Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marshman (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 24 September 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Guidelines for admins -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- copyright violations-- foreign language -- personal subpages -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- deletion guidelines -- m:deletionism

Older than 7 days

September 16

  • List of people by first name - I'm all for keeping all those trivial lists, but five Freds and nothing else is just too ridiculous. --KF 13:01, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree! The page isn't even internally consistent: it claims to list people known primarily by their first name. Since when is this true of Fred Rogers or Dorothy Frooks? I'm sitting here laughing at the bizarre-ness of it all, so perhaps it's an elaborate joke: regardless, delete. --Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I suspect that instead of "This list is of people well-known by their first name", it's meant to be "This list is of well-known people, by their first name" - i.e. like List of people by name, but by first name instead of surname. Obviously it needs a lot of work still... —Paul A 02:21, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I thought it had started out as List of people named Fred. Anyways, I'd add the first names to Given name etymology, even without an etymology. The Special:Allpages/First Name links there allowing you to find people in Wikipedia. -- User:Docu
      • I'd say Paul A has it... List of people by name, sorted (grouped also?) by first name. Should be that, IMHO. -- Jake 06:20, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)
    • Withhold consent for this deletion. -BuddhaInside


September 18


  • Transcendentalist Hypothesis of the Fourth Dimension -- - another personal essay from Kkawohl. --Evercat 00:35, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It reads like something Roy Masters might have written. Delete. -- sugarfish 02:23, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Worthy of BJAODN. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • kkawohl Reconsideration requested. See edited version & discussion page. Also see:
    • User:kkawohl has been warned numerous times about creating these kinds of articles. Please delete. Also I suggest banning him. He has made no useful contributions to any other Wikipedia article and is just using us as a place to try to put his stuff. Item 15 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is a not a personal homepage and/or file storage area. Mintguy 17:10, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • This needs to be stopped quickly lest it spawn a swarm of imitators. But if he could provide some group who beleive this besides himself... Rmhermen 17:46, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 00:42, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Just cleaned up his ugly mass of HTML with those links... that done, I looked at the stuff... and I say delete. We've got more than enough dodgy crap as it is, we don't need these insane ramblings. -- Jake 09:48, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)
    • User:68.5.127.81 deleted the comments here, removed the VFD notice from the page in question, then blanked it (and has been reblanking it, despite reverts. The IP is a cox.net one in Irvine, CA. Kurt Kawohl lives in southern CA, and has a cox.net email address. This sounds like ban potential to me. -- Jake 10:13, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)
    • From my brief experience attempting to work with Kurt when he first arrived at Wikipedia, I would say that things will only deteriorate from here: I strongly support deleting this page, and agree with Jake and Mintguy that ban or auto-revert should be a next step. Jwrosenzweig 18:56, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • delete and ban. Has spammed the GNU C library mailing list on 18 July and cited Wikipedia to others (with the article he created) to back up his claims. JamesDay 01:03, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Tug of War at the 1908 Summer Olympics A personal anecdote. RickK 03:47, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • And a damn fine one at that, guv. Procreatus
    • Can I talk about the time my father... Delete. It's hardly even a stub, and not worthy of an encyclopedia. -- sugarfish 07:01, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • This should be in the general 1908 Summer Olympics article instead of having its own page, shouldn't it? Wiwaxia 12:30, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • As it stands, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia at all. -- Cyan 21:15, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 00:42, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Jake 09:48, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)
    • This should be moved to 1908 Summer Olympics because it's too narrow to hold an article of its own, while 1908 has an article. We should definitely keep information about an event that changed the history of the Olympics (this was the year that got all acts using animals banned forever), but should rewrite it to remove the badly-written style and relative language ("my great-uncle"). Wiwaxia 09:26, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be kept now. I have added the results and updated to a similar format to tug of war entries for other years at the olympics. -- Popsracer 10:19, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Eloquence and Angela for your kind help. I am legally blind and type a few inches from the computer while editing 'live' and that is also why I edit and rewrite in boldface as well. I am still rewriting the page and have read the facts as presented in the other links to Rocketdyne, Saturn, Jupiter, Peacekeeper missiles and rocket testing, etcetera, and am very aware that those pages often editorialize, for example, ..."there were no accidents with the Saturn project...", "...toxic mercury...", in addition to other such remarks within those Wikipedia pages as well as multiple external links to Boeing and other agencies and corporations. Moreover, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that the Rocketdyne/Boeing Field Laboratory is involved in a cleanup project with the Department of Energy/Department of Defense/Department of Toxic Substance Control/Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry and Centers for Disease Control, among other government agencies, which costs millions of dollars. The University of California, Los Angeles, published its Rocketdyne Worker Cancer Study in 1997 and now is involved in the Rocketdyne Contamination/Community Resident Health Study due to the nuclear meltdown(s) at the Rocketdyne/SSFL site beginning in 1959, in addition to contamination and toxins caused by decades of rocket engine testing at the open field lab beginning in 1948 until the SSFL activities were shut down by the Department of Justice in 1995, as two nuclear engineers were killed and an engineering technician was injured while they were openly burning spent fuel at the open field lab. Rockwell was fined six million dollars which was a historical amount at that time, testing ceased at the site, and North American Rockwell sold it to Boeing during December, 1996. Rocketdyne officials pleaded guilty to criminal handling, storage, and disposal of nuclear, radioactive, hazardous, and toxic wastes. These facts are Atomics International, North American Rockwell, Boeing, Rocketdyne, Cold War, space program, Southern California, energy worker, labor, criminal, and medical history; the omission of which reflects the deliberate publishing of just a small part of aerospace/jet/rocket industry, etcetera. I presented my copyright and permission to publish my intellectual property strictly due to the fact that I didn't want to be deleted for copyright violations. Sincerely, Madelinefelkins 67.219.146.49 01:27, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

