cruft is justified by the existing cruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. List them on pages needing attention instead so they can get further content from additional authors. I'm putting VfD notices on them. --zandperl 02:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm starting to think we need a separate Wiki for all these fictional characters and places. Average Earthman 12:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That would be an extremely thin line to call, I doubt it would ever happen. Problematic entries: Mickey Mouse, Thor, Zeus, Anastasia. Which ones of these belong in the fictional wiki and which ones belong in the real one? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:14, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see why fictional characters don't belong in Wikipedia. It just adds to the charm of Wikipedia. Abigail 12:08, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Robert Happelberg 19:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, reluctantly. The show's popularity has waned among the target audience, but remains a force in pop culture. ShutterBugTrekker 22:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Miserable failure

  • Dictionary definition of a phrase with no meaning beyond the obvious. Markalexander100 07:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge the GWB stuff with Googlebomb and delete this. Doesn't deserve it's own article. Dysprosia 07:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. First off, people may later want to link to "miserable failure" in particular rather than Googlebomb in general. Secondly, it's not merely a dicdef, but actually explains some of the cultural context. Perhaps a stub tag is in order, though. Mike Church 07:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If Mr Kerry calls Mr Bush "not very good", are we going to have Not very good too? Examples of Googlebombing are fine, but in the Googlebombing article. Markalexander100 08:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Unlike "not very good", "miserable failure" (as applied to Bush) has developed some level of cultural presence. For example, I distinctly remember a news-related comedy bit using a recording of Gephardt saying "miserable failure". Mike Church 09:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • redirect to googlebomb --Jiang
  • merge and redirect. Saul Taylor 11:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this particular googlebomb is important enough for it's own page. moink 16:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as Dyspropsia suggested. The common use is merely a definition. The specific example is relevant only because of its use in the googlebombs. Put it there. Copy it into the relevant political pages if you think it's relevant (I don't), but I disagree with the claim that it deserves its own page. Rossami 17:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fairly significant. Everyking 21:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. RickK | Talk 02:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has enough cultural currency to merit a page of its own. Bkonrad | Talk 01:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cults

Delete, for the same reasons as MediaWiki:Religion and MediaWiki:Religiousfigures. It would be too unweildy, and also significantly controversial to list all cults or purported cults (especially the latter). Neutral for now (seeing as it's been changed to a list of articles which are claimed to be essential to the concept of cults). --Xiaopo's Talk 07:50, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ed Poor removed Unification Church from the list. This will be subject to edit conflicts because it is inherently POV. If a Falun Gong member were here, that would be removed too. All that is needed is a link to cult and List of purported cults. --Jiang 07:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It is a footer so it isn't that bad. But the list of cults has got to go and replaced with a link to an article listing groups that have are widely considered to be cults. --mav 09:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inevitably controversial and unnecessary.
  • Delete. Tinder for future flame wars. (Mother Teresa is a cult?) Davodd 12:56, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)No vote. Davodd 02:57, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: inherent POV in term "cult". Wile E. Heresiarch 18:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course the term cult is POV but in spite of that the term should be in wikipedia because the term is used widely. The "examples of purported cults" have already been removed from the media wiki. The media wiki is helpful because the subject is so complicated. If you can do a better job then please do so in the article cult. Andries 19:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. MediaWiki namespace shouldn't be used for article content. See also Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace. -- Oliver P. 04:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list of cults has been replaced by a link to an article that lists them. --mav 05:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The popular phenomenon of "cults" itself is worth referring to. See the talk page for Purported cults where there has been some discussion of the issues involved. Fire Star 00:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the concept as it stands now is worthy; there are a constellation of issues related to cults, and it's useful to have them all referencing each other, as long as it's short and doesn't contain a POV that a certain organization is or is not a cult. COGDEN 01:19, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Vsevolod Ilarionovich Pudovkin

The article was created with an incorrect spelling of this individual's patronymic. The correct way to spell is "Illarionovich". This was temporarily fixed by adding a redirect to the page, however, since the spelling is wrong, there is no reason for this redirect page to exist. --Ezhiki 16:21, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. No real reason for deletion, nothing else needs that location and it's possible someone else would make the same mistake. By the way, for next time, there's a page for listing redirects to be deleted: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. moink 16:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep; useful as redirect. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If someone makes the same mistake, the presence of this article might discourage that person to correct the mistake (since the link will point to the redirect page). This will lead to an article with an orthographic error in it, which, as I understand, is not at all desirable. It is not like "Ilarionovich" is an alternative spelling, it IS a (quite bad) mistake.
Sorry about posting this in the wrong place, by the way.

