Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theon~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 14:57, 4 March 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

See Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#VOTE:_NEW_LAYOUT_FOR_VFD! for a vote on layout change.

Cleanup

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

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

copyright violations -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- Cleanup -- translations

Deletion guidelines -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- Votes for undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- maintaining this page -- inclusion dispute -- Old cases

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

March 1

  • Jeesh - limited slang word RickK 02:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and merge into Battle school or Ender's Game - I loved the books but Jeesh just isn't more than a dictionary definition of a fictional word - Texture 02:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is this spelled correctly? I thought I remember it differently, but...Meelar
    • Delete - UtherSRG 16:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Most visited websites nothing but a list of links. RickK 04:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a link repository. →Raul654 05:00, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, I added internal links - SimonP 05:13, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but this should be done by year. Everyking 06:20, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, verifiable with Alexa. Optim 10:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete as it is nothing more than a copy of Alexa. At best move it to Most visited websites according to Alexa. Anthony DiPierro 14:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, with a variation on Anthony's suggestion. Let's have several lists (aren't there any available other than Alexa?) and put them under their own sections within this article. I think the title is intuitive enough that ti ought to be kept. Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd support that if the lists were combined into a single list (maybe pointing with a reference to where it's from). Otherwise it doesn't seem like we're adding anything useful, just copying other people's work. Of course, then the problem becomes POV, but surely we could work out some semi-definitive criteria that avoids Joe Bob's Monster Truck Page getting listed. Still, I'd move it to List of most visited websites. It's not really an encyclopedia article, but it slides in under the provision for lists. Anthony DiPierro 19:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but fix it up: organize by year, and only list a few (top 10 or 20). Will be useful in a few years to describe trends in web use. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's a copyvio of Alexa. --Imran 00:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • Mark Turner delete, unfamous young punk, occupying a famous name. Mikkalai 15:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fame is irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 15:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article is irrelevant. Isomorphic 16:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Replaced with stub about the famous Mark Turner. Keep now? DJ Clayworth 16:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep now. Thanks for creating the stub. I've never heard of him, either, but he sounds more worthy of inclusion :-) Isomorphic 16:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep now. - UtherSRG 16:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Heh... a lot of my own work is based on Turner's work. PilotPrecise 19:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Even after edits, I would consider this marginal. Professorship is probably not enough. Author of 3 books is maybe enough. Rossami 22:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • He's actually written a lot more, I only had time to add a few to the article. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Flattery - dicdef -- Graham  :) 08:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • WiktionaryWikipedia Rossami 22:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Shouldn't make edits when I'm tired.)
      • This is wikipedia. Did you mean wiktionary perchance? Graham  :) 16:47, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. this is a dictionary def. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:50, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Single player dictionary defn I donb't think it possible to expand into a stub. theresa knott 16:56, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Can't think of how to expand either. Isomorphic 18:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote: I tried to expand it a bit. Hope it's better now. Optim 19:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as expanded. Nice work. Meelar 21:19, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Yes, excellent work team, including Theresa (I couldn't see any way either). This is how a Wiki is supposed to work. Andrewa 17:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Knowledge by acquaintance - I can't even make heads or tails of this - Texture 17:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Make it readable. See its back link. Possibly non-standard or poorly translated phylosophical terminology. I know it as "knowledge by immediate experience", so renaming (moving) migth be the solution. Mikkalai 20:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Rearranged the article and (hopefully) clarified the example by giving "S" an actual name. Probably should be renamed, too. Should definately be kept though. The justification of knowledge is an important topic in Epistemology, and this sounds a bit like something Wittgenstein might have said - I'll check that when I have some free time. -Seth Mahoney 20:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry for being lazy: Google gives cca. 2,000 hits, so the term is definitely in use. Mikkalai 21:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. in the future you can use Wikipedia:cvfd instead of listing such entries in vfd. Optim 20:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep definitely. I have tried to clarify the text. It is an philosophical concept, but it was very pporly and briefly explained. I have taken the liberty to remove the "nonesense" msg, as it isn't nonsensical. Of course I have left the vfd msg. Cat 17:10, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Church's Criterion - After considerable debate with User:Mike Church regarding his pages, we came to an agreement with respect to the fate of this one. It is hereby nominated for deletion with his consent. And thanks to Charles Matthews for his help in moderating the debate. PilotPrecise 18:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Isomorphic 18:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm neutral on keep-versus-delete on this one, but if it is kept, it should be moved to Church's criterion, with a lower-case initial c in the second word. We don't write Maxwell's Theorem, etc., with a capital initial T in the second word; stylistic consistency would seem to do the same here. Michael Hardy 21:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article contained supplemental information to another, but was not by any means necessary either to any other article or to Wikipedia. It became the subject of controversy, and probably fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for what is encyclopedic enough for inclusion. I sumbit that it should be deleted, for the good of Wikipedia. At any rate, it's now a stub. Mike Church 21:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. this looks like personal philosophy to me. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:50, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. As much as I enjoy playing Ambition and await its further development and popularity, Church's Criterion represents the POV of a currently unfamous, if respected, designer. It belongs on Mike's blog, not Wikipedia. I'm generally leary of pages written by people closely related to the subject, because it's impossible for them to be NPOV. Zepter 03:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 2

