Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dysprosia (talk | contribs) at 11:38, 22 August 2003 (rm deleted (CDTV)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Add links to unwanted page titles to the list below so that other Wikipedians can have a chance to argue for and against the removal of the page. Please sign any suggestion for deletion (use four tildes, ~~~~, to sign with your user name and the current date).

If there is general consensus for deletion, an administrator will carry it out, and the link will be removed from this page (it will show up in the deletion log). If no consensus can be reached, someone will remove the link from this page, and the page will not be deleted.

Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. Note that obvious junk can be removed by admins at any time - see deletion policy for details.

Please consider adding a deletion notice like the following on top of pages that are scheduled for deletion:

''This page has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.''

You may also choose to inform the author of the page about the ongoing discussion on their user talk page. The notice does not need to be added to pages which a) have no content (such as redirects), and b) also have no significant history.

Please review deletion policy before adding to this page, and before performing deletions as an administrator. To challenge a decision made over a deletion, see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

See also:

August 13

August 14

  • George Fruits
    • Discussion moved to Talk:George Fruits. Possibly a 114yo who is the oldest survivor of the American Revolutionary War - but this might not be true.
  • User talk:Nostrum/ban -- This is completely unnessary, this user is clearly not a vandal. マイカル (MB) 19:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Had Nostrum been an anonymous IP addresses persistently adding that illiterate POV rant to Catholicism he would have been banned without hesitation. Anonymous IP addresses get banned everyday for similar conduct. Not only did his conduct on the Catholicism page warrant a ban, his recent defacement of the Holocaust article after his reappearance warranted a ban in itself, even without considering his past obnoxious behavior. I favor a ban and most of the literate users who endured the torment of reading his fourth grade-level, bigoted anti-Catholic garbage probably agree with a ban, or at least agree that his conduct needs to be monitored. I favor a ban and I will not have my stance on Nostrum censored. 172 00:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC
    • Keep. Wheather a user is a vandal should be discussed on the ban page, not here. Efghij 02:21, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • To 172: "censored"? That's just a bit rich after you removed a comment by Nostrum on a page discussing his own banning. Please reform your ways. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
      • Shame on you for slandering me! I didn't intentionally delete anything that vandal said; it might have just been an edit conflict. I have no reason to hide his inane drivel. Quit budding in every time you find a dispute and coming to ill-informed conclusions. 172 03:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • I cordially request you do not allege that I have slandered you. If one peruses the page history, there is not the slightest possibility that the removal of the text by Nostrum was due to an "edit conflict". If you say that you did remove the text by some form of unintentional action, I would find no grounds to dispute that, but I would still feel bound to admonish you to not do it again!!! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:14, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • After assurances from MB who knows Nostrum off wiki that this is a serious but so far misguided user, I am withdrawing my opposition to the deletion of this page. FearÉIREANN 03:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Wik 05:05, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we decide to ban Nostrum, we should have a record of why. If we decide not to ban Nostrum, we should likewise have a record. Please do not repeat the arguments made on that page here, however. Martin
    • Keep. Records are a Good Thing. -- Jake 02:10, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)

August 15

  • Love-Hate relationship - the article makes very little sense and has no real info to offer
    • This is poorly written and more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I am not saying it is impossible, but I am hard-pressed to see how any article on this subject could be an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary definition. Perhaps famous or infamous love-hate relationships (such as in Krazy Kat?) throughout history could be mentioned. I am leaning towards voting for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a real phenomenon. Like Larry's essays, well, it needs work to save. There should be *something* by this title. But maybe not this. EofT
  • Shit sandwich and HUA quotient - I don't think these articles add much to the sum of human knowlege. Mintguy 16:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Without considerable expansion or revision, which I am at a loss to see how it would happen, the former should be gone. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't know, I've heard this typically southern expression all my life. It might be better off as a wikidictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia article.Ark30inf 17:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • No, it's clear that Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, must function as the idiom dictionary. There are thousands of such expressions and almost all need much more explanation than a conventional dictionary should offer: culture, history, etc. For instance the fact that it's a US South and military expression should be mentioned in the article. EofT
    • I'm against deletion. We aren't here to "add to the sum of human knowledge", but perhaps, we can save some poor bastard who only barely speaks English or has only recently moved to the US South, from a few hours of anxiety between the time his colleagues tell him that the boss will "feed him a shit sandwich" in an upcoming meeting, and that meeting. If we move this, let's move it to Simple English Wikipedia, where maybe simple idioms can be explained more justifiably than here. EofT
    • Leave 'em. -- Infrogmation 19:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • The shit sandwich article has been expanded into something resembling a real article, keep it. --Dante Alighieri 19:42, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd say move to Wiktionary. Etymology, regional usage, and so on of both words and phrases are all the proper ___domain of a dictionray, not an encyclopedia. More general sociological articles like U.S. military slang terms would be okay of course, but ones like this really don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Delirium 00:43, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Many of these terms aren't US-specific. Martin 09:24, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • 16 words
    • Probably needs merging into a general article on the Niger uranium claims, if we have one. Discussion to talk:16 words

