Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004: Difference between revisions

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

Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious. Go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to discuss current deletion issues.

Helpful links

Cleanup

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

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

copyright violations -- 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

---

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

• All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at Talk:List of recipes/Delete (see also Wikien-l)
• Unsolved problems in biology See Talk:Unsolved problems in biology
• List of Europeans & List of EU people, see Talk:List of Europeans & Talk:List of EU people

February 29

• Harris family reunion association
  • See Talk:Harris family reunion association

• C. J. Everon and Justice Better Attained seem to be a self-promotion for an obscure author and their book. - SimonP 00:29, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be self-promotion for an obscure author and eir book. Anthony DiPierro 00:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Let me clarify. The author exists. The book exists. Obscurity is not a valid reason for deletion. Self-promotion, which may or may not be true, is also not a valid reason for deletion, and it can be fixed. Anthony DiPierro 04:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 00:49, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anthony, your comments are ridiculous. RickK 00:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This listing is ridiculous. Anthony DiPierro 01:19, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Hell, this page is ridiculous. Anthony DiPierro 01:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know if it's self-promotion or not, but the author and her book plainly do exist. Everyking 01:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The author and her book do exist, but so do a few million other authors. The book is in no Canadian libraries and there are no links to the author other than Wikipedia. I also can find no sign that the awards cited exist, nor the Scottish society that is meant to have given one of them. - SimonP 01:39, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: personal promotion. Promotion of unremarkable authors & their books is what Amazon.com is for. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge both to higher-level pages -- if someone can verify this book exists. I can't find it via an ISBN-tracking site. CJE can prolly just be listed on the page of "Canadians", (already there!); but note that CJE or whoever created that article has contributed a lot to WP and isn't just a self-promoter. Still, neither of these needs its own page yet.
    • The existence of this book remains to be established. Neither amazon.com nor isbn.nu have heard of it. The one reference that I can find on the web is "Forthcoming Books, August 2002", which states the ISBN 0-9730907-0-7 and publisher Éditions Touraine of Elliot Lake, Ontario. I can't find the publisher either; I'm guessing it's a vanity press. If the book does exist, it is quite obscure, and does not merit inclusion. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• cybermedicine - bad dictionary definition Anthony DiPierro 00:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - bad dictionary definition.
  • Delete - very bad definition and an appropriate article for this would have a different title - Texture 03:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I initially thought it was garbage but googling on "Cybermedicine" has convinced me that the word exists and refers to practicing medicine over the Internet—that is, remotely from the patient and via the intermediary of a communications network. Dpbsmith 03:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This should be in cleanup, not VfD. Darkcore 06:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid encyclopedia topic. But article should be expanded. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Accad - contains "See "Babel's in Arms" by David Ives.". Google turns up nothing useful. --Nate Silva 00:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 03:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect to Akkad. Lupo 07:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• MediaWiki:Dih. Now obsolete as [[Mediawiki:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} selected anniversaries]] is used instead. Angela. 02:28, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for historical purposes. Perl 16:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • delete in the name of good housekeeping. might confuse people. --Jiang
  • Delete. It was even a bad, non-descriptive name. — Sverdrup (talk) 08:42, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Reach-around - Extremely POV. Once the POV is gone, what is left? Also, this is not part of regular baseball lingo. Kingturtle 02:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's about basketball! Phew ;). Keep. →Raul654 02:42, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Er....the article is written about baseball. Kingturtle 01:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. None of the top 20 hits from a Yahoo search for "reach around" -clown -wrestling -clowns refers to the baseball usage of this term. At best, this would probably end up as a disambig page. On the otherhand, maybe that would be a good thing--since the term seems to pop up in so many contexts, if the article is deleted it's likely to keep getting recreated. Niteowlneils 22:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But, should be an disambig page because it is used in more than one sport and has a definite sexual meaning, too. Davodd 09:26, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Gundam Seed Episode 1, Gundam Seed Episode 2, Gundam Seed Episode 3, (Gundam Seed Episode 4 listed on February 28), Gundam Seed Episode 5, Gundam Seed Episode 6, Gundam Seed Episode 7, Gundam Seed Episode 8, Gundam Seed Episode 9, Gundam Seed Episode 10, Gundam Seed Episodes 1-5, Gundam Seed Episodes 6-10 -- plot summaries of an anime called "Gundam Seed", which appear to have been copied from fan sites [1] and [2]. Unencyclopedic. -- Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedia is a written compendium of human knowledge. It seems this qualifies. Anthony DiPierro 06:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- WormRunner 06:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • As is, delete due to copyvio. Secondly, even if (and it's a big if) someone wanted to do episode synopses for this show (which there is precedent for - see Star Trek: The Next Generation and The Simpsons), they should be under the episode name (e.g., "A False Peace," "They Call It, Gundam," "Collapsing Land," etc. as opposed to Episodes 1, 2 and 3). But, on a completely unrelated note: Gundam Seed - blech! :P RadicalBender 06:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • We have a separate page for copyright violations. Anthony DiPierro 15:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm quite aware of that. You'll notice that I didn't argue these articles should be deleted for being copyvios. I'm arguing that WP is not a dumpster. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree w Andrewa. Sam Spade 08:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like copies from the fan sites. Why duplicate the text here, besides probable copyvio. Unless someone is going to re-write it from scratch as well as rename the articles according to what RadicalBender said. RedWolf 08:46, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Asssuming it is not a copyright violation, having this text would be a perfect starting point for an article. Whether or not it's a copyright violation is supposed to be determined on another page, frequented by people who know about that kind of thing. Anthony DiPierro 15:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No case has been made for deletion. A weak case has been made for renaming, weak because it seems that those making the case have little interest themselves in the subject matter, but neither of these is a valid reason for deletion. Andrewa 15:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Soo...because I hate the show I have no point then? I see. Here, look at it this way: which of the following links works: Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode 1 or Encounter at Farpoint, or perhaps The Simpsons Episode 2 or Bart the Genius. There's the case: precedent. Either way, it's a moot point because I'm about to list all this at copyvio which is what it actually is. RadicalBender 16:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• UN Resolution 687 - wiksource if not turned into article in 5 days. --Jiang 06:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The resolution's text should go to Wikisource. I wrote a very very small sub-sub-stub to encourage other people write more. Optim 18:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• List of cities in San Marino - the list of cities is already in the San Marino article. Darkcore 08:19, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect instead. Muriel 08:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirect is pointless. Searches will find the base article anyway. Andrewa 11:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect since it prevents future duplication of the article. Optim 18:32, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's true, but is it likely? Andrewa 15:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (revert redirection), and remove the list from the San Marino article. This is part of a series of city listings by country, and a reader clicking a link from that article expects to arraive at a list of cities, not at the article about the country. -- uriber 17:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for the above reason. — Sverdrup (talk) 20:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The information is duplicated in the main San Marino article, not to mention that the article name looks ridiculous to non-USans - the total population of the whole of San Marino is less than 28,000, so the article would be better named List of villages in San Marino! -- Arwel 23:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yep. You must be right. Because Wikipedia is an Amerocentric encyclopedia, I understand that we others have no vote. — Sverdrup (talk) 08:07, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, everybody (place) is important too! I may vacation there someday... Sam Spade 09:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Yes-no pen - another obscure Boyerism. --Wik 17:45, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Again with the Boyerism. If I had really invented all the stuff Wik et al. think I did I would be the most brilliant genius in history. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Google test totally. (btw, are there any geniuses that are not brilliant?) Maroux 20:43, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
    • All geniuses are brilliant, but some are more brilliant than others. BTW, I vote keep. Meelar 22:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not obscure at all. Darkcore 04:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Boyer's refusal to comply with Wikipedia rules is moving his behaviour towards trollish. Everytime I've spent several hours doing background research into his articles of this sort I've come up with nothing to back him up, it's just not worth my time anymore. --Imran 23:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What rules have I refused to comply with? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - How many makes of "yes-no-pens" (with that name) are there? Is this a one shot toy that was never produced again? How do coins qualify as a "yes-no-pen"? (That alone decides it for me.) - Texture 15:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know how many makes of "yes-no" pens there are, but you will find these (accompanying the special books they are designed to be used with) in almost any hospital gift-shop, discount store, large grocery store, &c. They are very far from being uncommon. Plus, if you'll carefully read the article, you will see that it in no way describes coins as being "yes-no" pens. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If you read the article carefully and you will find "Another classical "yes-no" fortune telling method is the use of coins. " My point being that the article is whimsy. - Texture 18:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The bit about coins was added by another editor fairly recently. Daniel C. Boyer is not the author... -- Cyan 19:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I was never talking about whatever portion he wrote. I am talking about the article at the time it was nominated for deletion - Texture 02:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can vouch for the existence and prevalence of the item in question; yes-no game books were how my parents kept me happy on long car trips when I was a kid. -- Cyan 19:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Apocatastasis - currently on Transwiki. Originally on vfd in December 2003 but re-added after it was removed. See Talk:Apocatastasis. RedWolf 08:22, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Optim 10:12, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. (But could be expanded.) Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and rewrite, please! Sam Spade 09:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Barangay Tisa. Barangays are the smallest unit of local government in the Philippines and typically consists of a community of about 1,000 people. There is no need to have an article on every barangay in the Philippines (which number about 35,000). Notable barangays can be discussed in the corresponding cities or municipalities. --seav 16:29, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • We have articles on US cities with populations smaller than this. I vote keep. Meelar 17:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't destroy cultures with small representation in Wikipedia. We have so many articles on obscure US cities, why not have articles on non-US communities, too? Wikipedia is not one nation's national encyclopaedia. Optim 18:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • True, but it does matter what level of distinction they're at. For instance, we don't have articles for each separate ward (city council districts) of Chicago. Then again, maybe we should. Meelar 19:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • keep Perl 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've long been in favor of keeping all of the Rambot creations, and I see no reason to delete little places in other countries. RickK 23:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand why you guys would want to keep this article since in itself, it is already is more an article than 10,000 of Rambot's articles. The reason why I wanted it deleted is because I think (since I'm a Filipino) that 99% of barangays in the Philippines don't deserve their own individual articles. This article is so far as I know the only barangay article in Wikipedia and I don't want it to become a precedent.

