Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyan (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 27 September 2003 (forgot to sign). 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 19

  • 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
    • I could claim prior art (my work on the matter in 1996), but I freely grant any and all use of this material. Thanks muchly, David
    • Don't delete if it's just an NPOV problem. Angela
    • Don't delete just because the POV reference! --Daniel C. Boyer 18:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • 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
    • Are there any other notable trolls? Perhaps this page could be redirected to a page about all of them. Or maybe that's a bad idea - feeding them and all that. Angela 20:35, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Please keep. Love him or hate him, he changed the face of Usenet as we know it. Thanks. David
    • He already has a home in the Wikipedia. We've got to keep him. Wiwaxia 03:20, 27 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.
  • 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

  • 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)

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...
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Sounds like one of those items for the in-the-future autogenerated lists... hmm, in the meantime, maybe some sort of flag on items in the list of songs if they have a video? -- Jake 05:31, 2003 Sep 25 (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)
    • Keep. Well-known. -- Jake 05:31, 2003 Sep 25 (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)
  • Can we move this to Finish name or merge into it? The article sounds simply a part of more general article. -- Taku 22:52, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Short answer, no. The stub is just that. I don't have an unlimited amount of books here at home (just large but finite :). To flesh it out I would have to trawl through them and maybe webcrawl or go to a library (horrors). That was just a (without cracking a book open, top of my head) cursory effort, I don't know when I will get back to it, but until then... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:56, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Preamble to Charter of the United Nations. Source text. RickK 01:53, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into United Nations. Evil saltine 02:02, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Disagree. It's still source text, and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. RickK 02:08, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. --Morven 05:53, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it is probably equal in value to the Declaration of Independence (or at least should be), and thus I would tend to make a noted exception in this case. It should be noted, that it is an exception though... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:29, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I have made it into a redirect to an existing article about the UN Charter which of course includes the preamble. The redirect should be kept. -- Popsracer 22:28, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Reverted to the original text, so people could examine what was going to be deleted. The article about the UN Charter of course does not include the text of the UN Charter, much less the preamble thereof. Argue for deletion of the Preamble or not, don't try to obfuscate the issue. I still maintain it is a special case which can be likened to the US Declaration of Independence, if you do not agree, please confront my view with your counterarguments. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:37, 26 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)
  • Image:reflexion_totale_interne.png 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)
    • I tried to delete it (seems like clear enough to me to not need discussion), but keep getting a blank page when I try to do so. Andre Engels 13:55, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Please don't delete images that have not been listed here for seven days. I noticed this diagram listed here a few days ago, but thought the answer was clear enough not to need discussion. Clear enough that we should keep it, that is! Total internal reflection already has a diagram similar to this, but I think this one looks neater. Why not keep it? I'll put it on Talk:Total internal reflection, and if anyone who edits that article likes it too, they can use it. -- Oliver P. 22:35, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The image is now used at Total internal reflection, so keep. (The diagram that was there before contained an error. See Talk:Total internal reflection.) -- Oliver P. 21:32, 26 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)
    • What is that page about? And wouldn't a list of flashlight and torch acronyms be useful? So keep for now. BL 19:54, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC) Retake my objection, delete the page. BL 09:19, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I think you just volunteered to make that page useful. -- Cyan 21:43, 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)
  • List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton. For the same reasons as List of nicknames for George W. Bush. RickK 03:08, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Unlike List of nicknames for George W. Bush, which I think we should keep, this one deserves to go.Vancouverguy 03:10, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • You want to get rid of the Hillary but not the Bush? LOL. I vote for deleting both of these. Ark30inf 03:44, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Vancouverguy can you explain your reason for deleteting this but keeping the Bush one please? Smith03 22:39, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • delete, I draw the line at these type of lists, but I cant see why it can not be added to the main article: Geogre bush throught his carreer has been given many nicknames such as:... - fonzy
    • The Hillary list is so small that it should be moved to Hillary Clinton, the Bush list is to large and more complete to get included in the main Bush article. BL 15:06, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Believe me, I could hop over to FreeRepublic and increase the Hillary list exponentially if I had a desire. Whatever policy is set for these lists should be set for all politicians and not just George W. Bush, or Republicans.Ark30inf 22:33, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Both articles are silly and pointless, although the Bush one makes some attempt at sound encyclopaedic. The Clinton is just making a partisan counterpoint to the Bush one. Delete 'em, Dano. Dr Adam Carr 01:06, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I voted to delete the Bush article but since we ( as a community) feel that it is worthy I have to vote to keep this one , it might be small now but you never know it could grow. Look I think all these articles on nickname are stupid and none belong here, but we can not go around and pick some to keep and others to go. If Bush is worthy of one and so is Clinton (Both) or any other public figure. Smith03 22:57, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • None of these lists have any place in an encyclopedia. Appleals to interewst in the historical aspects are bunk. Leave that for the Blogs. Whether you like Hilary or not (I do not), she deserves the respect (not the same as vote) of every American for putting herself out there to try and make change. We only hurt our system of government when we join those whose only contribution to democracy is the negative one of name-calling - Marshman 18:04, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • How about moving GWB to List of nicknames for US Presidents and Hillary to List of nicknames for US Presidents wives? Then someone can add the details of which President was called lightbulb and why (no, it wasn't a recent President). If Hillary gets anything not based on her time in the Whitehouse, someone else can think of a place for them to go.:) JamesDay 22:11, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Neither list is encyclopedic in nature. Delete. (Interesting factoids can go in the article to which they refer.) -- Cyan 22:45, 25 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)
    • Apart from being extremely POV, it is also a copyright violation, see http://www.geocities.com/ascendedmaster/MotherMeera.html Andre Engels 13:51, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Well then, I'd say delete to get rid of the copyvio; maybe someone later can write a factual article about her (since she seems to have something of a following and thus is probably important enough)
  • 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)
    • Delete. Tannin 11:34, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Another vote for deletion. -- Minesweeper 11:24, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote againt. Just redirect to a bad joke.
  • Judeofascism This kind of terminology is pure propaganda, just as Islamofascism. I just don't understand why we should tolerate this. If we can't get rid of this kind of stuff, let's redirect it to some List of defamatory political slogans, but why on earth should we wish to have articles with such titles? This is an encyclopedia. Why can't we try and keep it encyclopedic? Kosebamse 19:35, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Seconded. I'm tempted to just redirect to either Anti-Semitism or Godwin's law, because the article seems to be an example of same.Vicki Rosenzweig 22:06, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Delete because its not a concept in regular usage. Islamofascism on the other hand is a word that has a great deal of usage. That being said, the Islamofascism article should be about what people mean when they say the term and who uses the term NOT an article describing Islamic fundamentalism in its many forms, which may or may not fall into what is meant by the users of the term. Islamofascism is not the place for a political analysis of the religion of Islam, only a place for what the term itself means and who uses it. I favor the move to Slogan: for that reason. Now the contents should be changed to reflect that new title. Ark30inf 22:24, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Take a look at my attempt to salvage the article first. I moved it to Slogan: Judeofascism and tried (perhaps in vain) to transform its polemecism into a neutral article ABOUT the polemics. Vicki, if you say it goes, I will vote with you. --Uncle Ed 21:03, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
"Handful of bloggers" = unencyclopedic. Delete. Good stuff on the NPOV though. -- Cyan 22:33, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 25