August 16

  • Daniel Ziegler
    • Deleted this afternoon without listing on VfD. I don't know if he's one of the people mentioned on the page, but there's an illustrator with that name. -- Oliver P. 16:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Erm, sorry, I forgot to mention that I replaced what was there with some stubby things on four people with the name Daniel Ziegler. Someone comment, please! -- Oliver P. 01:29, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Experience
    • Deleted this afternoon without listing on VfD. Not sure if this could be turned into a useful article, but maybe... -- Oliver P. 16:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • User:BL has added a bit, but it's duplicated at Experience points. I support deletion. -- Oliver P. 01:29, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion - need some way to direct mis-links to experience to experience point - this stub will do that. Article should eventually link to a posteriori and know-how. Martin 09:42, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh, well in that case I'll defer to your judgement and withdraw my support for deletion. :) -- Oliver P. 09:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Mimeogram of the 29 Google hits: 2 were about art and both were written by Daniel C. Boyer -- wikipedia and [1] , the other 27 seemed to refer to any article printed with a mimeograph machine. This confusing probably Boyer-coined word is confusing and unnecessary. M123 17:54, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • You might want to look at something before saying, for no particularly good reason, that it is "probably Boyer-coined." You give me too much credit; it was coined by Penelope Rosemont. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it was a reasonable assumption considering you wrote the only material about it I could find and you have created your own words in the past (ie "echo drawing"); and I did qualify it with 'probably'. I can't find any reference on the web to '"Penelope Rosemont" mimeogram' or '"Penelope Rosemont" mimeograph' other than the two pages that you wrote. M123 14:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • User talk:172 sysop status -- No longer needed. Please see User talk:172 sysop status#My final statement for my justification. Removing this page should help 172 get past this. If anyone wants to read the page in the future, they can read my personal achive of it in my personal space. マイカル 19:29, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for transparency. Consider refactoring. Consider moving related material here. Martin 19:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete it, but preserve the contents. It would be best to add it to the administrators' page, where it all was placed originally, and then save a new version of the article so that it cannot be viewed on the current main page. Let it stay in the page history of the administrators' page, where it belonged in the first place. If anyone wanted to refer to it, it would be in the page history. If MB, the major antagonist in effort to have my sysop status revoked, deems it unnecessary, this should be a sign that the matter has been put to rest. 172 00:13, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for transparency (somewhere, but visible). Fantasy 08:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Every word is now saved in votes for administrator page history, along with all other debates on the administratorship of every other sysop. I copied the current version of the 172 page and added it to the votes for admin page, and then reverted that edit. Thus, the contents of the 172 page remain in the page history, but are not posted on the current version of the page. There's no reason that this remain the single debate over an adminship with its own individual page. If it's deleted, not a word would be lost. 172 08:45, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with deletion of this. Angela 17:15, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • keep. ...for me posting something without comment is "hiding". If some one wants to hide things like that, I am for keeping it. I did not have the time to read it all yet, maybe I (or someone else) wants/needs it later Fantasy 18:48, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Jake 02:10, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)
  • Chump basically a dictionary definition with an apparently incorrect etymology. M123 22:40, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Corrected the data, should probably still end up on wiktionary. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostiçk
    • Add text - KEEEP! BL 20:01, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Love Showdown I think this is right on the edge. What do others think? Should this stay or should it go? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
    • Squish it. Cyan 05:42, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEEP IT! Love Showdown is really important for Archie lovers. BL 21:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 17