--Ezhiki 17:17, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, the redirect is fine. RickK | Talk 02:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To You Beloved Comrade

Wikisource. Pure and simple. Mikkalai 16:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Seconded. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Thirded (?) Niteowlneils 19:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is a copyvio anyway. Secretlondon 19:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikisource. Everyking 21:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. Do NOT move to Wikisource, delete. RickK | Talk 02:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Businessman

  • I'm not convinced this stub has any potential. Seems more like a dictionary definiton. Why not redirect to List of corporate leaders or something like that. dave 20:17, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is already in wiktionary. The term is too generic (lost his "copyright" protection so to say:-), so that what is written in the stub is already restrictive and hence misleading. Mikkalai 01:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is something that needs an article; in "What Links Here", the list is pretty long. Is there any way to get an article on this? Keep if we have nothing better. Meelar 13:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Vfdheader

  • Does not show <nowiki> tags tags or meta links properly. I don't see how this is helpful to be in the mediawiki namespace. Why not just make the changes directly on this page? Angela. 20:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • will SV come over and explain the point of this? --Jiang
  • Delete. It was a good idea, but trying it out it didn't work (nowiki tags didn't work, m:Meta_page didn't work), and now the MedaWiki msg serves no purpose. — Sverdrup 21:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sweet and Innocent

The band's discography [13] lists no album by this name, just a track. Someone on cleanup suggested this might be Michael. DJ Clayworth 20:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No vote yet. The list of tracks is very similar to the album "Behold the Beginning". Does anyone else know more about this artist? I am kind of new to wikipedia, and i am unfamiliar with Michael's exact style of vandalism. Would he just use a real album and change the name? - DropDeadGorgias(talk) 20:51, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
Michael's style is to make up things. RickK | Talk 02:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Mild keep. This site[14] implies it was a single in 1980, then an album in 1988 (not 1989). Niteowlneils 23:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That link seems to be broken. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It's back now. You're right, and I also found the group's official site [15] which also lists it. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, but I think there is something odd here. I wonder if the album has two names, depending onwhere it was released? DJ Clayworth 17:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 16

(March 15|17|^) | "See this creat. writing letter" | Q (disambig) | List:fictional Oxford/Cambridge colleges | Jap. translation note | Robin champion | VentureLodge | L.Sanger(!) | East. Germany | Le Tene | Joke article(sic) | Tsán lang. | H.Jacobsen | H.Christensen | schnorrer and shnorrer | Pacific All. Advisors |

See this creative writing letter

I don't think that Wikipedia should be a repository for fluff such as this.

  • Delete. Mikkalai 00:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Added vfd notice. Delete. jengod 01:21, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK | Talk 02:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't even tell what it is. I don't even know what a "creative writing letter" is. I'm guessing it was done in response to a course assignment of some kind. Certainly not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 02:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's creative, but not encyclopedic. - Seth Ilys 02:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another one that made me laugh, but please delete. Moncrief 06:59, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would have been funnier if it was wikified. Davodd 10:46, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though it curretly is very funnily wikified. :-) — Sverdrup 18:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, or keep as external link. Although not encyclopedic, the comparison between two books are quite accurate, only it is not written in the usual article format, which makes it more interesting. Also, this work definitly is not submitted without copyright permission! It is very original. ;) But perhaps it just doesn't belong here.
  • Keep, or maybe move to the Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page, it could belong there. ;-)


Q (disambiguation)

This page is made redundant by the "Meanings for Q" section on Q. None of the other letters have disambiguation pages. Either they all should, or this one doesn't.Nohat 01:17, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

  • Keep. Some of the things listed are questionable, but enough of them are valid to warrant disambiguation. But I wonder: is this just another creative way to include stuff about Atlanta radio stations? Yeah, on second thought, delete. This thing is pointless. Everyking 01:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The only things on this page that aren't already on Q are the Atlanta radio station and the video game character (who doesn't have an article). Everything else is already covered on Q. Nohat 01:28, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q. The latter is already working perfectly as a disambig page. Mikkalai 01:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And remove the disambiguation stuff from Q. It makes more sense logically to have a separate disambiguation page. I don't see why Q is supposed to be any different in this regard from, say, Forest. Certainly you wouldn't want to merge that with Forest (disambiguation). — Timwi 02:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q. The disambig/alternate meaning section is (or should be) a standard part of articles on letters. -- Seth Ilys 02:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Would there be any point in keeping Q (disambiguation) around as a redirect, if the remaining content is merged with Q?
  • I have no strong views on where the disambiguation information should be, but if at Q then this should redirect there so that people can find it and to prevent it being recreated accidentally. -- Oliver P. 04:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q for consistency. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q. Consistency is important. — Sverdrup 16:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional Oxford colleges, List of fictional Cambridge colleges

WHAT?! --Monsieur Mero 02:43, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Japanese translation note