  • Rosie Nix Adams - It seems the only reason the death of Rosie Nix Adams is mentioned is that she was the daughter of someone famous. Its disrespectful to a life and an invasion of family privacy to give this the status of a separate article. Lumos3 00:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 00:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonfamous -- Graham  :) 00:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - agree with nominator (text added so my vote gets counted) - Texture 01:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge it into entry for June Carter Cash Bkonrad 01:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't see a case for deletion. The person is mentioned in June Carter Cash, so the page should at least redirect there. The question is not about whether or not to include the content, but how to organise it, and that's not a matter for discussion on this page. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Michael Earls - bizarre. Evercat 02:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Truly bizzare. Moncrief 03:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:27, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with bizarre and redirect Anthony DiPierro 04:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Apparently this is a serious request!? Keep. It's a disambig page. Anthony DiPierro 04:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It was a bit more bizarre when I listed it. :-) Evercat 00:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Disambig that doesn't link to a live article about any of the Michael Earls? Delete until we actually need it. (Frankly, I consider this a very creative attempt to get around the vanity rule.) Rossami 15:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no "vanity rule." Anthony DiPierro 16:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Sure there is. Wikipedia is not a homepage (bullet 15). Rossami
              • That's not a rule, nor is it about vanity. And how does a link to several famous people constitute as a home page? If this page gets deleted, and I recreate it, does it then cease to be vanity, since it was created by someone completely unrelated? Anthony DiPierro 18:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Very bizarre. RickK 04:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bizarre. - Texture 06:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, by all means! Vanity: apparently created by one of the Micheal Earls himself: one of the extlinks given (www.cerkit.com) resolves to 66.32.251.52, the IP of the creator of that page. All four Michael Earls do not look encyclopedia-worthy to me. Lupo 09:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd say keep, on the grounds that the published author Michael Earls does pass the "Google test", if nothing else. The book does exist. However, none of these articles exist yet. The last thing anyone needs is a disambig to pages that don't exist yet and many of which aren't important. It's tantamount to a disambig for the 500 or so Mike Church's that exist (incl. myself, a southern radio DJ, an author, a physicist, a fictional detective). So, delete. If someone writes a worthwhile article on author Michael Earls and his book, let it stay. Mike Church 17:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless. The articles should come first, then the disambiguation page if it becomes necessary. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - not bizarre, just a kind of granfalloon Denni 22:19, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
    • Delete. Articles first, disambig afterwards.
      • The order in which things are added is not very relevant. If disambiguation is going to be needed, the page has to be created at some point, so it might as well be now. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Management accounting -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This same material has already been removed from at least five other articles that I know of. It is unfortunate that the translation is so bad that it is impossible to fix it. mydogategodshat 08:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but remove the babble (there was a short stub before 23-Jan-2004). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reverted to most recent good stub. Andrewa 13:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The reverted stub is still nonsense. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Internal control -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Created by the same author as the babbling at Management accounting (and it's a word-by-word copy of that other babbling, and it turns into an advert at the end, and the extlink is dead (for me, at least)). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No useful history. Good topic but no point keeping this. Andrewa 14:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The Wastelands -- is an orphaned page for which there is already a fuller wikipedia article. Alternately re-direct but it's not worth it??Rjstott
    • Of course it's worth it! Redirects catch google traffic which otherwise we would miss. When considering if a redirect is worth having, consider if anyone else may ever make the same mistake about the title. In this case the answer is an obvious YES! theresa knott 11:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect, and note that Theresa has read the relevant articles and doco, explained herself well, and fixed the article. We need more like this on all three fronts. Andrewa 16:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Battiadae -- May refer to something, but looks like nonsense. --Ryan and/or Mero 13:43, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • You may like to add the MediaWiki:nonsense message on it. Optim 13:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I suggest us to always check backlinks of articles in question. Rare term, but hits the google nevertheless. Mikkalai 17:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Canada Games Company -- appears to be a fictional company. The website listed points to a squatter's site. Google did find a company with this name (sort of), but they make jigsaw puzzles only and don't seem to be notable. Their site is hosted on a free server. —Frecklefoot 15:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Keep - article improved - Texture 15:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No Vote, it is a real company but it is not particularly major one, even in Canada