  • Wear-Management. A link to an outside webpage and a long discussion of its usefulness to Wikipedia. Not at all encyclopedic. RickK 00:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This artcle is just a link to a commercial web site. And the site dosnt tell us much other that it cost $80 to join. mydogategodshat 00:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
While much of this stuff may be redundant to Deep England, a page that may have POV issues itself, I don't think it's irreformable. In fact, it might be preferable to have the Deep England material at Merry England, especially since, at least outside of the UK, few have heard the phrase "Deep England," but most everybody knows what kind of nostalgia is meant by "Merry England." -- IHCOYC 16:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ideological rant??? It sounds to me like a myth not unlike Arcadia, and it may be related to the "despise of court, praise of village" which is one of the important themes in 16-17th century literature. It would not be surprising if English romantic authors in the 19th century had used this myth... It seems consistent with the little I know about literature. Do not delete. -- Miguel
    • But it should be "Merrie" England. Deb 22:47, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Richie Ceez. Does this person rate an article? RickK 02:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if this is a fictional character or a real person. The radio station used to be fictional but now is real. If the person is fictional, they could be moved to a page about Phoenix Nights if one exists. If not, move them to the page about Chorley FM. Angela 02:11, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • K. Kay Shearin blanked for some reason I don't know. M123 02:26, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Talk:K. Kay Shearin has an explanation. Though I would kinda like to see it restored to its full glory (which isn't in the page history), the consensus so far favours deletion on grounds of a quiet life, which seems reasonable. Martin 15:27, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Interim dictionary def with examples of usagejimfbleak 06:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Interim for a lengthy discussion.
    • Please have mercy! Yes, it is a "dictionary def with examples of usage", but w*h*a*t__i*s__t*h*e__p*r*o*b*l*e*m ??? I'm really worried. KF 23:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • See WP:WINAD. It should be moved to Wiktionary. Angela
      • I've had this discussion before (see Talk:Point of no return), and I'm a bit tired of it. With the help of WP:WINAD (and maybe stub) you can argue both for and against inclusion in Wikipedia. Interim is a perfectly legitimate page. --KF 12:08, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • .au
    • Disambiguation page, for the TLD and the file extension. I don't think we need articles on either TLDs or file extensions (although file formats are fine of course). -- Tim Starling 11:26, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems a reasonable disambig page to me. Martin 15:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • national chess champions only content is an external link, I've deleted it once, but it's come back, and I don't want to be accused of being trigger-happy again. jimfbleak 17:43, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I started (yesterday) to write it and it is not very easy to find the information. I have just added some links I am thinking to work about them. I am currently working on the Spanish and US Championship. Jmartinezot 14:46, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I've moved it to list of national chess championships, which seems a slightly more accurate title, and added a one sentence intro. I don't see any reason to delete it. --Camembert 18:08, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 18

  • I went through the list of blank pages as of August 15 and cleared them out. I fixed as many as possible with redirects or stubs, but suggest the following for deletion. --Delirium 01:14, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:2003 © Nokia N-Gage (www.n-gage.com).PNG and Image:2003© BAFTA (www.bafta.org).PNG
    • Copyright violation. User:Tonius thought the respective companies wouldn't mind because it's free advertising. That's fine in principle but we still need to ask for permission. -- Tim Starling 07:37, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • They just won the Worst Naming Ever Award. Please delete, then re-upload with better file names if the companies agree. --Menchi 07:40, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
      • The use of this site and the content therein, is permitted to private, non-commercial use. The use of press releases and other documents classified as public is permitted in public communications if the source for the information has been stated. www.n-gage.com/n-gage/legal.html (Paragraph 3)
      • Screenshots of free software applications, and small illustrative screenshots. It should generally be no problem if a screenshot is copied from the official product page. meta:avoid copyright paranoia (Example 3)
      • Pretty awful; but Smaller ones still has the Worst Name award, in my book. Mkmcconn 18:51, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Well the N-Gage image isn't a screenshot, it's a photograph. But the second clause of your quote certainly blows my theory out of the water. -- Tim Starling 00:56, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Franco Goddi doesn't make sense. As the talk page states, "What is the connection between Goddi and Acosta?" Angela
  • David and Frederick Barclay. Blanked. No useful content? Angela 11:34, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Content was just Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay are the most generous people I have come across. They have also transformed Brecqhou into a wonderful island. Welcome to the Channel Islands. -- hardly encylopedic, nor really useful, so I blanked it. It can be rewritten, if someone knows enough about them to write an encylopedic article, but perhaps it's best starting anew? Dysprosia 11:40, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Hm... odd that that should coem up, I'm working on the Sunday Times Rich List 2003 at the moment and they are listed at Number 34 worth £650m. Other than that I know nothing of them. Mintguy 13:19, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I've just done a Pizza Puzzle and made fifty consecutive small additions, although admittedly it's still a pathetic stub. Will it do, though? -- Oliver P. 00:53, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Looks good to me :) Nice job Dysprosia 08:50, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • Chair lift - orphaned redirect page.Vancouverguy 18:16, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it. It is a valid redirect. -- Popsracer 00:31, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Edit conflict:( I was coming to say the same thing. Angela 00:32, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Dragon Ball Z WW2 theory - seems to be a personal essay. Evercat 18:46, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEEP IT! There is an obscure theory that WW2 is responsible for anime. Admittedly it is probably not called the "Dragon Ball Z WW2 theroy" BL 00:27, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Obscure is right, it's totally unverifiable. A Google search for "Marcos Rubio" "dragon ball" (Marcos being the supposed originator of the theory) turns up no Google hits whatsover. Evercat 00:32, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Why can't a short 'Some American academics believe that Japan's WW2 is responsible for the <whatever>,' suffice in the main anime article instead of a dedicated essay of questionable merit on the subject? While I agree with the basic premise, I don't think the essay provides a very good argument and its facts are often wrong. Mind you, all of that's secondary to the fact that it is an essay about some unknown guy's unknown theory. Delete. -- Tlotoxl 00:55, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • Palestinian National Charter - I think that we're not supposed to have just source texts as articles. I could be wrong though -- Ams80 22:51, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • You're correct. Delete. --Menchi 03:05, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEEP IT! It is an important document and often used as a rethorical bat in debates. The full text is needed to not need large quotations in other articles. BL 21:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • The same can be said of many source texts, but this isn't a source-text repository. I do agree that having source texts for easy reference is desirable, so hope Project Sourceberg or WikiSource or whatever its current name is gets off the ground sometime soon. It'll also make it easier to get these off Wikipedia, since we can just move them there. So I say delete. --Delirium 10:25, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