    • This nonetheless has some copyright problems. It claims it is authorized for "non-commercial use", which isn't strong enough for us: Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, which permits commercial use of its articles. --Delirium 06:54, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • And additional to the copyright problems it is very POV - such an article fits on greenpeace.com, but not in a encyclopedia. It needs serious reworking to make it fit here - I only removed the extremely ugly font sizes. andy 09:17, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Make life easy and delete it. ThereIsNoSteve 19:27, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Lithuo-Prussians -- I'm suspicious of H.J and it looks like needing translating into plain English. Kpjas 20:46 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • An unidentified contributor made some changes to this article in July, but nothing links to it. Should we simply delete it? -- llywrch 21:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Fails google test - delete. Martin 20:09, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 00:42, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Goldtoken.com is very advertising, and less like an article
    • Fails alexa test (rank ~101,000) - delete. Martin 20:09, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 00:42, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Robert Taylor (composer) - deletion requested by original author, who is also the subject of the article. Angela 22:17, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not his page to decide whether or not to keep, even if it is about him. Plus he wasn't the original author, I was. RickK 01:00, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • He was the original author of the content, but you cut and pasted that from another page, making it look like you were the original author. Angela
      • Agreed. An article about someone exists (or doesn't) on its own merits. -- Jake 15:51, 2003 Sep 19 (UTC)
    • We have deleted articles in similar circumstances before, "for a quiet life", but I don't know whether we should here. Martin 21:17, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • On second thoughts - I don't want to start a precedent where the subject of an article can request deletion of it. Angela 20:03, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