    • Keep. I doubt it's vanity. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but the article needs help. They do or did manufacture more than jigsaw puzzles. See its talk page. Lupo 20:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-famous non-important. Note that there have existed several companies with this name hence the dating problems on talk. --Imran 00:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • Neilie Casey - Listed on RfD - Anthony has chosen to recreate the page prior to the redirect - Discussions on the talk page have not resoved the issue - additional delete request here in addition to RfD so it does not go back and forth to avoid deletion - Texture 18:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Dissident 18:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. When I want to look up an individual 9/11 victim, I go to sep11.wikipedia.org and search there. Makes no sense to duplicate the entry here. Lupo 19:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. sep11 wiki is for POV entries. When I want NPOV, I go here. Anthony DiPierro 21:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 21:55, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 22:42, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sep11. I disagree with ADP's invented POV theory. Tempshill 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Take a look at the Sep11 Wiki some time. It's mainly personal experiences which violate NPOV and No Original Research. Or read meta: "Yip, articles about victims are fine as long as they at least tell us who it was, what he/she did, etc (frankly, I think we can do without those as well, but general opinion says we should keep those)." That was in September of 2002. So it's clearly not something I invented. Anthony DiPierro 00:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The POV/NPOV distinction is not "invented". It is, and always has been, a fundamental difference between Wikipedia and the tribute site. Of course keep. No-one has even given a reason for deletion here, and that is a minumum requirement for deletion to take place. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete. Kosebamse 11:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikimemorial and delete. Rossami 13:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Leo Wyatt - Nutty, if somewhat funny, profile of a "former whitelighter and now Elder of the Charmed Ones," who does all sorts of incredible things. Definitely not encyclopedic. Moncrief 19:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. Apparently this is a character from the TV series Charmed. RadicalBender 19:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If you made me king, I'd delete because this is a minor character in a TV show - not what I think of as encyclopedic. But compared to others that are routinely kept, it's no worse. Keep but post to clean-up so the link to the TV show is obvious. (Do we have a naming convention that would help?) Rossami 20:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Added text to make it clear where he comes from. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I've already deleted this once because it read like patent nonsense and had no context as to what it all meant. As it's from charmed, I'd say merge and redirect with Charmed Graham  :) 21:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep now. Tempshill 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Saul Taylor 08:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep.Chris Perry, Piper Halliwell(-Wyatt), Darryl Morris created by the same user are fictional characters from the same show (and need cleaning up). They could well be redirects to Charmed, but I have a feeling that various fans will keep recreating these pages even if they are deleted. Might as well let them have them.-- Decumanus 18:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Battle of Merton: entire text is from http://timelines.ws/0600AD_999AD.HTML
    • and in any case it's the Battle of MARTON! Lee M 20:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and please do so on the speedy plan. Moncrief, 2 Mar 2004
    • If we don't have it, move it. From the edit history of the contributor (added vagueand inaccurate to There is a very large amount of vague and inaccurate historical information available in Wikipedia, and several different ways of classifying it are given below. and linked the site as a friend of wikipedia) I think the contributor runs the site the content is from. In any case, it's minimally copyrightable since it's almost exclusively factual and our usual rewrite to our standars will eliminate any potential copyrightability. If we have it. make it a redirect and list on redirects for deletion. Jamesday 21:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've listed it on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. That's the page that should be used for possible copyright infringements. Someone should remove the entry from this page after this has been seen. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • NVC - Long babbling article by an IP user, talks about "Nonviolent Communication", divided into many sections with a sentence or two per section, unwikified, appears to be copied from somewhere. --Flockmeal 23:19, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - agree with nominator (text added so my vote gets counted) - Texture 23:21, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree this is a mess, but there is such a thing, this just isn't the right article about it, if that makes sense...Mark Richards 00:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Delete. Kosebamse 11:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 3