  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamism, created by now-banned user EntmootsOfTrolls. RickK 02:03, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm proposing deleting the deletion page. RickK 02:31, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Isn't the fact he is banned irrelevant as the page was created before then and the reverts on banned users aren't meant to be retrospective? Unless there is another reason than the fact he is banned for deleting it, I suggest archiving it to Talk:Islamism. Angela
      • I guess that's an option. The conduct such as creating this page is part of his banning. RickK 02:31, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I support the archiving at Talk:Islamism Anthère
  • Movie star - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kingturtle 05:01, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • A stub's gotta start with something. More than ten pages link to this not counting VfD. There may well be much more to say about the concept of a movie star, or the old studio star system, that may well belong here. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:34, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Yakuza Bømlo - pure rubbish. Samuelsen 11:21, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree it looks like junk. -- SGBailey 2003-09-25
    • Kill it. The only Google hits are two references to the Wikipedia article.
  • Dynamicsoft is an advert. And has an apostrophe plural. Onebyone 13:33, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • That is a third person singular (not a plural) but apostrophe is incorrect grammer just the same. Obvious ad - delete - Marshman 17:55, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • John Hickman - vanity page. -- Schnee 14:45, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • He should add a picture of the wife and kids; otherwise delete. A personal webpage - Marshman 17:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Main Page 2 - was just a test. --Wik 15:49, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Go ahead deleting. Don't see a reason the page is listed here. -- Taku 22:03, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Zounds - contains no worthwhile information (IMHO). Deb 16:40, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It could, though. I'm going to try and make it a functional stub at least. --Morven 17:08, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Should also explain curse. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote againt deleting. -- Taku 22:03, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • List_of_Western_canon_works_in_order_of_publication_date -- I do not believe the article can successfully exist, partially because it is about a semi-mythical creature (i.e., the Western canon). For a more detailed explanation of my position, I have posted it on the article's talk page...I thought I shouldn't post a long argument here on an already crowded page. If I have done wrong in not posting said argument here, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Jwrosenzweig 22:36, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 26