September 19

  • The Tiger The referred-to newspaper is not famous and the article contains virtually no content. Maybe this is a common name for student newspapers in the States though? Also an 'ancient article' so little prospect of an improvement Pete 00:47, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete. --Morven 00:51, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 00:42, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Blennophobia, Myxophobia (redirect) It's just a dictionary definition.. I moved it to blennophobia before i thought about it... Evil saltine 02:06, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 00:42, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Meow Wars, not NPOV (if you are from Harvard) and a possible copyvio from [1]Ark30inf 03:11, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Jake 06:20, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)
    • Probably not NPOV. But I can assure you that Jeff Boyd of godhatesjanks.com couldn't care less about the possible copyvio. --Shpxurnq 21:22, 21 Sep 2003
  • Raoul Xemblinosky, the author appears to be the subject since the external link has the authors wiki user name in it. Non-famous (google shows him to be a usenet troll of some repute so I withdraw the non-famous accusation). Ark30inf 03:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 00:42, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Guilty as charged. Serves me right for not hiding my identity. --Shpxurnq 21:19, 21 Sep 2003
  • Marriage in the eyes of god, the text was: Marriage is a holy act that must be held to that of the traditions of the Christian faith. Same sex marriages mustn't be allowed to exist, as they are a perversion of what God has inteneded for humanity. 03:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Posting a summary of what the content was does not equal posting an explanation of why the content should be deleted. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with this page which cannot be fixed by bold edits, moving, or redirecting. Accordingly, withhold consent for this deletion. -BuddhaInside
    • Merge with marriage. Angela 07:42, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge content, delete article. Fuzheado 08:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed. -- Jake 08:43, 2003 Sep 19 (UTC)
        • Likewise -- there's nothing here that can't be covered under Marriage as an explanation of one point of view on that topic. No need for a seperate page on it. --Morven 09:10, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Kill it. Inherently POV. -- Schnee 10:29, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Content to Christian view of marriage. Redirect to Religious aspects of marriage. Keep redirect. Martin 10:37, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I say delete, as the content is removed. This title is not really suitable for any articles in an encyclopedia. --wshun 21:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The content's actually not that bad; perhaps there is a place for the controversy over the tension between the state's concept of marriage and religions. It should be at a different title, and focus on more than just Christianity, though. Evercat 14:02, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the redirect because the person who created it obviously didn't realise that we had an articles on the Religious aspects of marriage. Had the redirect existed, we would have avoided the creation of a duplicate article. Keeping the redirect will help us out if the situation reoccurs. Martin 14:49, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge content, delete entry. The mere title is POV since it assumes Christianity ("in the eyes of god" implies monotheism - there are many other gods out there... perhaps) Trevor Mendham 09:24, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think the title of the redirect is POV: king redirects to monarch, but that redirect doesn't imply that all monarchs are male. Martin 12:37, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Terrorism against Arabs - currently redirects to Kahanism(!) These two terms are by no means equivalent. The various cases of terrorism (or alleged terrorism) directed against Arabs (which were listed in the article before it became a redirect) are unrelated to each other, and do not deserve, in my opinion, to be under one article. uriber 11:48, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I redirected to Islamofascism, because these guys are mostly responsible for all atrocities against ordinary Arabs.
  • Yuppie Philosophy. Not NPOV (although it is neither for nor against yuppies as far as I can tell, it appears to be written from the POV of a radical approach to history). Paullusmagnus 21:06, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Really. Looks like a POV that is wasted. Since "Yuppies" do not recognize themselves as holding any monolithic point of view, the idea here seems to be one of making up a philosophy that one might oppose, then going at it in an article. I think that is called pseudointellectualism? I could as much rant about my neighbor by pretending he represented a movement. It would be no more intellectual or acceptable to write an article on the pros and cons of "girls" on the planet -- Delete. - Marshman 03:12, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • It's also a copy from [2]. What is that site, anyway? RickK 19:36, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a site that copies content from Wikipedia (maybe some other places as well, I don't know). The bottom of the page you've linked says "This article courtesy of Wikipedia." --Camembert 19:43, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Ditch it. -- Jake 06:20, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)
  • The International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan - not encyclopaedic. Secretlondon 23.30, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • If there were such a group beyond a few silly people setting up a web page, it might be worth keeping; but clearly this proves anyone can set up a web page and call themselves whatever they want. Does not "make it so". This website is somewhat of an embarassement to the participants - delete - Marshman 04:27, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Alexa rating of 2,874,448 - fails Alexa test. Delete. Martin 00:31, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Cat_in_pint.jpg Tasteless -- ~~
    • I disagree. It's on Mirks's user page and no where else. I think it'd have to be a lot worse to warrant deletion. --Raul654 22:30, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • That is cute picture. I assume the cat was not killed to make it? Keep - Marshman 03:02, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 20