August 19

  • Danielson Family. Is there enough information to make an article out of this? RickK 02:45, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:01, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • I tried to fix. See what you think. Kat 22:22, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I think that's the best that could be done, but it's a cop-out. It should really just be deleted. For one thing, the group name is "Danielson Famile". Second, the other things you added to "water down" the advertizing aspect are the cop-out -- they only share the same name. Daniel Quinlan 22:42, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEEP IT! BL 21:31, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • The page contained content on three apparently unconnected subjects. I have moved the content. See Danielson Famile, Peter Danielson, and Lennox Danielson. The first is quite informative; the other two are very brief, but a small amount of information is better than none. I say keep the lot. -- Oliver P. 22:38, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Not to cause trouble, but currently Peter Danielson and Lennox Danielson are only linked to by this page, and will be orphaned, should this discussion cease. Danielson Famile is only linked to by a redirect, this page, and a page called List of outsider musicians (a list which has no explanatory text or apparent purpose...maybe someone can enlighten me?). If that list is meaningless, then we've just created several islands...ought we really to keep them? I'm having doubts...Jwrosenzweig 23:33, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • B.J. Snowden. Another less-than-encyclopedic article by the same creator as above. RickK 02:56, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Daniel Johnston. Another odd article. RickK 02:57, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's an advertizement for obscure person. Daniel Quinlan 03:01, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEEP IT! He is famous. BL 02:22, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • He does appear to be quite well known, and his work has been praised by lots of people in the music industry. I found that out from a quick Google search. Do people even bother checking whether or not people are famous before listing them here? -- Oliver P. 02:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Alex Higgins. Obscure person. RickK 03:53, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Why obscure? Seems to be rather prominent as a snooker player. --Wik 03:56, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Obscure he might be for someone who does not know a fig about snooker. In snooker world, he is one of the most notorious personalities. In addition, those who got an idea about tobacco advertising will realize that his role becomes nearly historic in, first, advertising, and then counter-advertising (due to his throat cancer). Last but not least, sport history articles at Wiki link to Alex, which everyone proposing a deletion should check in the first order! Otherwise we will develop mini-Wiki where Galba does not show up as insignifican emperor. Everyone remembers Nero but Galba? Do we want a crippled Wikimentary?
    • Famous in UK, keep, jimfbleak
      • I have expanded the stub now. Why are there no snooker players in Wikipedia? Angela 11:28, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Known in Finland too. <imitate Higgins setting up stance for cueing> -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
        • Obscure?????? He only won the bloomin' world championships! :-) (I hate sports but even I know that!) Of course don't delete. FearÉIREANN 03:01, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Mega-famous, more like. Deb 22:47, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Per-Uno Undertun. I can find *no* reference to this admittedly "not famous yet" "multiguitar player" outside of Wikipedia. Jgm 04:42, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • "not that famous yet" is just asking for an immediate whack. Delete it. Daniel Quinlan 06:09, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Brett Whiteley no indication of who he is jimfbleak 06:05, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • He's a somewhat notable artist, but I agree, delete -- no article is better than one that just lists his dates of birth and death (at least with no article the links will turn up red, possibly encouraging someone to write an article). --Delirium 06:36, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia deletion - orphaned redirect to here, in the wrong namespace. Created a year and a half ago, possibly before there was a Wikipedia: namespace. --Delirium 06:39, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • New Humanism - pointless article of just external references. I can do a google search instead. Daniel Quinlan 09:41, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • I made that into a reasonable stub. LDan 01:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • First hand (an ancient page) Like a dictionary definition, only... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick


  • Theatrical constraints - Arrant nonsense. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
    • Made sense to me. The business about the Comedie Française is actually true. I am fairly sure that the business about Japanese theatre is also true. I had never heard of "Outrapo", but Google reveals that it exists beyond this article. -- IHCOYC 13:59, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • AfriNIC. Is there any point have an article on an internet registry? Angela 13:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Why not? There have been articles for the other four registries since a long time, so I see no reason to single out Afrinic. There is not much to say yet, but in the next months it will become operative. -- Md 21:31, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Agnes Martin. Only content is (Born 1912) Canadian/American Minimalist Painter. Angela 13:53, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • So what?? In the days before the deletion craze that used to be called a stub. --KF 01:02, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I put more content there.
    • I noticed that, LittleDan. And then Wik removed the deletion notice, but of course the article is still listed here. The whole procedure is getting more and more confusing. Shouldn't we use the good old Wikipedia:Pages needing attention more? --KF 01:23, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Airwolf. Content is "TV series about a helicopter." Useful? Angela 16:54, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I added more content. I think that's better than going through deletion procedures. Please don't report stubs here. They just need work, not deletion. LDan 01:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with both of you. Besides, if we allow one such article, I begin to envision a Wikipedia swamped with articles such as The position of the Parti Quebecois on solid waste disposal, which is no doubt a fascinating topic to some, but hardly encyclopedic. That's my two cents. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Wik 20:37, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • I didn't want to create this page, but all conservative views are being censored on homelessness and the page is protected to enforce that censorship. Delete the article only when the censorship of homelessness is listed and that article is NPOVed and balanced. JoeM
        • No article can present just one side of the story. A website that contains only a long explanation of why communism is so great prefixed by &quot;Communists say&quot; is still a partisan rant. It would obviously have been written by a Communist. An encylopedia entry should not show anything about the views of the author. I can't tell whether http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/communism.asp was written by a communist or a capitalist or just a moderate. Neither http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/communism.html. As I said before, Wikipedia just isn't the right place for you if you see anything wrong with this. If you don't see anything wrong with this, then I'm sure that you understand our strong feelings about major changes to developed articles. (If you wish to reply, rather than cloging up VfD, please reply to my comment on User:JoeM/ban (about halfway down the page)) Paullusmagnus 23:56, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - agree that if such a discussion should be had it should be ballanced and part of a homelessness debate or similar
    • Delete it. JoeM needs to be banned. -- Jake 02:10, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)