To give an extreme example, the capital, Manila, has 897 barangays all named by number (e.g., Barangay 1, Barangay 2, Barangay 3, etc.). I would claim that trying to create articles for each and every one of Manila's barangays would result in extremely short articles that most would likely call stubs. (Almost all barangays in Manila are much less than one city block in size.) These barangays are grouped into 100 zones, further grouped into 16 geographical districts, and finally grouped into 6 congressional districts. I think that only the geographical districts deserve articles as they are very important historically and culturally.

Maybe you don't care because you won't be the ones creating these articles and you won't realize the maintenance nightmare of trying to monitor each and every one of these barangays.

How about a compromise: what if the article was moved to Barangays in Cebu City? I think that that is the acceptable solution and retains the admittedly good information already in the article.

--seav 15:04, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

• • Keep, and then follow seav's suggestion. seav, you could have just done what you propose above instead of asking for deletion. Be bold! Lupo 09:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - move article to Barangays in Cebu City as described above. - Texture 16:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Romeo Beckham - famous only for being the son of someone else -- Graham  :) 19:28, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete after merging the content with David Beckham. Optim 19:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The reason why someone is famous shouldn't be of our concern, only that they are. However, article is almost empty, so delete. Maroux 20:38, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can add some information to it that wouldn't be better stated on David Beckham. Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like it or not, the Beckhams feature a lot in British media and culture. You can be sure that in years to come, this page will get larger and larger. Over the last year I bet more newspaper articles were written about Romeo than say Princess Beatrice of York (famous only for being the daughter of somone else) or maybe even Prince Andrew, Duke of York (again famous only for being the son of someone else) Dmn 21:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Romeo Beckham 971 article, Princess Beatrice 237 articles. --Imran 00:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is not wikipedia's job to decide if someone should be famous, only if they are famous. -SimonP 02:41, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous. Anthony DiPierro 04:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ,[[TLAs from IAA to LZZ|]],TLAs from MAA to PZZ,TLAs from QAA to TZZ,TLAs from UAA to XZZ,TLAs from YAA to ZZZ - These list are of little use, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Noldoaran (Talk) 19:36, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Useful. Optim 19:40, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Useless because they dont organize these words they just list them. Bensaccount 20:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are useful for maintenance purposes, shows what TLAs are in use, makes it easy to get to "nearby" ones. I use these pages pretty regularly, and I think if other people used them more often, they'd be less likely to make hashed-up messes of TLA connections to articles. Stan 20:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. Maroux 20:36, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. Really useful. Secretlondon 20:55, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless clutter. Everyking 21:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Wik 21:13, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perl 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace. Useful for meta purposes. Anthony DiPierro 21:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why? Because I like 'em. IMHO a very good example of something that's appropriate for a Web encyclopedia though not a print encyclopedia. Dpbsmith 01:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, just as useful as List of people by name etc. - SimonP 02:41, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No case has been made for deletion. Just BTW, these articles represent a great deal of work by some valued contributors. Andrewa 15:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - next will be "list of all four-letter abbreviations", "list of all five-letter abbreviations", etc. This isn't a list of real abbreviations but any combination that could ever possibly be an abbreviation. Any reader looking for AAH will search for "AAH" and not "TLAs from AAA to DZZ" - Texture 16:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful administration tool. -- Graham  :) 20:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Omar Sánchez - vanity page - almost a resume - Texture 20:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why people think this should be in an encyclopedia, I'll never know. Maroux 20:35, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why people think this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, I'll never know. Anthony DiPierro 22:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonfamous. Junk. Ambivalenthysteria, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 04:27, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, also an advert for the AV Digital web design company, which I suspect to be a one-man shop (on one page, they write "...mensaje que me vas a enviar", i.e. "... message that you are going to send to me" (note the singular!). Lupo 09:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Nahuel Marisi - looks like a fake biography, notice that all events in the article are in the future - Andris 20:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --Wik 21:13, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not speculative fiction. I'll make an entry in my tickler file to check in 2011 and if Nahuel Marisi runs for Senator in the 2011 elections I'll insert an article about him then myself. Dpbsmith 01:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Optim 10:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Kun Sun Sweeley - vanity. silsor 21:39, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-famous. Moncrief 21:43, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Also probably NeoAniCon Inc., and maybe NeoAniCon Niteowlneils 21:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't look like vanity. What makes you think it is? Anthony DiPierro 19:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Sweeley lives in Baltimore. The IP traces to Michigan. Anthony DiPierro 19:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant. Also delete NeoAniCon Inc. ("is to be a ... company"), NeoAniCon (planned convention that may or may not happen), and NeoAniCon's Board of Directors List. Its all pure speculation about future events, not established knowledge. Lupo 09:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Quedar Bien translation of a spanish phrase. Perl 22:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless this phrase is well known among English speakers, there is no point in having it on the English WP. Move to Spanish version? Maroux 22:20, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 01:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Preparation - dictionary definition. Dori | Talk 22:32, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 01:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 1