  • Does this belong here? RickK | Talk 04:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • seems useful for Japanese translators, not here. --Yacht 04:47, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • move to wikipedia namepsace and link to Japanese MoS. --Jiang
  • Keep. My understanding is that this is the same kind of article as Harry Potter in translation. Our agreement is to keep that kind of translation information in the main namespace. This is not just a note for translators. -- Taku 15:22, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Harry Potter is translated from English to another language, not the other way around. People won't care about the Japanese since they can't read it. Translations are already provided to Japanese in the articles themselves. Since this is the English wikipedia, people won't be looking for the Japanese to find the English. In addition, we shouldn't be referencing ourselves in articles. --Jiang 21:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, if people care nothing but English then Harry Potter in translation doesn't make sense at all. Your using a double standard. Besides, we have a number of articles with the title of a non-English language like kami and some German, French and many other languages titles. I see no problem providing information about non-English words. Finally, what is wrong with linking articles in wikipedia? -- Taku 15:11, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • You completely missed mey point. Re-read my comments above and I'll repeat: An article based solely on translation is innapproprate, not having Japanese in articles. In those cases, as with harry potter, its from English to a foreign language and not the other way around. People are going to look for English to find the nonEnglish. This article assumed people are looking for Japanese. People are interested in the foreign language, but how? I oppose using wikipedia as a reference or subject of phenomenon in articles, not "linking articles in wikipedia"--Jiang

Robin champion

  • Vanity orphan; 6 google hits for ("robin champion" "consulting") -- Seth Ilys 15:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)*Vanity & advertising.
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unpediac. -- Zigger 20:01, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

VentureLodge

  • Well, not much to say, 152 google hits. --Yacht 08:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • The same user created VentureLodge, Lisa Ross (already deleted) and Keiran McKay, given the relativly low profile all of these things I'd say they weren't encyclopedia worthy.
  • Keep. Of regional interest; sounds like something useful to know if planning a visit in the area.Doovinator 13:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. non-notable.--Jiang 21:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Doovinator is right, but that only makes it a suitable article for Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No VfD tag. Anthony DiPierro 17:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

  • Google does not think he is very famous. FirmLittleFluffyThing 18:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Larry was a great (Wiki/Nu)pedian (...I think - it was definitely before my time) but is definitely not encyclopedia worthy. →Raul654 18:03, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google is irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 18:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 18:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jimmy Wales has argumented carefully and sincerely why he should not have an article on Wikipedia. My opinion is that the articles on Larry and Jimmy is a shared issue. — Sverdrup 19:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • "Speaking objectively and neutrally, if this were about anyone other than me, I would say that of course it's fine to have an article." - Jimbo Wales
    • If this is kept, I'll try to move this into the Wikipedia namespace (and that we don't need vfd for). The article is currently interesting to wikipedians only. — Sverdrup 16:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevant. Ludraman | Talk 19:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevent, needs expantion though. Jrincayc 23:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: relevant, significant. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is this man relevant and significant in terms of description of world wide knowledge ? explain please; Ant
      • There's some kind of political conflict going on here; what's that about? Wile E. Heresiarch 14:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. His "relevance in terms of worldwide knowledge" results from the fact that he (with Jimmy Wales) founded Wikipedia. Michael Hardy 03:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Germany

  • The page contanis mainly a Neo-Nazi propaganda, offensive to Polish, Lithuanian and Russian people. Mestwin of Gdansk 18:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • In English language East(ern) Germany refers to the ex-DDR state.
  • Keep. VFD is not a place to work out your POV disputes. Maybe go back to the article's talk page to work out your differences or possibly request mediation? moink 18:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless someone can explain how this is merely neo-Nazi propaganda. We have to document views even if we don't like them, don't we? There may be a lot of controversy around it, but that also means a lot of work has gone into it. Everyking 18:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but under different title. "Eastern Germany" is too close to East Germany (DDR) and might suggest that wwikipedia either supports BdV claims or considers the areas in question a German terrtory.Halibutt 22:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gdansk's need to attack people who disagree with him do not belong on this page. RickK | Talk 01:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:Gdansk is a vandal and a troll. Nico 19:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Territories outside of Germany cannot be called Eastern Germany in a serious encyclopedia. Find a way to explain the content in a neutral way, showing various point of view, or it cannot stay. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Le Tene

empty, no links except a redirect, I would think it's a misspelling of La Tène. --Yak 18:36, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep as typo/mis-gender protection. Niteowlneils 19:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Joke article