Customer experience management

- Until I can get an answer to the question at User talk:145.254.237.111, I'd like this listed for deletion. It looks to me as though this is a large school project that hasn't informed us it's coming, and isn't being run by people who are familiar with Wikipedia. I am hoping that the VFD notice on this page will convince one of the people on this project to come here, see this note, and let us know what's going on with a description at Wikipedia:School and university projects and a contact name of the person in charge so that we can better understand what's going on and educate the students about Wikipedia. Jwrosenzweig 00:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Karsten Kilian on Deletion Request for Customer Experience Management (CEM) Thanks for your feedback. We are a university in Germany with an international students from 6 different countries. The aim of the Customer Experience Management (CEM) is as follows:
        • introduce a fairly new concept in the literature to interested audience
        • make students familiar with wikipedia.org
        • add to the content quality of Wikipedia
        • I hope that my explanation does make it clear what our goal is and I would be thankful if you could withdraw the deletion note.
    • Kudos to the university for trying this, but we need to ensure that what they are doing fits the Wikipedia mold. Currently the articles don't stand by themselves. Could we find someone willing to hand-hold these students through the Wikipedia process, getting the titles right, making sure each article is self-contained etc.? I think we should also strongly encourage all the contributors to create logins, or at very least the teacher to create a login, so that we can send feedback. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks; Not complying to neither NPOV nor Wikipedia style and layout. — Sverdrup (talk) 16:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I am in contact with Karsten on my talk page and via email. I urge you all to hold off a few days and let Karsten and I try to find a way to make this workable. Wikibooks might be a very good idea (thanks Sverdrup) if Wikipedia turns out to be a bad fit. Anyone who wants to help guide these students, please do, but if you're wondering who is taking the lead for the moment, it's me. I think we can sort things out. Jwrosenzweig 17:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much for doing this, James. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree; if they want to fix it, we should give them time to do that. — Sverdrup (talk) 17:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • As an update, Karsten has agreed in an email to me that the current articles are not matching Wikipedia's standards well -- he pledges personal attention to them, and asks that we delay any decision making for 2-3 days while he help his students shape the articles. Jwrosenzweig 20:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Booger

- Well, I tried, but it didn't turn out very well... is this a dictionary definition or an encyclopedic article? ugen64 01:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

    • The content is OK. Isn't there a technical term for this, though? It should be moved there. Meelar 04:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Symbiotic algorithm

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

Emerging Symbiotic Clusters

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

Report from Himmler to Hitler

- looks like it needs a transwiki to WikiSource, then a deletion. Any other opinions? Isomorphic 05:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Source text. Transwiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 11:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete the page but don't delete the image. --mav 06:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nascent

- Belongs in Wiktionary. Boot it over there. Denelson83 05:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Democide

- We have already Genocide and Holocaust about the same subject. I doubt if the democide exists in English. It seems German word only. Seaman 09:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Keep but add links to genocide and Holocaust. The word was coined by an American political scientist, so it's not a German word only. However, as the article rightly notes, it hasn't gained much traction in English. Moncrief, 09:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. What is exactly difference between Democide/Genocide and Holocaust? Isn't better to merge those articles? Cautious 09:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep, of course. To answer Cautious' query: Genocide (killing of ethnic groups) is a subset of Democide. The Holocuast (Killing of Jews et al. in WW II) is a subset of Genocide. Democides can be samaller scale and are political. Davodd 10:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
        • Keep. Word was obviously coined by some Rudolph J. Rummel, professor em. of political sciences at University of Hawaii. He wrote a two-volume piece titeled Death by Government and Statistics of Democide. The word is definitely not German by origin, but now it exists (Demozid) as a translation of its American English counterpart. It is used in a much broader sense than the other two, as Davodd has already pointed out. --Palapala 10:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Mr Rummel is higly controversial alternative historian. His thesis are highly POV and were never verified by other historians. Cautious 10:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not one of his fans, but the term is there, his books are there, controversial as they might well be, and he is talked about. Also they have been translated into foreign languages (like German). Doesn't that all suffice for an entry? --Palapala
          • OK, stay, on condition that some NPOV comments are included. Somebody can open the article and be terrified by huge number of people allegedly killed, while this is mostly playing with statistical numbers. Cautious 12:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep, is in widespread use. -- Dissident 20:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please google before listing VfD. BTW, bing "terrified" is a healthy reaction: those were human lives, and not "statistical numbers". --Humus sapiens 22:46, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ontario_Mills