  • Delinquent - Dictionary definition. Don't see it going any further. Bloodshedder 01:36, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It is a dictionary definition. Did the person who wrote think he/she was on Wiktionary? - 24.94.82.245 04:18, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • CLIP-4 begins "This entry should be removed from the timeline". Last edit summary by only author was "Incorrect entry". Angela 02:02, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Xtul. Unless someone can supply info on the place itself (unlikely, it's described as a small village), all 4 or 5 words that aren't already in the Process Church article should go there, then this should go. -- Jake 09:52, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)
    • If you want to merge the content into Process Church and redirect Xtul to that article, you can do that yourself; there's no need to list it here. However, I think it would be nice to have separate articles on all the places of the world. There are always facts to be found about them (even if it's just dull things like latitude and longitude), and if these are only included somewhere in the middle of other articles, they are difficult to find. -- Oliver P. 20:05, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I think his idea is to merge the text into Process Chuch and delete Xtul, giving people the possibility to re-create the page if they feel like it, although it is unlikely that they do. Andre Engels
        • There is always the possibility to recreate the page... In any case, if the text from Xtul is used in another article, the information on its authorship would have to be preserved in order to satisfy the terms of the GFDL. The easiest way to do that is to keep the page, either as a stub or as a redirect. I still vote for the stub. :) -- Oliver P. 01:28, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, that was the idea, Andre. Though Oliver raises a couple good points... hm. -- Jake 06:20, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)
  • Libre Mo'Ron and Book of Mo'Ron. Nonsense. No Google hits. Possibly Cult of Ron as well. Angela 20:07, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. On Cult of Ron there does appear to be one fact: that followers of L Ron Hubbard are often given this name but whether you'd want to insert that on either the Hubbard or Scientology pages is debatable. Otherwise delete the lot. Graham  :) 11:41, Sep 21 2003 (UTC)
  • Sammy Gouti - There is a anonymous user with the IP 64.219.195.152 who has made a number of entries regarding a Sammy Gouti. I noticed this user when he added Sammy Gouti to a list of prominent contributors to sociology which is on my watchlist. I'm a student of sociology and had never heard of Gouti, so I googled him and I found his webpage [3]. The webpage certainly didn't make Gouti sound like he belongs in a page of prominent sociologists and it reminded me of the style of the anonymous user, so I traced the IP address and it comes from an IP based in Houston, Texas, the same place that Gouti's webpage identifies as his home. In short, I think that Sammy Gouti is adding himself to different parts of Wikipedia, including the psychology and sociology page and wildly exaggerating his importance. Lunchboxhero (moved from Angela's talk page:)
  • Engineering Bay (StarCraft) Part of a computer game instruction manual or something similar. - stet 21:19, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • You only link one of these many StarCraft articles - see Protoss (StarCraft), Zerg (StarCraft) and Terran (StarCraft) for more. They all need to be merged (where there's something worth saving) and redirected, as was done with the Atlas Shrugged articles. However, they shouldn't be deleted. Martin 00:26, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Its pretty much the national sport of Korea -- it deserves to have the rules and the like fully explained. Pizza Puzzle
      • I disagree. Even with what you say, I am of the opinion that it goes into deeper detail than I think is good. Andre Engels
    • I have no issue with there being info on Starcraft, however, each building and unit type doesn't need its own page. Though I'd keep the Protoss and Zerg articles- for one thing, 'Zerg rush' has become a more generalized expression among gamers, referring to any mass attack of expendable units. -- Jake 06:20, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)

September 21

  • Nero emperor -- created this with the intention of making nero a disambig page, but changed my mind. Please delete
    • redirected to Nero. I am neutral on deletion of this now-redirect. -- Cyan 05:16, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Might as well leave it. Nero (emperor) would be most fitting if one were disambiguating, though, as a note...
  • Do As Infinity Obvious junk. The page reads, "hello," and nothing else. -- sugarfish 08:56, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually, Google tells me they are a (Japanese?) band of sorts. Are they famous enough? -- sugarfish 09:00, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe they are, but the word hello isn't going to help writing an article on them so it has been deleted. Angela 09:07, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Arlo s good eye.jpg should be deleted. It makes no sense (and is not linked anywhere). By the way, user 6ale has not only uploaded this, but also made a change to the British Virgin Islands page which I have reverted already.Pascal 10:35, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Going by the addition of "Chris Olson" to the page you mention, I'm guessing he is User24.64.223.205 who has already been warned against his junk edits. Angela 11:14, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Glen Quagmire. As awesome as Family Guy is, I don't think individual pages for its characters are necessary. Quotations from said characters definitely do not belong in an encyclopedia (Family Guy was so full of saucy sayings that there would be no end to a list of quotations). Kricxjo 16:47, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok, maybe he doesn't deserve his own page, but at least fold the information back into the family guy article. (Including the quotes)
      • I could fold back one of two of the quotes, but not all of them. As I said, Wikipedia a) is not a repository for quotations, and b) Family had so many funny saying that there would be no end to a list of quotations. Kricxjo 20:22, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Piraten-Schiff, Kreuzfeuer - probably well-meant, but I don't have the slightest idea what it's even about (outside of pirate ships and crossfire, respectively). -- Schnee 17:30, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • What are those things? --Menchi 23:19, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I have no idea. They sound toy-related to me in the widest sense, but that's just a gut feeling. -- Schnee 01:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • They're German language editions of the Atari games, "Gas Hog" and "Crossfire" respectively. If anything, they belong on the German language Wikipedia. -- sugarfish 07:06, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Kasina - someones favorite beer joint. Well over stub length, what brews are offered and so forth. But if this is kept, well... I've a long list of beer joints I can add, and do it with more encyclopaedic style too... (well, maybe it should stay, at that ;) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 17:48, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • You have a soft-line view of what makes something 'over stub length'. My threshold is 2000bytes and this one isn't close :) But anyway: It is possible, with the addition of info about the hotel, its history and architecture (its in a famous-ish square in Belgrade) that this could be made an article... Pete 18:12, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Kill it. -- Schnee 18:13, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 23:19, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