  • Al-Anon - page says it is copied, but does not say it has permission to be. Angela 17:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • lots of pages fall into this category and turn out not to be copyvios, so give it the normal week. Martin 17:57, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I checked it out and the text that was copied (with attribution) is just their mission statement, which presumably they would very much like to have disseminated as much as possible. However, just quoting their mission statement does not make an ecyclopedic article. Mkweise 18:11, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEEP IT! I remade the page from the quote even though I do not think 6 sentences could ever be considered a copyright violation. BL 21:57, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Grigori Orlov - admitted copyvio. --Delirium 06:43, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Containing a copyright notice is not the same as being an "admitted copyvio" - the Columbia Encyclopedia may have given permission to use this article under the GFDL, for example. Give it the normal week. Martin 17:57, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEEP IT! Especially now since I remade it. BL 22:05, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Aliza of Rabat. Has been blanked. Not sure why. Should this be unblanked or deleted? Angela 18:16, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • unblanked, since no reason given for blanking. Martin 18:41, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • The same user who blanked it copied the identical contents to Shulicka of Fez. Can anyone verify if the story is true, and if so, whether it should be attributed to an Aliza or to a Shulicka? I cannot find anything on either person on google. If nobody can verify, I'd say delete both (after orphaning them by deleting their entries on the date pages). --Delirium 21:38, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Alkoxy group. Content is "in this function, R represents the alkyl group". Worth keeping? Angela 18:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've rewritten as an intelligible stub jimfbleak 11:22, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • All The Small Things. Worth keeping a stub about a song? Angela 18:23, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed - pages for songs will very rarely contain any useful information Tompagenet 23:36, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Do we have a policy against pages for songs? If not, we should formulate one if you're going to deleting a factual article. LDan 01:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • LDan - I believe that the Wikipedia Deletion policy would seem to indicate that this page should be listed on VfD. Under the section "What to list on VfD" the first point says "list stubs that you believe will never become more than a simple definition". Currently the All The Small Things article is quite a simple definition, and the information it contains (bar the month of release) can be found on the appropriate album page, Enema of the State. Tompagenet 13:19, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I suggest merging any content about a song into the album article, where possible. -- Jake 02:10, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)
      • Done. I think the names of the singles (there were three for Enema of the State and three for Take off Your Pants and Jacket) can usefully stay as redirects to the articles on the albums, especially as the histories of these pages are the source of the information I moved to the articles on the albums. (I didn't verify the information, by the way. Sorry.) -- Oliver P. 00:54, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Wartortle - content prior to my blanking it consisted of "faggot" Jwrosenzweig 23:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it - should become an article on the Pokémon Wartortle instead of being deleted. -- Schnee 23:31, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Ah, wasn't aware of the Pokémon Wartortle -- all right then, I guess. User:LittleDan has already stubbed said article. One question, though: should every individual Pokemon get its own page? I find this troubling, but maybe I'm alone in that. If all the other Pokemons (Pokemen?) (Pokepeople?) have their own page, I guess Wartortle should get one, but if not, I might still suggest deletion. Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • That would be a major policy change, because there are already a lot of pokemon articles. It's not like the pokemon will clog up the database. Remeber: Wikipedia is not paper. LDan 00:02, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with LittleDan - even if someone would write an entry for each Pokémon (I'm not sure how many there are; more than 151, definitely, but I think it's less than 300), it wouldn't really make a difference. The database is already pretty sizeable (106 megs just for the cur table currently, and that's bzip2 compressed), and at 150,000 articles, even 151 more would hardly make a difference (Wikipedia gets more new articles than that on each single day, anyway [2]). Still, regarding the question whether everyone Pokémon *should* have an article - I'd personally say that all those should get one where somebody is willing to write one. :) As such, I'm definitely against deletion. -- Schnee 02:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Before making any decision, please visit the forum Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Fictional characters -wshun 23:57, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 20

  • Vikas Yadav - a not-yet-famous PhD student, likely autobiographical. --Delirium 02:55, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. LDan 13:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • List of Indians is Vikas Yadav the Autobiographer or Yikas-fan's only other contribution. (List of famous Indians exists already. And he isn't famous.) --Menchi 05:38, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Has some famous people not on List of famous Indians. Don't delete until I'm done migrating the useful content. LDan 13:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • When you're done migrating, just redirect instead of deleting, to discourage it being recreated again by someone who doesn't know List of famous Indians exists. --Delirium 19:20, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Smooth muscle - content lacking, doesn't make sense, incomplete. Jeoth 05:02, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I've replaced it with a proper stub. Mkweise 05:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:French knife.gif - Copyvio; also offensive. - Efghij 06:34, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Also not usable in an encyclopedia article. Kill. Martin 09:59, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • That was deleted before the week was over! LDan 13:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It would appear to be very much back Tompagenet 17:36, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Earthing 50k of junk jimfbleak 11:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • The crappiest nonsense I've read for a long time. Delete. Kosebamse 12:06, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I contacted the author to come here. LDan 13:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it definitely needs to be wikified and NPOV:ed quite comprehensively. Also the title is somewhat odd. I don't really know what a proper title would be though. As for being nonsense, I think it is pretty standard nonsense, and as such might well merit a NPOV article. Not really an expert, but what I do know about such sillyness, doesn't really contradict the beliefs described in it. Provided it isn't copyvio, I would keep.-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:05, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
      • It looks like it was just cut and pasted here from someone's webpage. -- Kaijan 07:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Croxteth Hall An advertisement with the first few paragraphs copied from its own website. DanKeshet 14:19, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've replaced it with a stubbish article; keep. --Delirium 19:35, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Environmentalism (Critique of George W. Bush's politics) - POV masquerading as an article. Graft 17:24, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I see it as a legitimate topic, though perhaps it should be cut down a bit, and potentially merged somewhere. A more encyclopedic approach might be to have something like Environmentalism and US Presidents and give a history of support and opposition to the environmentalist movement among US presidents. --Delirium 19:29, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • It might have a place under George W. Bush, but shunting it off into its own article -and- titling it "critique" serves only to highlight a particular POV - i.e. that George W. Bush has a bad environmental record. Merged, maybe, but this article cannot remain in its current form. Graft 19:44, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • IMO the title alone is highly pov, I think the article may be valid, but it can't be just one side . It should either be re written, or merged into something like G Bush's adminstration environmental record ( good and bad) otherwise it should be deleted.Smith03 20:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This article originated as a section of George W. Bush did it not? Beware of the common tactic of arguing that something is "too long" and justifying it going into its own article with an odd, long, name, and then come back later to censor it entirely. Integrate the material with GWB, or, as an alternative, adopt a style liked that of predicted effects of invading Iraq. Then you can deal with the actual disagreement, which is, that the Greens see Bush's regulatory cuts and refusal to sign Kyoto Protocol, and so on, as leading to more pollution, lower environmental health, more cancer, extinction, while GWB and friends see it as economic growth, cutting red tape, and so on. Best way to handle two-sided zero-sum type debates. EofT 01:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) (added by Dante Alighieri 01:13, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) as per request of EoT, who got an error when trying to add it)


