January 19
- American Idle - describes unfavorable (and probably rare) view of TV show American Idol. -Smack 02:57, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and merge anything worthy into American Idol. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. silsor 04:32, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Same here. - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. SpellBott 06:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not valid topic. Meelar 07:15, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete DJ Clayworth 15:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - disguised rant - Texture 15:51, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It's a valid typo. Redirect to American Idol →Raul654 17:10, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Did you read the article? I'm a little incredulous that anyoue could see this as anything beyond an attack piece. It is a single sentence saying that the show is "taking up" valuable time. The article begins "Some thought it was strange that in the midst of a floundering if not drowning economy, wardrumming, questions about the legitimacy of the Bush presidency..." Also included are links to similar attacks on the show. I don't watch the show or find it interesting, but this article is an attack, not a spelling mistake. - Texture 18:01, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Just because the article is an attack not a spelling mistake, it doesn't mean someone might not spell idol as idle in a search engine. If we redirect we catch that traffic theresa knott 16:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand, Texture. Theresa reinterated what I wanted to say perfectly. Yes, this is an attack rant. Delete the content, and turn the page into a redirect, to catch people who make typos. →Raul654 19:53, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Just because the article is an attack not a spelling mistake, it doesn't mean someone might not spell idol as idle in a search engine. If we redirect we catch that traffic theresa knott 16:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Did you read the article? I'm a little incredulous that anyoue could see this as anything beyond an attack piece. It is a single sentence saying that the show is "taking up" valuable time. The article begins "Some thought it was strange that in the midst of a floundering if not drowning economy, wardrumming, questions about the legitimacy of the Bush presidency..." Also included are links to similar attacks on the show. I don't watch the show or find it interesting, but this article is an attack, not a spelling mistake. - Texture 18:01, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Rant. Tempshill 18:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- As it stands delete - but the expression does seem to be used. Gets 3,600 google hits. Yes its partisan - but so are _all_ the slogans on wikipedia. Secretlondon 18:46, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not NPOV, it's just a rant. Rdash 18:52, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and don't redirect as redirect would be POV. Angela. 23:14, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't keep insulting redirects. See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Meelar 18:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- except Dubya Anthony DiPierro 19:43, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't keep insulting redirects. See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Meelar 18:49, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Amiga Religion - article about fanatical devotion to the Amiga computer, begins by saying "Amiga as a religion or religious cult seems to be widely overstated as such" --Smack 04:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Svend-Allan Sørensen - apparently a person of little importance --Smack 04:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. silsor 04:32, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This guy exists and is a practicing artist. Not for us to decide if he's the next Picasso. I'm listing on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Bmills 12:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no indication that the individual has done anything notable. Maximus Rex 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-famous. Non-important. Imran 22:07, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Christopher Hsu - vanity page. - Hephaestos 04:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. silsor 04:32, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Why do people think anyone cares about them? Put it on your own user page. Sheesh! - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, make a user page for 18.251.6.65, and move it to there. It will look very pretty. - User:Ashibaka 05:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea. I just did (without the edit by another anon. - UtherSRG 17:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete DJ Clayworth 15:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Truth (Serious Account) - looks like an older version of Truth. - UtherSRG 04:31, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Idiocracy - one line definition. I can't see how this can be expanded without POV problems. Also an orphan. Secretlondon 09:23, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Idiocracy makes no mention of, and is easily confused with, its traditional definition and its present definition ([1], [2]) is inescapably POV. Chris Roy 10:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. - UtherSRG 17:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Suitable only for Wiktionary, and if I were a contributor there I'd vote to delete it from Wiktionary, too, for not being a word. Tempshill 18:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Mother I'd Like To Fuck - I vote for the immediate deletion of this page. It has no rightful place in an encyclopedia accessible to children. This is an encyclopedia, not a pornopedia. The fringe element who want to know about such topics can always read Penthouse or any similar magazine, and there's (unfortunately) no shortage of such sites on the internet. Wikipedia should NOT, in my opinion, lower itself by accumulating trash which has no literary or educational value. (David Cannon - Monday 19 January 2004, 11.03pm)
- Yes. Delete right away. Tannin 10:26, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I concur with Cannon. Delete. Pollinator 06:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It doesn't qualify under Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion Secretlondon 10:30, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not because it's overly offensive (there's an article on bukkake, fer dog's sake), but because it can't be more than a definition. — No-One Jones (talk) 10:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- move to wiktionary, or place on a list or something, its no stand alone article. And this is too a pornopedia, look at the article on Bomis ;) Jack 10:44, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, but only because Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, not because of potential offensiveness. --Delirium 11:02, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete for all the above reasons. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Wiktionary seems like the right place. - UtherSRG 17:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Just because this site refers to a taboo section of human sexuality, you seem to be labelling it as wrong. What is your problem? If it's the word "fuck", see the entire page on it, otherwise are you concerned that children may be able to learn about MILF? If that is such a major issue, should we remove articles on anal sex, bestiality and incest. Aswell as this, assuming Wikipedia contains no entry for MILF, someone may have to type MILF into a google search, which I'm guessing would provide very few sites dedicated to explaining the concept. As for the educational value, it is useful for someone who would like to understand what the term "MILF" means. Also I think it is very childish and most unfair to compare a serious article of text to a pornographic magazine. This article is here to educate someone who would like to know about MILF, Penthouse serves to titilate the "reader". However I believe the Wiktionary to be a good place. SimonMayer 19 January 2004 20:27 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with the Mother I'd Like To Fuck page. Why you think it's offensive? It a 100% NPOV and encyclopedic article. Certainly keep the information contained in the article. However I have no problem to merge it with another similar article. Do we have any porn-slang article? If ys gimme the link and I will do the merge, and I will make Mother I'd Like To Fuck a redirect. This info could also be contained in some psychology article explaining the attraction to mature women etc. Please, don't let puritanism prevail in Wikipedia. Also, the usage of the term MILF is very common and widespread on the Internet and has become part of the porn sub-culture: God Google says MILF gets 5 million hits and the phrase "Mother I'd Like to F@@@" gets 26 thousand hits! So we certainly have to list this term in the encyclopedia, no matter whether we like it or not. Optim 22:05, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Article contains no useful information. If it did, I'd suggest that info be moved to the MILF page. Anthony DiPierro 03:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or move to Wiktionary--it's right on the bo