  • Exactly what it calls itself. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 19:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meelar 19:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely definitely surely positively undoubtedly unquestionably delete (come on brain! - my vocabulary is bigger than that!) Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DavidWBrooks 19:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DavidWBrooks 19:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep after NPOVing and removal of total nonsense. This is at least as important as an article on yet another Pokemon figure or yet another obscure Canadian politician. Denni 19:45, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Above all else, it's in the wrong namespace! BLASPHEMY! Delete. - Wikipedia 21:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maximus Rex 22:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Average Earthman 14:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with thanks. Great article, but it can't stay. Andrewa 03:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tsán language

Hans Jacobsen

  • Orphaned. Looks like a personal page.
  • Delete. Only 1 hit for "Hans Jacobsen" VM Labs [16] (warning, page is huge "every company/person in this database"). Niteowlneils 04:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heather Christensen

  • Pretty worthless:

'Heather Christensen was Playboy's 2001 Model of the Year. In 2002, she posed as a mermaid in the Wet and Wild 2002 edition.

Heather is also an avid skateboarder.

http://www.skateparkoftampa.com/spot/imageviewer.aspx?img=images/locals/heatherbowlcarve.jpg '

Its orphaned, not suprisingly.

  • Keep. Playboy Models of the Year are famous, among other things. Everyking 21:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:10, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe create a List of Playboy centerfolds? RickK | Talk 01:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd be inclined to stick with a list of Plamates of the Year, probably a list of celebrities that have posed in Playboy, and maybe a list of groups that have posed in Playboy, EG Women of Enron, Women of the Pac-10. Niteowlneils 04:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 8,090 google hits is good enough for me. Davodd 07:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Schnorrer

  • Delete, yiddish dicdef and disambig, which is unnecessary if the dicdef is removed. , See Talk:Schnorrer. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:05, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Przepla 22:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to the list of English words originated from Yiddish language. --Humus sapiens Talk 22:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If you want to delete the dicdef, then list shnorrer here. As long as that exists, Schnorrer is a perfectly valid redirect. --Wik 22:57, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • If Wik would quit reverting it, it would be a proper disambiguation page. RickK | Talk
  • As long as both the Karl Schnörrer article and the Shnorrer article exist, Schnorrer should be a disambiguation page, not a redirection. If the Snhorrer article gets moved/deleted, Schnorrer should redirect to the Karl Schnörrer. Niteowlneils 02:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop putting the same page up for deletion again and again and again? Only a month ago (!) it was decided that no consensus had been reached, and now here it is again, and again the same arguments. And yes, there seem to be two different spellings -- so what? This is the case with almost all Yiddish words. Where's the problem? Why can't you leave the text as it is? <KF> 08:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shnorrer

  • Merge/wicktionary then delete. I've never heard of this, have no idea how many non-Yiddish speakers know/use it, and I have no idea how strongly it is associated with Groucho. But, unless someone can build a case that it is a widely known enuf term, both the context and connection, the concepts of this article can be added to the list of Yiddish words and Wictionary, then deleted.
    • If we do decide it deserves it's own article, m-w.com only has the Schnorrer spelling, so the preferred solution would be to move the Shnorrer content to the Schnorrer page, still with the disamb to the German guy, and make the Shnorrer article redirect to the Schnorrer article. Niteowlneils 02:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, just "Shnorrer" only gets 292 hits, vs almost 50,000 with the 'c'. So it doesn't seem like there is any valid case for making Schnorrer just a redirct to Shnorrer. Niteowlneils 03:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop putting the same page up for deletion again and again and again? Only a month ago (!) it was decided that no consensus had been reached, and now here it is again, and again the same arguments. And yes, there seem to be two different spellings -- so what? This is the case with almost all Yiddish words. Where's the problem? Why can't you leave the text as it is? <KF> 08:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Add this to the other discussions already on the talk page, and think more about a relisting policy. Andrewa 20:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which precludes the possibility of it being a Yiddish-English Dictionary - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Pacific Alliance Advisors

  • Seems like an advert to me, or a vanity page. Mark Richards 23:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Have you made a mistake with the page name? There's no page there, and nothing to restore (no deleted history) -- Graham  :) | Talk 00:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Try it with the 's' I've added. Andrewa 20:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Added msg:vfd. --Hcheney 05:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero hits, no phone listing. Niteowlneils 21:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 17

(March 16|18|^) | Y.Tsunetomo | nonabyte(again) | NESM Nostalgie Expresse | J.Paulo & 3-C Shenanigans | Looseys | /Charlie on the MTA/(!) | Badger-Badger-Badger | `TopCoder` | Eco-syndicalism | M.Forman | G.Brewer | J.Smith | People's Park | List:Canada postal codes | Arman | panel | Bellman | Vitamins:T & U | AFI's 100 yrs/heroes/villains | Spotsylvania County | M.Tam | D.Arnold |