- Shopping centre in Ontario. If we delete nonfamous people, surely we delete nonfamous shopping malls. Maroux 11:54, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

    • Keep if it going to be expanded, otherwise move to Ontario, California. Concerning the comparison with people: there are far fewer big shopping centers than nonfamous people.--Patrick 12:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Shopping malls are famous. Anthony DiPierro 13:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - malls in general are not famous - Texture 16:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 16:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. we have articles on a number of shopping centres - SimonP 19:50, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Malls are visited by hundreds of thousands of people annually. That seems to imply some level of notoriety and importance. If anything, they go towards local history in many cases. Besides, there are other malls in Wikipedia (e.g., Houston Galleria). RadicalBender 20:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep this. Malls are famous locally--there's usually only a few of them in any given area. Meelar 22:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We're adding every interstate and interstate spur route in the country. Surely there's room for every mall if people want to make entries for them. Moncrief, 3 Mar 2004

electrical microphone

- No need for this, there's an opulant article on microphones. Somebody playing around... --Palapala 13:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • merge and redirect. Rossami 13:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there any need to list this kind of thing here? This page get's too long as it is without listing things that a simple redirect will fix.I've done the redirect and I'll remove this entry tomorrow. theresa knott 13:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or merge - not appropriate - Texture 16:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Theresa. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New College Democrats

Attack Tool Kit

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

    • NPOV and keep. Anthony DiPierro 15:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert - Texture 16:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote - it's an advert for freeware theresa knott 16:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

West African cuisine

- written in french and it isn't even about west african cuisine.. its about north african cuisine. Perl 15:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Shouldn't this be a speedy deletion candidate? Rmhermen 15:38, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirectDelete and move to wikibooks - Texture 16:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Note a vote -Since when do we delete recipies that haven't been transwikied to wikibooks? theresa knott 16:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I shortened my vote from the way I usually put it. - I will correct it - Texture 16:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is not a recipe, it is a description of a regional cuisine. It should either be moved to an appropriate page (North African cuisine, Moroccan cuisine, or whatever) or merged with an appropriate article. Dpbsmith 16:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This time I am voting -keep article has been translated into english and moved to the correct name.theresa knott 16:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to have already been deleted. If so, speedily delete the blank page with no history and get rid of this. Anthony DiPierro 13:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Richard Genovese

- was previously listed, got 2/3 majority to delete, was not deleted. I'll list it again until it is either deleted or there is a fixed definition of the criteria for deletion. It is absurd that any sysop can decide "2/3 is not a good enough consensus for me" and remove it from here without deleting it. --Wik 16:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

    • Keep but blank until it is proven that there is a such person. Anthony DiPierro 16:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • This is ridiculous. There are references provided on the page, and previous versions of the page show a great many more references. Other than the references provided, which you can certainly look up, what kind of "proof" are you looking for? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Who's Who has doubtful credibility in my mind. And I'm not even sure what edition is being referred to. Is it claimed that he's in every edition since 1982? The parfaite reference is written by you. That's original research, and isn't credible enough. The arte.net link doesn't even work, but doesn't seem credible. Exhibition catalogue is hosted on a free home page. Not credible at all. If the Who's Who reference turns out to be real, and it turns out to be a respected source, then I'd recommend that this be restored. But until then or some other verification comes along, I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia. Anyway, that's my suggestion, you don't have to like it. But if you're intending your comment as a keep vote please be specific so Wik doesn't bring this back here yet again. Anthony DiPierro 17:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • The Par*faite reference is not "written by me" in the sense that I am a contributor to Par*faite as is Genovese but I am not the editor. To describe as "original research" the fact that two men contributed to the same magazine is as bizarre a distortion of language as I've probably ever seen. The same thing could be said about the Richard Genovese page on Upland Trout, for example; Genovese contributed to Upland Trout and so did I and so did a number of others -- is Upland Trout thus my "original research"? If you think that an exhibition catalogue resides solely online it is just another characteristic of the recurrent problem I've seen in Wikipedia, that no matter what they say, people ignore offline sources, and demand that the "confirmation" for the existence of everything (which they demand in extravagant profusion when the topic is one they don't like) is their oracle, Google. Google can be helpful, but when it becomes the be-all and end-all, and Wikipedia is transformed into an eyclopedic rehash of information available through a Google search, the very value of Wikipedia comes into question. I am not hinting at a "keep" vote, by the way, just making some points. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • My apologies on Par*faite. I thought it was written solely by you. If it's available in print that's news to me, I have no idea where I could get it. You didn't answer my question abobut the Who's Who edition. I'd love to verify this, but I don't really have anything to go on. If Par*faite is available in print, where can I get it? I assume I could get a copy of Who's Who, but I'm not clear on the edition (and I might not be able to get 1982). Anthony DiPierro 17:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Again. Everyking 20:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