• Jeesh - limited slang word RickK 02:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Battle school or Ender's Game - I loved the books but Jeesh just isn't more than a dictionary definition of a fictional word - Texture 02:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this spelled correctly? I thought I remember it differently, but...Meelar
  • Delete - UtherSRG 16:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• American English (Building layout). Does this need to stand on its own? RickK 04:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. It's interesting, but it needs to belong somewhere else. Dysprosia 04:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It should be moved to American and British English differences. Everyking 04:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I merged it with the article above. Optim 10:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to American and British English differences :) — Timwi 14:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect - UtherSRG 16:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Most visited websites nothing but a list of links. RickK 04:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a link repository. →Raul654 05:00, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I added internal links - SimonP 05:13, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but this should be done by year. Everyking 06:20, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable with Alexa. Optim 10:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is nothing more than a copy of Alexa. At best move it to Most visited websites according to Alexa. Anthony DiPierro 14:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, with a variation on Anthony's suggestion. Let's have several lists (aren't there any available other than Alexa?) and put them under their own sections within this article. I think the title is intuitive enough that ti ought to be kept. Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd support that if the lists were combined into a single list (maybe pointing with a reference to where it's from). Otherwise it doesn't seem like we're adding anything useful, just copying other people's work. Of course, then the problem becomes POV, but surely we could work out some semi-definitive criteria that avoids Joe Bob's Monster Truck Page getting listed. Still, I'd move it to List of most visited websites. It's not really an encyclopedia article, but it slides in under the provision for lists. Anthony DiPierro 19:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but fix it up: organize by year, and only list a few (top 10 or 20). Will be useful in a few years to describe trends in web use. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Random Mission Generator
  • See Talk:Random Mission Generator

• Mark Turner delete, unfamous young punk, occupying a famous name. Mikkalai 15:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fame is irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 15:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is irrelevant. Isomorphic 16:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Replaced with stub about the famous Mark Turner. Keep now? DJ Clayworth 16:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep now. Thanks for creating the stub. I've never heard of him, either, but he sounds more worthy of inclusion :-) Isomorphic 16:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep now. - UtherSRG 16:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Heh... a lot of my own work is based on Turner's work. PilotPrecise 19:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Even after edits, I would consider this marginal. Professorship is probably not enough. Author of 3 books is maybe enough. Rossami 22:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • He's actually written a lot more, I only had time to add a few to the article. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Flattery - dicdef -- Graham  :) 08:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • WiktionaryWikipedia Rossami 22:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Shouldn't make edits when I'm tired.)
    • This is wikipedia. Did you mean wiktionary perchance? Graham  :) 16:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Plan of Discipline almost certainly source text DJ Clayworth 15:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikibooks: source text from 18th century. Interesting. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Single player dictionary defn I donb't think it possible to expand into a stub. theresa knott 16:56, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't think of how to expand either. Isomorphic 18:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote: I tried to expand it a bit. Hope it's better now. Optim 19:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as expanded. Nice work. Meelar 21:19, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, excellent work team, including Theresa (I couldn't see any way either). This is how a Wiki is supposed to work. Andrewa 17:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Canadian political party system--the potential scope of this stub can and should be covered in Politics of Canada. In Talk:Canadian political party system, the creator of the article seems to concede that creating the article was a mistake. Indefatigable 17:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Turned it into a redirect then. -- Graham  :) 17:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Knowledge by acquaintance - I can't even make heads or tails of this - Texture 17:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Make it readable. See its back link. Possibly non-standard or poorly translated phylosophical terminology. I know it as "knowledge by immediate experience", so renaming (moving) migth be the solution. Mikkalai 20:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Rearranged the article and (hopefully) clarified the example by giving "S" an actual name. Probably should be renamed, too. Should definately be kept though. The justification of knowledge is an important topic in Epistemology, and this sounds a bit like something Wittgenstein might have said - I'll check that when I have some free time. -Seth Mahoney 20:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry for being lazy: Google gives cca. 2,000 hits, so the term is definitely in use. Mikkalai 21:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. in the future you can use Wikipedia:cvfd instead of listing such entries in vfd. Optim 20:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely. I have tried to clarify the text. It is an philosophical concept, but it was very pporly and briefly explained. I have taken the liberty to remove the "nonesense" msg, as it isn't nonsensical. Of course I have left the vfd msg. Cat 17:10, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Church's Criterion - After considerable debate with User:Mike Church regarding his pages, we came to an agreement with respect to the fate of this one. It is hereby nominated for deletion with his consent. And thanks to Charles Matthews for his help in moderating the debate. PilotPrecise 18:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isomorphic 18:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on keep-versus-delete on this one, but if it is kept, it should be moved to Church's criterion, with a lower-case initial c in the second word. We don't write Maxwell's Theorem, etc., with a capital initial T in the second word; stylistic consistency would seem to do the same here. Michael Hardy 21:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article contained supplemental information to another, but was not by any means necessary either to any other article or to Wikipedia. It became the subject of controversy, and probably fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for what is encyclopedic enough for inclusion. I sumbit that it should be deleted, for the good of Wikipedia. At any rate, it's now a stub. Mike Church 21:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Cristiane Alexandre
  • See Talk:Cristiane Alexandre