Yamamoto Tsunetomo

  • Article only repeats the title of article. Probably someone's name. I know nothing else about it. Needs help if it's worth keeping. Bkonrad | Talk 01:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous name. Actually, at this moment IMO it is better to turn it into a redirect to Hagakure. Mikkalai 02:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Link above by Mikkalai is very usefull if someone wish to expand this article further. I with no effort just added born and died dates. Przepla 13:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonabyte

Nobody has yet given a respectable authority for the existence of this as recognized, standard terminology. Didn't we delete this one before? Dpbsmith 01:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Deleted after being through vfd last week, so I've deleted it again. Maximus Rex 01:40, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought there was such thing as a nanobyte. Maybe the user made a typo
  • Delete. Neologism, validly deleted before. Valid speedy delete. Andrewa 20:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Nonabyte is nonsense. Nanobyte is correct SI construction, but equal nonsense. How can one have a billionth of a byte? Denni 21:00, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • Delete. FWIW, Nanobytes does have historical context as a regular part of a regular BYTE magazine feature. Niteowlneils 22:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe the same way Rod Stewart can sing in Mandolin Wind about 'the coldest winter in almost fourteen years', I guess that means the coldest winter in thirteen years, as there's exactly one winter per year. (;-> Andrewa 09:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NESM Nostalgie Expresse

Reason: Badly written four lines on a company that went out of business last year. 2/3s of new companies collapse. We surely don't want a badly written page on each? Delete. --Tagishsimon 03:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral or maybe stub; keep if we can get more info of note. I assume it was something like [17] or [18] (possibly even more varied). If they're encylcopedic, think NESM may be, if it operated for a similar length of time. I don't see anything about it being a new business. Anyone have any friends at http://nl.wikipedia.org/ they could ask for background (years of operation, # passengers, historical connections, etc.), or can someone that speaks Dutch (I assume try to get the info from the hundreds of non-English hits? Many, if not most, of the people listed on Wikipedia are dead, as are many companies listed here--I don't think that's an automatic reason to be excluded. Niteowlneils 04:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • [19] is the wayback machine entry for them, but I don't read dutch Rick Boatright 21:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong - http://www.nesm.nl/ - equally I cannot believe wikipedia has driven me to search out (to me) obscure netherlands railway companies at 5am. --Tagishsimon 05:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Paulo and 3-C Shenanigans

Jonathan Paulo and 3-C Shenanigans. Vanity pages for a non-notable individual and the college "prank club" he claims he founded. Paulo gets 2 google hits, his club gets 0. Maximus Rex 05:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looseys

A gem from Jonathan Paulo (see above). Dicdef at best, likely idiosyncratic. It was deleted by Maximus Rex, but Jonathan recreated it so let's vote it off the island properly this time. Isomorphic 05:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually this was speedily deleted, and your adding the vfd tag to it recreated it again. I would just delete it again, but I get told off for doing things like that... Graham  :) | Talk 09:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was this a (rare) sysop slip up? History seems to be lost. Safest to now go through the VfD hoops to delete IMO, but don't bother recreating the history, it was a valid speedy delete IMO. Andrewa 19:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is a deleted history, original text was "A Loosey is a single cigarette, offered for sale, usually by the Arabs." The reason the history doesn't show up normally is because the article was deleted while Isomorphic was in the process of adding the vfd tag. -- Graham  :) | Talk 00:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aha! Understood, thank you. Doesn't affect my vote. Andrewa 03:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Charlie on the MTA

Copyright infringement; since I'm a bit out of touch and not clear on how to do the new copyright boilerplate, could someone put it in there? It's just the words of the song by (I believe) the Kingston Trio. If someone could convert it into an article on the song, that'd be much better than deletion, though. -- John Owens (talk) 06:09, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Done ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 06:21, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
I have turned this into a real article - and now I can't get the tune out of my head. - DavidWBrooks 21:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Badger Badger Badger

Wikipedia is not a web directory. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 06:42, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Alexa rank is 31,000-odd; on the other hand, might be a valid piece of internet culture. No vote, just a comment. Meelar 06:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are you ready to put every dancing fat man and chicken that crosses the road into a separate article about internet culture? Mikkalai 07:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! I love that website... Agree that wikipedia is not a web directory, but it has become a very famous part of internet culture. Undecided, neutral -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It'll be forgotten in a year. DJ Clayworth 17:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Weebl and Bob - it's one of many one-offs by Weebl - David Gerard 17:07, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Weebl and Bob for the moment. Famous enough for that, no more for the moment unless someone can come up with biographical notes on the authors (and ones that they are happy to release). Andrewa 19:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly, yes, but it's a real thing and a documented phenomenon. I can easily see a future scholar researching web memes and finding this useful. Jgm 21:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Jgm. Lupin 01:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it'll be forgotten in a year, all the more reason why it needs an article now. Everyking 22:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Badgers? Badgers? WE DONT'T NEED NO STINKIN' BADGERS!!!
    • Sorry, that was obligatory. :) seriously, I've seen it in dozens of IRC chat rooms. Keep. Fennec