  • Sunyata - Looks like a Sanskrit proverb. Completely unnessesary. Vancouverguy 19:21, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • either rewrite it or move it to Wikionary. -wshun 19:57, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Doesn't look like a proverb at all to me - it looks like a definition.... although it doesn't seem descriptive enough to be an encyclopedia entry. -Rei 20:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I've made a proper stub of it. Mkweise 05:16, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • Body of water - I honestly cannot envision this article ever going anywhere. - Hephaestos 22:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Same here. Vancouverguy 22:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I've been working on most of the pages this links to and see no advantage to linking back. Delete - Marshman 22:16, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • The Chronicles of George - not quite sure about this one. Dysprosia 23:17, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Didn't we already delete this article a week or two ago? -- JeLuF 05:08, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • KEEEP IT! The site is really funny and very popular. BL 22:24, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • I don't know as to its popularity, but the site itself seems to consist of just screenshots of the same form with different text - George and the Chronicles author may be one in the same - anyway...is it of encyclopedic significance? Dysprosia 01:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 21

  • Jim Cairns written in first person, lacks specific information. -Jeoth 02:19, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I've turned it into a stubbish thing. Perhaps someone who knows about Australian politics will come along and add a bit more... -- Oliver P. 05:20, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Ikeyd - not particularly notable piece of software. Google count (1040) is artificially inflated due to it being included in Debian (thus a lot of automatic directory listings). Googling 'ikeyd -debian' yields 404 results. -- Jake 05:01, 2003 Aug 21 (UTC)
  • Beehive tombs - Possible copyvio. Source text is identical to this page and there's a note on the talk page (from last November) that noted another of the same on Geocities. If it's not deleted for copyvio, someone needs to rewrite it (context, etc) -- Jake 06:40, 2003 Aug 21 (UTC)
    • I rewrote that article so it should be fine now. It's kind of stubby, but I don't really know much about them aside from the basics :) It should probably also be moved to Tholos tomb, which is a more "official" name. Adam Bishop 02:00, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Phantomized - Idiosyncratic dictionary definition of a private nonce-word. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  • Ramath-lehi - commercial for a website, no encyclopedaeic contents. andy 12:27, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Dr. Michael Walker - headmaster of a college, IMHO not important enough to keep, and the content sounds a bit dubious to me as well. andy 12:57, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we should have Johnny Walker instead. --KF 16:01, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I can't see any reason to wait before deleting this entry. It is clearly some schoolboy's idea of a joke against his head teacher, and is gratuitously insulting as well as uninteresting. Deb 18:18, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Headmaster of my old school (not "college"). He has an entry in Who's Who, and is therefore officially notable. And the reason that we have to wait a week before deletion is because it is our policy. "Can't see any reason to wait" indeed. Pfft. I will replace the current waffle with a stub. Keep. -- Oliver P. 18:54, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • I've moved the page to Michael Walker (headmaster), so that page should now be considered the subject of this discussion, unless anyone wants to propose deleting my Michael Walker disambiguation page as well. I've moved some information that is probably unverifiable from the article to the talk page. It needs more work, but should be kept... -- Oliver P. 20:30, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Try reading the deletion policy again. You don't have to wait if an article is obvious rubbish, as this one was. But I'm glad you've taken it on yourself to improve it. Deb 22:47, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • I have, you do, and it wasn't... More detailed reply on your talk page... -- Oliver P. 23:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Metropolitan Bible Church (Ottawa) - nothing but an external link. Jwrosenzweig 15:45, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I just got into an edit conflict with you over reporting the same article. Not only is it just an external link, but we need to consider our policy on articles on small places of worship like this. Not that we'd delete the Dome of the Rock, but this is just a local church. You shouldn't delete articles just because they're stubs. LDan 15:54, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We should definitly have articles on local churches if they're perticularly historic and/or architectural notable, but in this case I see no evidince of either. - Efghij 01:51, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • MLCAD - unintelligible. --KF 16:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Stabyhoun - possible copyright infringement -- sannse 16:12, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Elijah Muhammad - doesn't seem relevent. I can't see it going anywhere.Vancouverguy 20:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Stubbed it. Definitely an important topic. We're missing so much on the whole black liberation movement, of which the NoI is definitely a (controversial) part. Can't delete this - make more on this and associated subjects instead! Graft 20:32, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with Graft: this is a historically relevant entry. -- Kaijan 07:13, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 22