  • Jaxon modulation. Blank page. Content was moved to talk page in September 2002 and has not been edited since. Angela 21:29, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 22

    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Sharon Murray. The only "Iain McCallum" I can find is a character in the TV series "McCallum", and I can't find an international supermodel named Sharon Murray. Methinks this is nonsense. RickK 00:55, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Iain McCallum, for the same reason as Sharon Murray. Author IPs are in the same /22 netblock, too, so I guess it's safe to assume that they were written by the same person. -- Schnee 01:40, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten it as a stub about the character from McCallum. Keep. Or move to McCallum, possibly. -- Oliver P. 02:57, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • James Stevens - appears made up. Can't find anything about him or his movies on either Google or IMDB. -- Schnee 13:25, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks to me more like an autobiographical piece from someone who does not at all deserve to be on Wikipedia. Andre Engels 13:41, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Can we at least remove the email address if something else? We've never added a celebrity's email address before, even for very well-known figures. Wiwaxia 09:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Tanconsultancy - seems like advertising to me. -- Schnee 13:25, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • No links either. Andre Engels 13:41, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • This is the third time this has been listed here, it seems to keep disappearing without getting deleted. RickK 19:03, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • Actually, it's a new page, so I assume it gets deleted and then reinserted later. If that's the case, and nobody objects, I'd vote for just deleting it without listing it here in the future if it appears again. -- Schnee 21:47, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • List of calculators Some misgivings about this, but I can't see in practice how it can be anywhere near complete without being ridiculously long, or useful without being updated every few weeks. DJ Clayworth 14:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Boldy moved to "List of scientific calculators" - there aren't so many of them. KEEEP IT! BL 16:18, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm for keeping it under that title. -- Schnee 18:21, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I withdraw the suggestion following the move. DJ Clayworth 18:29, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • **Withhold consent for this deletion. -BuddhaInside
  • 23rd century - just a field of red links to tempt passersby to create garbage articles. - Hephaestos 18:05, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Kill it. -- Schnee 18:21, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • On the same lines, 2156 and 22nd century should also go. RickK 22:59, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Seconded. -- Schnee 00:12, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • List of music videos. What is the point of this article? When does it stop? There are how many thousands of videos? RickK 22:53, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. Adam Bishop 23:04, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • **Withhold consent for this deletion. - BuddhaInside
    • Isn't that redundant? Won't every movie video have a song to go with it? So why have a list of songs AND a duplicate-looking list of music videos? Wiwaxia 09:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Little Green Footballs - Doesn't seem important. Vancouverguy 23:56, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. How does one determine an alexa ranking? RickK 00:03, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Go to an URL like this. :) -- Schnee 00:12, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Alexa ranking: 13,706 - Efghij 02:32, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • That's an argument for deletion, is it? That looks like a high rank to me! Anyway, the Alexa ranking test is silly. Google test: thousands of matches. Keep. -- Oliver P. 03:38, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree BL 15:10, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • On what grounds? Please give a reason. (I really wish this page wasn't called "Votes for deletion"! We only delete things if there is a reason to do so.) So far we only have "doesn't seem important" (far too subjective, and the Google test suggests that thousands disagree) and "not very popular" (of which I dispute both the truth and the relevance even if true - see Wikipedia talk:Google Test). -- Oliver P. 04:19, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 23