March 2

• Rosie Nix Adams - It seems the only reason the death of Rosie Nix Adams is mentioned is that she was the daughter of someone famous. Its disrespectful to a life and an invasion of family privacy to give this the status of a separate article. Lumos3 00:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 00:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonfamous -- Graham  :) 00:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 01:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge it into entry for June Carter Cash Bkonrad 01:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't see a case for deletion. The person is mentioned in June Carter Cash, so the page should at least redirect there. The question is not about whether or not to include the content, but how to organise it, and that's not a matter for discussion on this page. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Westwood One - advert -- Graham  :) 00:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 01:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Make NPOV and keep -- It's a big name Bkonrad 01:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Jasenlee
  • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 02:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep--they produce Loveline! Meelar 04:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Frecklefoot 15:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Flockmeal 23:45, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/Callaway magnetic motor
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/Dennis Lee
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/director message
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/favorites
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/hydrogen on demand
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/invenstments
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/open sourcing
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/oppression
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/translations
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energy magnetic motor
• User:Sterlingda/Free Energynews
• User:Sterlingda/Wiki All
• User:Sterlingda/de/Free Energy
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Energy
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free Energy
  • Wikipedia is not a personal homepage and bandwidth theft is a bad thing. Angela. 01:30, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Perl
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not host personal homepages. Sterlingda has been given a long time to move this content. Maximus Rex 01:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Evercat 01:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. He lost interest in editing the main namespace once he realized that self-promotion is not encouraged. He didn't stop working on this stuff. Isomorphic 02:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but give fair warning.—Eloquence
    • I have sent Sterlingda an email alerting him to this listing. -- Cyan 04:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 04:27, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep User:Sterlingda/Wiki All. Delete the rest. -- Cyan 04:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cyan. Kosebamse 08:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep User:Sterlingda/Wiki All as Cyan said. — Sverdrup (talk) 08:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all but User:Sterlingda/Wiki All as suggested above. There is some indication that [3] is expecting this, their links have been updated in the last few minutes and the notice saying their stuff is "hosted on Wikipedia" has just vanished. Andrewa 08:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Make that speedy delete, or at least immediate blanking and protecting (which may not be effective if they're clever). I just had a look at [4] and they are adding 3rd-party advertisements to the material they host on Wikipedia. Possibly these are from their hosting company, but it's still Wikimedia money paying their hosting bills. If we're very kind, we could offer to temporarily undelete on the condition that the ads are removed first. Andrewa 18:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep 'Wiki All'. Del 'rest' (sadly). ... I was wondering, how / where could something akin to this be possible? (ala. the above is not acceptible, but teh premise could eb workable) ... There are other projects on things and thier uses [ex., "WikiProject Weaponry" and "WikiProject Automobile construction"] ... guess, I'll read up on it [off to look @ the project pages] JDR [PS. respond to my talk page, if you have a response]
    • I think many would sympathise with them. All the more reason for them to buy their own hosting. Continued on your user talk page as requested. Andrewa 16:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete most, keep Wiki All. - Fennec 16:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • NOTE FROM USER:STERLINGDA
    I had hoped we would have our own system up and running a month or two ago. It has taken longer than I thought. We do have a server set up now that can handle this. Please let us get it migrated over before you delete. We should be able to have it done in the next few days. At that point, I will create forwarding addresses, and all links will point to the new location. At that point, there will be virtually no bandwidth issues for Wikipedia. Even now, if you check your stats, I doubt that there are bandwidth issues. We are still in early start-up phase. Sterlingda 17:54, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Starlingda: Even if this gets deleted, I can email you the wiki source or something... or you can copy it into your favorite text editor now. By the way, if nothing else, "free energy" is questionable from an NPOV standpoint (I'm trying to be polite here.) Pakaran. 17:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Concerning the talk about deletion, this is our first experience with Wiki and we (PES authors) ask that you bear with us until we rehost the material. Any info on how rehosting/downloading is done? eMail mwiseman1@cox.net (moved from bottom of vfd page to relevant section by akaDruid 18:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC))
  • Delete and speedy - the advertising pushes it over the edge - see Andrewa's note above - Texture 18:09, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Email the Wikitext of these pages to Sterlingda or appropriate, and delete them. Dysprosia 22:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Flockmeal 23:19, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