William Hill Kelly Jr.

- needs to be moved to sep11. - Hephaestos|§ 18:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Delete and move to memorial site - Texture 18:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. Obviously non-notable 9/11 victims should be deleted on sight, as we have decided previously not to have them. --Wik 18:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wik, feel free to propose that on the candidates for speedy deletions talk page. Anthony DiPierro 18:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Anthony lost a vote to add this to a disambiguation page - so he instead writes an article. Personally I have better things to do than deal with this. Secretlondon 18:54, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC). See Talk:William Kelly for background - which also explains why it is still protected
    • Move to sep11 and delete here. -- Dissident 19:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete here. silsor 19:49, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • By the way, Kelly is one of the more notable 9/11 victims. He has a scholarship fund named after him. Anthony DiPierro 19:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • transwiki to 9/11 and delete. theresa knott 20:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • transkwiki it — Sverdrup (talk) 21:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • move to memorial and delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:36, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikimemorial and delete. Not famous except for 9/11. Scholarship appears related (set up as a result of 9/11). Most of the rest of the one external link is advert and hardly NPOV. Rossami 23:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Source

- originally listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, I am listing it here as a member of the Leo Wyatt/Charmed discussion above. I personally believe all these pages should be merged into one anyway. -- Graham  :) 19:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Keep. We have lots of other characters from fiction all through Wikipedia (Jean-Luc Picard, Bart Simpson, etc.). I don't see why these should be excluded. There's certainly more than enough information on them. Move to cleanup, though. RadicalBender 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the content, but the most famous use of the term is probably the hip hop magazine of the same name, so either the article at The Source should be on the magazine or a disambig page. Tuf-Kat 08:20, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Homemaker

  • currently a redirect to Housewife, as is househusband. I would like to delete this in order to move Housewife to homemaker, and redirect both househusband and housewife to it. Thanks, Mark Richards 19:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I just moved the text from Housewife to Homemaker and made Housewife into a redirect - Texture 19:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks - isn't there something about preserving the edit history though? Mark Richards 19:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Mark, there certainly is! Texture, please revert your changes so that we can move the content of Housewife, page history intact, directly to Homemaker. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 19:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Dang, knew there was a reason I had never done that before... Done. - Texture 19:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks, J. Sorry for the trouble - Texture 20:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • No problem. Are you and Mark handling fixing all the links that are currently aimed at Housewife? If not, let me know. For anyone else viewing this, the deletion of the redirect and move of the page is complete. Jwrosenzweig 20:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • I'll handle it out of penance... ;) - Texture 20:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geostationary orbit

Discussion moved to Talk:Geostationary orbit

Bill Van Auken

  • Probably deserves an article, but this is just an advert for his campaign. Warofdreams 20:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert - Texture 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I improved it significantly. Everyking 22:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Subject is clearly encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 00:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How to care for a pet cockatoo