  • RPGDX. Another website. Is it worth keeping? RickK 00:16, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • And Indie RPG Dot Net, created by the same user, slightly POV as well as unnecessary. RickK 00:25, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Both have Alexa ranking bellow 200,000. - Efghij 02:36, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Judaismism - nonsense created to try to prove a silly point. RickK 00:48, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Nonsense can be deleted immediately. Some neutral party in the dispute should do that. Ark30inf 00:57, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Only nonsense in the sense of "text that is completely incomprehensible" can be deleted immediately. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. It does look like rubbish, though, so I expect it can be deleted after seven days. -- Oliver P. 03:32, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • The title itself is a nonsense made-up word that doesn't exist. If I posted a title "Grillig and plithy goves" but put the words to the Star-spangled banner in it would it have to wait 7 days even though the Star-Spangled banner is understandable text? Not trying to be obnoxious...really wanting to know the answer. Thanks Ark30inf 03:43, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. I would personally have no objection to its being deleted immediately. --Morven 05:53, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • If it hadn't already been listed here I would have deleted it as vandalism. Angela 05:58, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. The comprehensible text itself says that it has no meaning. It is thus senseless.Vanderesch 09:11, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm very reluctant about deleting anything any more because I get attacked and reverted too often. RickK 01:45, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Finnicize. Dictionary definition. RickK 01:33, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Morven 05:53, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • List of famous Lithuanians. Blank page. Infrogmation moved the content to the talk page in May and nothing has happened to it since. He agrees with its deletion. Angela 02:10, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • It looks fake. --Menchi 03:45, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, there seems to be an actual list if you look on the discussion page. Wiwaxia 09:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Where Did You Get That Hat?. No useful content? Angela 05:30, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 05:35, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Morven 05:53, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The song is actually pretty well known in the UK, and might be Wiki-worthy. But not the current content. Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:37, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • All articles on 9-11 except the main article. They should all be moved to Wiki 9-11 memorial site. -Wshun
    • There are possibly a number of those that could/should indeed go (I personally think that Relief funds created in reaction to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks would be a good candidate for (re)moving), but a good number of them are worthwhile and encyclopedic articles. I propose that you, if you are serious about this, list them up, so each case could be discussed on its own. The way you are proposing it now can only get a loud 'NO' from me - and that is from someone who has gotten irritated quite a bit being on the anti-9/11 page side of the issue. Andre Engels 16:07, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  •   Well I placed the image in the english website although it was supposed to be used on the fr.wikipedia.org. Could you delete it? Thanks! (by the way I wonder if there is an easier way to link between the different langage of Wikipedia than by copying the complete URI?) Aveclafaux 09:01, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • List of flashlight and torch acronyms Useless and not encyclopedic -- Cordyph 17:35, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • heh, yeah, what is that supposed to be? Axe. Bloodshedder 22:20, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • A list of battery types might be useful. A list of battery types with miscellaneous other abbreviations/acronyms interspersed isn't. Delete. -- Ortonmc 04:03, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 24

  • Kew School
    • not even enough info to be worthy of a stub. -- Khym Chanur 02:35, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but is it possible this might be turned into a useful article? I've added a link to the school's website. If there's something that distinguishes this school from every other school in the world, I'd say keep it. Otherwise, delete. (My gut feeling at this point is delete--I don't think there's any real differentiation.) -- Ortonmc 04:03, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Non famous school. Angela 14:11, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've expanded it. Keep. I think a nice goal would be have a page for every educational establishment in the world. :) -- Oliver P. 16:25, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Mother Meera. Advertising. RickK 03:45, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete.Vancouverguy 13:40, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Horribly advertising content, certainly. Googling "Mother Meera" returns approx 3000 hits, which look generally relevant. Does that sound important enough that we should have a (much more NPOV) article on her? Not sure. --Morven 18:35, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • VERY POV. Should be either rewritten and POV removed or deleted. - Marshman 18:59, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Flight Miniatures- Reeks of advertising, along with most of the pages that link to it.
    • Why? It seems to me to be simply an article about a model-plane making company, written by a fan of model planes. We already have articles about a lot of companies -- is any article on a company now to be considered 'advertising'? They are probably well-known in their field, and I'd say that's sufficient reason for their inclusion. Keep. --Morven 18:27, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Bush is an idiot - This article seems pointless and not worthy of a place in wikipedia - even if you don't like Bush! -- SGBailey 2003-09-24
    • You beat me to it. See talk pages. DJ Clayworth 14:40, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Allow it and you will have "Hillary is a ...." and "Joe Lieberman is a...." and etc. Do we need an article for every offensive slogan like 'AIDS kills....Dead'. Delete. Ark30inf 15:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kosebamse 15:48, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The point is obvious, but this is pretty cleary POV and vandalism - both reasons for deleting, IMHO without bothering to list here - Marshman 19:04, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1475534"