TopCoder

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please see Wiktionary for a wikiwiki dictionary. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 06:49, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep. TopCoder is an interesting cultural phenomenon, especially among Programmers
  • Keep. I have expanded the article well beyond any mere definition, though it is still a stub Esrogs 18:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
  • Keep. Better than the Tampons article. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:11, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eco-syndicalism

This term gets no google hits. Was written by banned user EntmootsOfTrolls/142 here. Maximus Rex 07:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

  • Keep User:Anthere 07:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Sam Spade 08:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)Keep, bad reasons given for deletion
  • Looks believable but the amount of gobbledygook and loose associations are more likely indicative of a spoof Rjstott 07:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am wondering why it is not speedy-deleted? Mikkalai 08:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a tiger team type attempt to start discussion unrelated to the topic of the article. If someone with expertise in the relevant area wants to validate and/or clean it up, fine, keep it then, but otherwise, even if a valid topic (I don't know) it would probably be easier to start again. Agree that neither the lack of Google hits (lots of obscure topics aren't on the web yet) nor the authorship (Anthere is quite within his her rights to copy from a GFDL source) are reasons for deletion. The reason for deletion is that it was created in bad faith, and there's no reason to think it's anything other than trash. Andrewa 09:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • <snip>
    • Apologise for the mistake in the pronoun. I think the rest of the argument stands. But as you are now claiming to have expertise in the area, I'll take your word for it that the article is accurate, and amend my vote accordingly (as I said I would above). I'll watch your experiment with interest. Andrewa 19:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael Forman

  • No verifiable information about this non-famous person. Angela. 08:19, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparent autobiography by an anon user. No reasons given in the article for inclusion. Andrewa 08:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A google search on his name and some of his apparent professions didn't turn up anything notable. Probable vanity. Maximus Rex 08:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gary Brewer

  • No information provided about this specific person, Google didn't turn up anything either. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 08:40, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An admitted nobody (by the same contributor as Gary Brewer). Vanity page, nothing notable. Maximus Rex 08:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
    • By the same contrib as who...? Andrewa 19:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not significant. Average Earthman 14:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Fails to list any colourable basis for inclusion, and elsewhere Wikipedia describes him as a "nobody". If this is correct, if nothing more can be dug up, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable prank by anon contrib. Are you sure that's "him" described elsewhere (where?), Daniel? There are several people by that name in music and academia, don't know how notable any are. Andrewa 19:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Aha, I see where now, link given by Maximus above. Andrewa 19:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jason Smith

  • Looks like a vanity page to me. Toby W 11:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Moncrief 13:17, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless and until more information can be provided colourably justifying inclusion, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People's Park

Initially just a bad stub I turned it into an article believing it to be a common name, but there are in fact just two. I now wonder if it's a bit redundant? -- Graham  :) | Talk 13:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep as disambig. The one in Berkeley is certainly famous. -- Decumanus 19:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of postal codes in Canada

Including subpages List of A Postal Codes, List of B Postal Codes, List of C Postal Codes, List of E Postal Codes, List of G Postal Codes of Canada, List of K Postal Codes, List of L Postal Codes, List of N Postal Codes. Most have been listed on cleanup since January with no improvement and their value as encyclopedia articles has been questioned on Talk:Lists of postal and zip codes of the world/Delete. May I suggest they get deleted here and moved to wikisource? -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whoever works on these pages, once they finish, should then look at the page for each town linked, and create articles for those Canadian towns that don't already have articles. Robert Happelberg 19:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arman

Vanity page. Darkcore 16:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Please don't bite the newbies. This material should be on a user page, sure... as an anon user has now helpfully pointed out to the user in question. Andrewa 02:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I wasn't trying to "bite a newbie" - I didn't realize until after I'd added the VfD that he was just confused about user pages and such... Darkcore
  • Why is there a link to the Norwegian wiki? RickK | Talk 03:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Panel

Dictionary definition Dori | Talk 17:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Added the GUI panel. Valid stub now. Jay 18:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • On hearing the word panel out of context, many people will associate with it a small group of people giving their opinion or making public statements or whatever while sitting more or less side by side, probably facing one or two television cameras. Let's add that meaning of the word as well rather than delete the word. There's more to it than a dictionary definition. <KF> 19:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bellman