• Michael Earls - bizarre. Evercat 02:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Truly bizzare. Moncrief 03:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 04:27, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with bizarre and redirect Anthony DiPierro 04:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Apparently this is a serious request!? Keep. It's a disambig page. Anthony DiPierro 04:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It was a bit more bizarre when I listed it. :-) Evercat 00:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Disambig that doesn't link to a live article about any of the Michael Earls? Delete until we actually need it. (Frankly, I consider this a very creative attempt to get around the vanity rule.) Rossami 15:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • There is no "vanity rule." Anthony DiPierro 16:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Sure there is. Wikipedia is not a homepage (bullet 15). Rossami
  • Delete. Very bizarre. RickK 04:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bizarre. - Texture 06:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, by all means! Vanity: apparently created by one of the Micheal Earls himself: one of the extlinks given (www.cerkit.com) resolves to 66.32.251.52, the IP of the creator of that page. All four Michael Earls do not look encyclopedia-worthy to me. Lupo 09:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep, on the grounds that the published author Michael Earls does pass the "Google test", if nothing else. The book does exist. However, none of these articles exist yet. The last thing anyone needs is a disambig to pages that don't exist yet and many of which aren't important. It's tantamount to a disambig for the 500 or so Mike Church's that exist (incl. myself, a southern radio DJ, an author, a physicist, a fictional detective). So, delete. If someone writes a worthwhile article on author Michael Earls and his book, let it stay. Mike Church 17:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. The articles should come first, then the disambiguation page if it becomes necessary. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not bizarre, just a kind of granfalloon Denni 22:19, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles first, disambig afterwards.
    • The order in which things are added is not very relevant. If disambiguation is going to be needed, the page has to be created at some point, so it might as well be now. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Full Text of the United States Constitution - wikisource. --Jiang 03:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK 04:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a source depository. Rmhermen 04:47, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

• Management accounting -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This same material has already been removed from at least five other articles that I know of. It is unfortunate that the translation is so bad that it is impossible to fix it. mydogategodshat 08:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove the babble (there was a short stub before 23-Jan-2004). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reverted to most recent good stub. Andrewa 13:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The reverted stub is still nonsense. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Internal control -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created by the same author as the babbling at Management accounting (and it's a word-by-word copy of that other babbling, and it turns into an advert at the end, and the extlink is dead (for me, at least)). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No useful history. Good topic but no point keeping this. Andrewa 14:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• The Wastelands -- is an orphaned page for which there is already a fuller wikipedia article. Alternately re-direct but it's not worth it??Rjstott
  • Of course it's worth it! Redirects catch google traffic which otherwise we would miss. When considering if a redirect is worth having, consider if anyone else may ever make the same mistake about the title. In this case the answer is an obvious YES! theresa knott 11:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect, and note that Theresa has read the relevant articles and doco, explained herself well, and fixed the article. We need more like this on all three fronts. Andrewa 16:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Battiadae -- May refer to something, but looks like nonsense. --Ryan and/or Mero 13:43, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • You may like to add the MediaWiki:nonsense message on it. Optim 13:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggest us to always check backlinks of articles in question. Rare term, but hits the google nevertheless. Mikkalai 17:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Canada Games Company -- appears to be a fictional company. The website listed points to a squatter's site. Google did find a company with this name (sort of), but they make jigsaw puzzles only and don't seem to be notable. Their site is hosted on a free server. —Frecklefoot 15:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep - article improved - Texture 15:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No Vote, it is a real company but it is not particularly major one, even in Canada
  • Keep. I doubt it's vanity. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the article needs help. They do or did manufacture more than jigsaw puzzles. See its talk page. Lupo 20:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Neilie Casey - Listed on RfD - Anthony has chosen to recreate the page prior to the redirect - Discussions on the talk page have not resoved the issue - additional delete request here in addition to RfD so it does not go back and forth to avoid deletion - Texture 18:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Dissident 18:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. When I want to look up an individual 9/11 victim, I go to sep11.wikipedia.org and search there. Makes no sense to duplicate the entry here. Lupo 19:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. sep11 wiki is for POV entries. When I want NPOV, I go here. Anthony DiPierro 21:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 21:55, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Secretlondon 22:42, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sep11. I disagree with ADP's invented POV theory. Tempshill 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Take a look at the Sep11 Wiki some time. It's mainly personal experiences which violate NPOV and No Original Research. Or read meta: "Yip, articles about victims are fine as long as they at least tell us who it was, what he/she did, etc (frankly, I think we can do without those as well, but general opinion says we should keep those)." That was in September of 2002. So it's clearly not something I invented. Anthony DiPierro 00:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The POV/NPOV distinction is not "invented". It is, and always has been, a fundamental difference between Wikipedia and the tribute site. Of course keep. No-one has even given a reason for deletion here, and that is a minumum requirement for deletion to take place. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. Delete. Kosebamse 11:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikimemorial and delete. Rossami 13:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Leo Wyatt - Nutty, if somewhat funny, profile of a "former whitelighter and now Elder of the Charmed Ones," who does all sorts of incredible things. Definitely not encyclopedic. Moncrief 19:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Apparently this is a character from the TV series Charmed. RadicalBender 19:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If you made me king, I'd delete because this is a minor character in a TV show - not what I think of as encyclopedic. But compared to others that are routinely kept, it's no worse. Keep but post to clean-up so the link to the TV show is obvious. (Do we have a naming convention that would help?) Rossami 20:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Added text to make it clear where he comes from. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I've already deleted this once because it read like patent nonsense and had no context as to what it all meant. As it's from charmed, I'd say merge and redirect with Charmed Graham  :) 21:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep now. Tempshill 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Saul Taylor 08:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Battle of Merton: entire text is from http://timelines.ws/0600AD_999AD.HTML
  • and in any case it's the Battle of MARTON! Lee M 20:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and please do so on the speedy plan. Moncrief, 2 Mar 2004
  • If we don't have it, move it. From the edit history of the contributor (added vagueand inaccurate to There is a very large amount of vague and inaccurate historical information available in Wikipedia, and several different ways of classifying it are given below. and linked the site as a friend of wikipedia) I think the contributor runs the site the content is from. In any case, it's minimally copyrightable since it's almost exclusively factual and our usual rewrite to our standars will eliminate any potential copyrightability. If we have it. make it a redirect and list on redirects for deletion. Jamesday 21:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've listed it on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. That's the page that should be used for possible copyright infringements. Someone should remove the entry from this page after this has been seen. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Columbia Encyclopedia article titles
  • Listed here as a copyvio, see Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements for the discussion of whether it is and why.
  • Delete - the only possible use is copyright violation - Texture 00:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • • Keep, let's not get paranoid here. The use here is to try and make sure we cover at least as much as they do.theresa knott 14:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a copyright violation. Anthony DiPierro 14:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Image:Persepolis1.JPG and Image:Persepolis2.JPG have been replaced by Image:Persepolis 1.JPG and Image:Persepolis 2.JPG. It seems not to be possible to update a picture with another version. GerardM 23:12, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know why these links are still blue, but I've deleted them. In future: You replace images by simply uploading them under the same name. — Timwi 00:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I think any image that doesn't exist is blue: Image:thisisnotseriouslyarealimage.jpg. ugen64 01:35, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