  • Compassionate colonialism - silly propaganda. Dr Adam Carr 01:26, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Senator Byrd is an idiot, whether he said that or not. Delete the page as just promoting POV and not contributing - Marshman 01:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • An instance of political rhetoric is not encyclopedic. Delete. -- Cyan 02:12, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Clever term. Delete. Fuzheado 02:19, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Again (see Judeofascism and Bush is an idiot above), Wikipedia is not a list of political propaganda slogans. Delete. Kosebamse 08:58, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Fabulous phrase. Great ring to it. Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:27, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Herbert Arthur Disney not famous. InanimateCarbonRod 02:14, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Information could be moved to Walt's page. Then delete - Marshman 18:08, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Since apparently Herbert's only claim to fame is who he's related to, tell us about him on Walt's page. There doesn't seem to be much suggestion that he's done anything notable himself. --Morven 18:11, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I moved the info over and will now so indicate on VfD page - Marshman
    • When you merge one article into another, you should redirect the first to the second. I have just done this. Keep the redirect. (See my explanation after the list of StarCraft pages above.) -- Oliver P. 02:26, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I was "thinking" it was going to be deleted, but redirect makes more sense - Marshman 06:03, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Attention whore - dictionary def. - Hephaestos 04:04, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless, as is highly unlikely, this can become anything more than a dictionary definition, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. Should be deleted from Wikipedia.--Flockmeal 20:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Earl Washburn Looks nonsense. Google came up with no hits, either for Washman or for Amerada. 20:40, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Owen White -- Huh? He was born only at the end of August this year and he already meets with people at work, and even has a hirsutism problem years before the hormones would kick in? This has got to be fake. Wiwaxia 20:39, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Earl Washburn and Owen White seem to be created by those people themselves, or people who know them, or something. An article was created for their high school. It was obviously junk so I deleted them, although that was before I realized they were listed here, so I hope no one is offended :) Adam Bishop 20:55, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, they can always go under Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Wiwaxia 21:04, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Well they're back again, they've recreated the page you deleted earlier on Earl Washburn, and have created one on Republic of Amerada. Please delete again, and block their IP. Graham  :) 21:58, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • We should not cope with a bad joke by VfD. They should be redirected to bad jokes or something. Remember it is incredible easy to create a new article. If you delete it, then it will be created soon again. Don't be bother with this kind of non-sense. -- Taku 22:03, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Derek Whaley -- He claims to be accomplished in his fields of research, but he hasn't even graduated yet? Sounds like a vanity page to me. Wiwaxia 21:02, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Useless self glorification. Delete.--Flockmeal 21:06, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Was created by KuatofKDY and I've just had to fix an error by that user on Malcolm II of Scotland and I'm not even Scottish... Agree, self glorification by a 20 year old from California. Delete. Graham  :) 21:11, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I moved that info to KuatofKDY, since it is the info of that user. (That makes sense to me, anyway.) Adam Bishop 21:14, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Christian views of women -- Incredibly POV and anti-Christian. Also probably tries to cram too much under one topic. If someone wanted to fix this, a plausible approach might be to write a very general intro, and then links to articles on the views of different Christian groups. Vicki Rosenzweig 21:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote againt deleting. If the article is POV'd, then it should be listed under pages that need attention. -- Taku 22:03, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE. Again, this and "Marriage in the eyes of god" (as an article) are incredibly hard to justify given NPOV guidelines.
    • As it stands I say delete. But I reserve final judgment until I see what Ed Poor comes up with.Ark30inf 22:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, delete -- can't imagine this becoming NPOV, and don't see it adding any substance to Wikipedia. Also, this page seems to be in the same vein, but maybe it's a start on a fix: Old_Testamentical_views_of_women. Bcorr 22:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • If it's not fixed to something reasonably NPOV within the seven days, delete it. --Morven 22:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Betty Hutton -- Page is currently blank, original content posted today was "Fuck Betty Hutton. She was a dirty whore.". If anyone knows anything about Betty Hutton, add something to the blank page. Otherwise, delete.--Flockmeal 21:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Have turned it into a stub. Keep it. Graham  :) 21:54, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • All of today's contributions by 80.225.78.24 (now blocked); someone may want to cull them for "deleted nonsense." - Hephaestos 23:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I edited out a number of gratuituous references to Horace Donisthorpe by User:80.225.79.69 (and one by User:80.225.16.87) -- suspiciously similar IP addresses. The entire 80.XXX.XXX.XXX is assigned to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam, so I'm not sure how to tell... Bcorr 23:49, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 27

  • Shaheen Lakhan - only 27 hits on google. He is definately not famous enough. It was inserted by User:Slakhan (himself, as presumed) and some anon(s) keep reverting the redirects to his userpage. --Jiang 05:44, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Quote: "...with papers published (or soon to be) in each field"?? --Menchi 05:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Said in Lebanon. The title itself is nonsense, and the article doesn't deserve to stand by itself. RickK 06:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • If my interpretation of the situation is correct, this article was excerpted out of Edward Said by Uncle Ed in order to avoid an edit war on the main article. I have treated it like a /temp page, which is to say, I moved into the Talk namespace. It's now at Talk:Edward Said/in Lebanon. -- Cyan 07:18, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1488205"