Have no idea what this is, seems like nonsense to me Dori | Talk 17:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Or, just possibly, redirect to The Hunting of the Snark, though I'd advise against it. I won't say "merge with The Hunting of the Snark" since it contains nothing that would enhance that article. It's a perfectly valid reference to the Lewis Carroll poem, The Hunting of the Snark, and accurate as far as it goes, which is not far, but definitely not worthy of an article in itself. Although the poem is responsible for a few quotations/memes, I don't think "Bellman" is one of them. As for Dori's remark "it seems like nonsense to me," well, what can I say? Carroll himself is on record as saying:
if-and the thing is wildly possible-the charge of writing nonsense were ever brought against the author of this brief but instructive poem, it would be based , I feel convinced, on the line (in Fit the Second)
"Then the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes."
Dpbsmith 18:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vitamin T and Vitamin U

  • Being a former nutrition grad student, I'm almost certain that these don't exist. (Even if they do get Google hits). ike9898 20:39, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is some evidence that they exist, there are some web sites that mention them (I have put links in the article), that doesn't proove that they are real, of course... Mark Richards 20:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I go with Ike on this one. While Vitamin V (as in 'vodka')is sourced at www.seagram.ca and www.absolut.se, I'm not crediting it as such until I find it at a legitimate med site. 'Anyvitamin'? Can you say 'shillbot?' Denni 21:10, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • The only thing that the two cites you give link to is a page on anyvitamins.com that has a page, but no citation, no chemical information, no source, not even a foodstuff. The OTHER advertising page you link to calls it "sesame seed factor" and even a search for THAT turns up nothing useful. ALL other google links refer to things like "getting enough Touches" as vitamin T.... strongly vote for deleting. Rick Boatright 21:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This is just an observation: as I said on the article talk page: This isn't really my area, but Vitamin T has an entry in Benders' Dictionary of Nutrition and Food Technology (Woodhead, 1999). You can check this through www.xreferplus.com --Camembert
    • Fair enough, I know nothing about this, just wanted to make sure that someone who did took a look at them. Mark Richards 21:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • See discussion on talk page, Bender does not support existance, and I posted the real source. Rick Boatright 03:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And, expand articles. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains

Whether copyright or not, I don't see this is important to have here. Jwrosenzweig 21:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. — Sverdrup 21:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 22:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my mind, it's as valid as any listing of Academy Award winners or Grammy Award winners. This is also, I feel, important enough to warrant inclusion. I quite enjoy the rankings and they (the American Film Institute) are an authority of the subject. Many actor/actress bios here mention their inclusions on these lists. I say clean the listing up, format it, and treat it as an awards listing (even though it's not technically an award). -- Matty j 23:02, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, someone better get cleaning. It's not even really a sub-stub as present. I've added a wikilink to the AFI, but I still have no idea what the lists mean, nor much interest personally. It looks like a valid article needing just a little work, but I did say needing. Andrewa 02:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • There are several of these AFI lists, so if we keep this one somebody needs to work on creating all of them. :) this one needs serious work, though. Keep, move to Cleanup. RickK | Talk 03:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spotsylavania county, Spotsylvania County

Joke. If it contains any useful content, that should merged into Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Andris 22:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maurita Tam

Move to memorial? Not a famous person other than the 9-11 involvement; article is hardly an encyclopedic entry. -Ike 22:23, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Everyking 22:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I'm the contributor. I'm not aware what the criteria are for listings of individuals, but I added this and another 9/11 victim when I noticed that most lists of victims included wiki links for the names of the victims. If non-famous 9/11 victims shouldn't be listed, those wiki's should also be removed, for consistency.User:Ryanaxp
  • nonfamous. move to 9/11 wiki and delete.--Jiang
  • Wikimemorial. Rossami 02:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • We have a strong policy on this. Transwiki it. — Sverdrup 08:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Derek Arnold

Vanity. Isomorphic 23:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • delete. Pedro 01:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. Lupin 01:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable autobiography and obvious prank by an anon user. I'm thinking of making up a boilerplate text for this. (;-> Andrewa 02:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 18

(March 17|^) | Evar Saar | Numeracy | Darchei Torah | M. and R.M.Santilli | Al Gore's views | A.W.Effendi | M.Corris | The Breetles | Ishy Bilady | Inxire iO(?) | `Shorenstein Company` | "Ignorance of the law..." | kotoku | white heron |

Evar Saar

Vanity page. Besides, he doesn't entirely lack merit as he has collected over 50,000 local names. If the community think this is enough, I could write a short paragraph on him (but not more). But I would prefer deleting. Andres 09:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Numeracy

Dicdef and vanity in one ... — Timwi 00:54, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Pedro 01:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm a little gobsmacked by this being listed for deletion. It's a good topic, and although the article has had a sad history I think it's now a reasonable stub. Andrewa 02:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs work but it's a valid topic.
  • Keep. There might be valid discussion, history or information pertinent to this subject that goes beyond a dictionary entry. ---Ryanaxp 02:22, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid topic. Meelar 07:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Darchei Torah