• NVC - Long babbling article by an IP user, talks about "Nonviolent Communication", divided into many sections with a sentence or two per section, unwikified, appears to be copied from somewhere. --Flockmeal 23:19, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 23:21, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree this is a mess, but there is such a thing, this just isn't the right article about it, if that makes sense...Mark Richards 00:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm foretelling a surge of Marshall Rosenberg's "Non-Violent C" here... Mikkalai 05:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Delete. Kosebamse 11:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 3

• Customer experience management - Until I can get an answer to the question at User talk:145.254.237.111, I'd like this listed for deletion. It looks to me as though this is a large school project that hasn't informed us it's coming, and isn't being run by people who are familiar with Wikipedia. I am hoping that the VFD notice on this page will convince one of the people on this project to come here, see this note, and let us know what's going on with a description at Wikipedia:School and university projects and a contact name of the person in charge so that we can better understand what's going on and educate the students about Wikipedia. Jwrosenzweig 00:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Subpages: Analyzing the experiential world of the customer - Building the experiential platform - Designing the brand experience - Structuring the customer interface - Engaging in continuous innovation - Marketing concept - Customer Relationship Management (CRM) - Customer satisfaction - Identify Target Customer - Divide the Experiential World into 4 Layers - Track Experiences along Touchpoints - Survey the Competitive Landscape - Experiential Positioning - Experiential Value Promise (EVP) - Overall Implementation Theme - The Product Experience - The Look and Feel - Experiential Communications - Experiential Communications - Style and Substance - Essence and Flexibility - CEM integration - CEM organization - Timing
  • Redirects: Customer Experience Management (CEM) - Marketing Concept - Customer Satisfaction - Analyzing the Experiential World of the Customer - Building the Experiential Platform - Designing the Brand Experience - Structuring the Customer Interface - Engaging in Continuous Innovation - CEM Integration - CEM Organization
  • Articles created by a university lecturer. Related tothe above listing. Poorly named (many verbs), intended as a description of a particular textbook's POV. The author obviously has no intention to create an NPOV article under these titles. -- Tim Starling 00:31, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
• also related: CEM organization, CEM integration, and a bazillion other articles by 145.254.237.111 . These all seem to be mass vandalism/trolling in the form of advertizement. --zandperl 00:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's a marketing textbook, not an advertisement. Perhaps it can be moved to Wikibooks. -- Tim Starling 00:57, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove unless a very good explanation is provided in a day or two. Fredrik 01:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikibooks and do rewriting, too POV. --Flockmeal 02:38, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Guessing by a small sample reading, it's far from being NPOV or encyclopedic style, and also not too interesting. I'd say delete unless somebody (read: original author) comes up with a much better version. Kosebamse 11:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The base term (Customer Experience Management) is a real but little-used phrase for a sub-set of the management discipline Customer Relationship Management. The topic should be covered there. Unfortunately, I don't think this page is recoverable. Easier to delete and let someone start over. The sub-pages are apparently building up to duplicate or create a text and violate either the "source" or "original research" rules. Rossami 13:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • from Jwrosenzweig's talk page:

Karsten Kilian on Deletion Request for Customer Experience Management (CEM) Thanks for your feedback. We are a university in Germany with an international students from 6 different countries. The aim of the Customer Experience Management (CEM) is as follows:

• • • • introduce a fairly new concept in the literature to interested audience
      • make students familiar with wikipedia.org
      • add to the content quality of Wikipedia
      • I hope that my explanation does make it clear what our goal is and I would be thankful if you could withdraw the deletion note.

• Booger - Well, I tried, but it didn't turn out very well... is this a dictionary definition or an encyclopedic article? ugen64 01:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • The content is OK. Isn't there a technical term for this, though? It should be moved there. Meelar 04:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Symbiotic algorithm - Looks to be primary research. Suggest merging any salvageable/encyclopedic content with parallel algorithm and delete. --Lexor|Talk 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Emerging Symbiotic Clusters - Primary research, zero Google hits [5] (cf symbiotic algorithm). Suggest merge/delete (see above). --Lexor|Talk 05:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Report from Himmler to Hitler - looks like it needs a transwiki to WikiSource, then a deletion. Any other opinions? Isomorphic 05:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Source text. Transwiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 11:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Nascent. Belongs in Wiktionary. Boot it over there. Denelson83 05:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed on both counts. Moncrief 3 Mar 2004
  • Delete. Davodd 10:20, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Image:Persepolis1.JPG Image:Persepolis2.JPG both have been replaced with pictures under a different name. NB I had tried to upload the pictures under the same name, but that did not work. GerardM 06:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Then simply edit their image pages and post this code: {{msg:delete}} along with an explainer on the TALK page on why you want a deletion and a sysop will remove it for you. No need to post here. Davodd 09:07, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Democide We have already Genocide and Holocaust about the same subject. I doubt if the democide exists in English. It seems German word only. Seaman 09:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but add links to genocide and Holocaust. The word was coined by an American political scientist, so it's not a German word only. However, as the article rightly notes, it hasn't gained much traction in English. Moncrief, 09:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is exactly difference between Democide/Genocide and Holocaust? Isn't better to merge those articles? Cautious 09:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course. To answer Cautious' query: Genocide (killing of ethnic groups) is a subset of Democide. The Holocuast (Killing of Jews et al. in WW II) is a subset of Genocide. Democides can be samaller scale and are political. Davodd 10:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Word was obviously coined by some Rudolph J. Rummel, professor em. of political sciences at University of Hawaii. He wrote a two-volume piece titeled Death by Government and Statistics of Democide. The word is definitely not German by origin, but now it exists (Demozid) as a translation of its American English counterpart. It is used in a much broader sense than the other two, as Davodd has already pointed out. --Palapala 10:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Mr Rummel is higly controversial alternative historian. His thesis are highly POV and were never verified by other historians. Cautious 10:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not one of his fans, but the term is there, his books are there, controversial as they might well be, and he is talked about. Also they have been translated into foreign languages (like German). Doesn't that all suffice for an entry? --Palapala
        • OK, stay, on condition that some NPOV comments are included. Somebody can open the article and be terrified by huge number of people allegedly killed, while this is mostly playing with statistical numbers. Cautious 12:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Ontario_Mills Shopping centre in Ontario. If we delete nonfamous people, surely we delete nonfamous shopping malls. Maroux 11:54, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
  • Keep if it going to be expanded, otherwise move to Ontario, California. Concerning the comparison with people: there are far fewer big shopping centers than nonfamous people.--Patrick 12:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shopping malls are famous. Anthony DiPierro 13:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• electrical microphone. No need for this, there's an opulant article on microphones. Somebody playing around... --Palapala 13:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect. Rossami 13:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Is there any need to list this kind of thing here? This page get's too long as it is without listing things that a simple redirect will fix.I've done the redirect and I'll remove this entry tomorrow. theresa knott 13:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• New College Democrats Political club at a college. Not notable in any way. Warofdreams 14:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Attack Tool Kit Appears to be advertising; if the product is notable in any way it needs to be NPOVed. Warofdreams 14:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• York Railway Institute Sailing Club seems to be a pointless flyer for a small club. Linked from Bishopthorpe. Hugh2414 14:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)