  • Mario Schoenberg - wrong language (blanked by User:Dysprosia). --Delirium 00:24, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Was this the Right Thing to do (ie blank)? If not, sorryyy... In any case, I told the author (in my broken French) about the French wiki... Dysprosia 00:30, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Some people like to do it, while others don't. I don't like the practice myself, because I think it's useful to be able to see the content that is being discussed, without having to go back into the page history. -- Oliver P. 00:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Astral
    • Dictionary definition. -- Oliver P. 03:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • move and redirect it to wiktionary? - fagan
        • But I don't approve of interwiki redirects... -- Oliver P. 07:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Moop looks like nonsense to me. M123 05:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • The user has admitted that it was only a newbie experiment, and that it "deserves to be deleted". So deleting it should be all right. -- Oliver P. 07:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Also, young by the same user. --Wik 05:16, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • Pejorative terms for the French, because it is not encyclopedic and because it was openly created as a antiWikiLove act. Both being redhibitoire for me. We are not here to help people on purpose to go against one another. Anthère 06:44, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete this one. -- Kaijan 07:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Pejorative terms for Germans also delete this, see above. M123 06:56, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I would not be sad to see Pejorative terms for the French and Pejorative terms for Germans go, but if being unencyclopedic and anti-WikiLove are criteria for deletion, Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' and all its redirects should also go. -- Someone else 07:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Neither of these belong here. It's against the NPOV. -- Kaijan 07:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to sound evil or anything, but I don't really see anything wrong with having articles about pejorative terms, as long as they don't endorse them. They could easily be written in a NPOV way, and could be quite educational. (As is Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', in my view...) -- Oliver P. 07:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It might be worth noting that we have List of ethnic slurs. Articles are generally better than lists, though, because articles can give fuller explanations of what terms mean, who uses them, how they are used, and so on. Lists tend to just have short phrases as explanations. -- Oliver P. 07:30, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd argue that lists are better than separate articles for each separate slur (vide: Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'), as separate articles are: (1) unlikely to become encyclopedic and (2) unduly emphasize the importance of each epithet. -- Someone else 07:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, the above-mentioned articles group the terms by country, rather than having separate articles for separate terms. (However, if one term ended up hogging a large proportion of the space in the article, it would make sense to move it out into its own article.) -- Oliver P. 08:15, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Which is an argument FOR "Perjorative terms for homosexuals" and AGAINST Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. <G>. Not that it or its many redirects will ever actually be deleted, of course. -- Someone else 08:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, it depends on how you interpret "hogging a large proportion of the space in the article", I suppose... :) -- Oliver P. 09:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • One of the redirects should be deleted in a day or two: see Aug 16 listing above. Martin 09:03, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Subterranean Homesick Blues -- Copyright infringement? This is just a page of lyrics. -- Kaijan 08:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Definite copyright infringement - lyrics on bobdylan.com -- Kaijan 08:54, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • James W. McCord, Jr. -- please delete so real article at James W. McCord, Jr (note the absence of a trailing period) can be moved there with its history. Branden 08:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • But hang on - we want to be consistent. We have John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Joseph Smith, Jr. with the full stop. Or do you think we should move those, too? -- Oliver P. 09:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • That's what I interpreted Branden as wanting to do -- currently the with-fullstop version is a redirect, and the real article is at no-fullstop. The redirect should be deleted so the real article can be moved there, to be consistent with the other articles you mentioned. --Delirium 10:06, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. Yes, if I was awake, I would have realised that. I apologise for my dimness. :) -- Oliver P. 10:28, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Nonconstructive
    • Dictionary definition. -- Oliver P. 10:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep, could redirect to Mathematical proof? (A nonconstructive proof might be thought of as a "not-constructive" proof, then a proof of existence...) Dysprosia 10:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I think in this context "nonconstructive" is meant as the exact antonym of mathematical constructivism, so it should just redirect there. --Delirium 10:58, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
      • NB someone's already made a redirect/move to Nonconstructive proof... Dysprosia 11:13, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Suggest removal from here, this is now a real stub article...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1328594"