Orphan unclear stublet -- Infrogmation 03:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Magnecule and Ruggero Maria Santilli

Complete nonsense; there is no scientific basis for this "new theory of chemistry." Googling reveals nothing but unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories. Probably vanity. -- Friedo 03:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah but then how come there's an article on Archimedes Plutonium - a similar case IMO. This is what could make a totally new chapter of kibology. So I think it should stay as long as the Plutonium one stays without implying that Santilli is actually right.--134.121.71.23 04:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Since you created the article, how about at least NPOVing it? The reason I suspect vanity is because there is no criticism of the "theory" in the article itself, nor any acknowledgment that it is not accepted in the scientific community. I think descriptive articles about nonsense are OK, especially if such nonsense is culturally significant (like, say, astrology), but merely copying ludicrous claims is not encyclopedia kosher. -- Friedo 05:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually I was completely surprised to find that, unlike Archie Pu, Santilli has a few papers published in a peer-reviewed journal number of peer-reviewed journals. I've included what I found in the talk:Ruggero Maria Santilli page, while I keep searching. I was actually looking for authors dismissing his theory, and couldn't find any so far. About the descriptive character, the article does describe the guy's claims rather than endorsing them, doesn't it. And it's still marked as a stub, there's still room for improvement.--134.121.71.23 06:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Al Gore's views

Inherently POV, not encyclopedic. I really don't think that this article could be fixed. Politicians views change all the time, and sometimes they're not even acknowledged by them. What about what the opposition thinks are the politician's views? I think it's a very bad idea to get started down this path. I guess I'll see if anyone agrees with me. Dori | Talk 04:34, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. Most politicians' views -- especially at this level -- are shaped by polls and change with the winds. Mdchachi 04:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no fundamental problem here. In this context, what the article says is simply what his official positions are, or were during his campaign. Perhaps the title and intro should be changed to reflect that, but deletion would be ridiculous. The page has a long edit history. Everyking 04:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. we write in paragraphs, not bullet points. should be only a paragraph or 2 on his bio page like all the other politicians have it. --Jiang
  • Keep, but it should be phrased as past tense, not present tense, and should be clearly documented. I'm afraid if this gets deleted it will surely return on the Al Gore page. As for the format (bullet points), this is poor, but this page is less than one day old. That's not a reasonn nto delete. Anthony DiPierro 04:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Abdul Wahab Effendi

(Listed on Cleanup for some time) We don't know this guy. The article is not even a stub and the sole link provided is broken. --Jiang 04:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael Corris

Delete if not turned into stub in 5 days. Already listed on Cleanup for some time. --Jiang 04:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Breetles

Advert. subject is nonfamous. --Jiang 05:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gets 246 Google hits, including links at entertainment.msn.com, rawmusic.com, inmusicwetrust.com, and rockband.com. RickK | Talk 05:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ishy Bilady

Listed on cleanup since 24 Jan. delete is not turned into article in 5 days. --Jiang 05:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Inxire iO

Ad. listed on cleanup for a few weeks. --Jiang 05:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shorenstein Company

Ad. fabiform | talk 05:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it

Patent nonsense. I went to a university law class and never heard of this 'legal principle'.

  • Keep, but only if it turns into something more than 1-liner and provided it's true. Perhaps move to a more general article? --Humus sapiens Talk 05:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • ignorantia legis neminem excusat in the original Latin . . . but is this a real legal principle, or just a popular fiction of one? I can't say one way or another. Keep, but fix; if real, explain the real legal principle (under a more concise title); if false, rewrite it to make that clear. --67.71.79.45 05:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep something. The usual phrase (in British English, at least) is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". The existing content is certainly rubbish, though. Markalexander100 08:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kotuku

Wikipedia is not a link farm. Denelson83 06:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Expanded to a one sentence stub. Hope it will grow more. Meelar 07:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have mede it into a redirect to a new page White Heron since the bird is apparently found in other countries, presumably by different names. However the species Egretta alba does not appear in the extensive list of Heron species; but there is an Ardea alba = Great Egret = Great White Egret, with similar description. Perhaps it is the same bird, which some put in Egretta, some in Ardea?Jorge Stolfi 07:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

White Heron

See Kotuku above, Jorge Stolfi 07:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose

And the sub-pages, which i created for a poll which is now a few months old. Muriel 09:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Might be worth archiving somewhere, Wiki is not paper and our content management processes have already been the subject of one academic paper... think it would be nice to leave any future researchers the same behind the scenes glimpses. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2816496"