  • Do we really want this kind of article in Wikipedia? — Timwi 21:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes we do. There is a lot of information on that page. theresa knott 21:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Where is our general discussion on How-to articles? I think we should have one and divide the how-tos into the sort we want and the sort we don't want -- having the nono-howtos then as speedy deletions. — Sverdrup (talk) 21:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please look into the page history. It is a logical part of the topic. What it really needs is linking from other places. (and further wikifying) Mikkalai 22:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs to be seriously cleaned up. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. "All parrots should be fed a diet of primarily pellets" according to whom? There need to be references added, and POV statements like this need to be attributed and cited. Anthony DiPierro 23:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert for the site pretending to be a guide to cockatoos. - Texture 23:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • What on earth makes you think that ? have you read the page history? theresa knott 23:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Could be better, but it's a perfectly good article. Not obviously self-serving or self-promotional. The links should go in an External Links section, and something should be done about the brand names which are OK but only apply to ... what country? Not the U.S. Dpbsmith 00:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks. --mav 06:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, move to wikibooks. Tuf-Kat 08:18, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge back with cockatiel. Anthony DiPierro 13:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unofficial Slogan

Has had the VFD notice since 19 Feb; Was listed here as Unofficial slogan (a page that did not exist), and removed a few hours later. Original listing comment: Mostly a duplicate of slogan subsection on Kerikeri. Redirecting would seem a bit strange because 'unofficial slogan' is a generic term. Idril 10:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 21:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Orphan. Duplicated. Mikkalai 22:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. same. Rossami 23:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article reads like original work/nonsense - Texture 23:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Panalix

  • Looks like original research. The sole contributor is one of the names mentioned in the article, and he has signed it at the top.Graham  :) 22:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - original research - Texture 23:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - this looks like a whitepaper or something. Original Research. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - changed to make it look more like second source . Followed the style as on Menuet. --Adek336 12:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Note Adek336 is the author of this page, and is also the researcher mentioned within it. Graham  :) 12:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fixed. Anthony DiPierro 13:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Fixed how? It's still a research project and self promotion by a Wikipedia user. How is this fixed? -- Graham  :) 13:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It's still original research so I think we should delete. Perhaps in a few years, if it takes off, then yeas but not now. theresa knott 14:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Esse Aequitas and NinePointFive Thesis

Zero and 16 google hits. Muriel 22:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the creator, I will remove the contents of the Article on Esse Aequitas, due to the lack of evidence, however, I ask that NinePointFive remain, since evidence of being valid exists on the web.Volition

The only evidence is at [4], which is not enough. Keep for a standard time, then delete, if more solid validity will not be shown. Mikkalai 23:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikibug here! http://web.archive.org/web/20030729181108/http://www.ninepointfive.com/index.html didn't resolve via [ ]. Mikkalai

NinePointFive looks like original research. Delete. Anthony DiPierro 23:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless validity proven. The 16 Google hits appear to have nothing to do with NinePointFive Thesis. The reference listed in the article is to a search in web.archive.org. No evidence here that the thesis has any currency. I'm not sure it has any historic value. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 23:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

List of past countries in Europe

Recommendation was "merge", not "delete". Discussion moved to Talk:List of past countries in Europe. Rossami 23:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 4

Odon

  • A last name page - two place entries that happen to have the same last word - Texture 00:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of contributor's other work. silsor 00:20, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with silsor. Keep. -- Seth Ilys 00:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Given the sur, it's presumably the name of a river of some sort as well. Not sure why the contributor's other work has any bearing, but keep if these places are generally/ever referred to as "Odon". - IMSoP 00:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't sur mean next to? Agree with IMSoP. Graham  :) 00:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Torah Cosmos

  • Tin-foil hat stuff, incoherent, insignificant, and uncontextualized. -- Nunh-huh 00:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Delete. RickK 02:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep an eye on Octaeteris. Mikkalai 03:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete original research.(I am using the term research very loosely) Also check "what links here" . The author has put a link on Torah wich needs to go tootheresa knott 13:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Drew

  • We don't need pages on first names. moink 02:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is used as a disambiguation page. RickK 02:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Koopsta Knicca

  • I don't think this guy's important. moink 03:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, see below on Gangsta Boo. Meelar 04:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 04:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Meelar. -- Cyan 04:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gangsta Boo

  • unimportant. moink 03:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. She has articles at Rolling Stone and Ultimate Band List, and there's no reason we shouldn't be at least as comprehensive as them. Meelar 03:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Just a note: the page Three 6 Mafia, written almost exclusively by the same user, is quite good. Let's give these the benefit of the doubt. Meelar 04:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 04:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Meelar. -- Cyan 04:51, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat 08:15, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Whom

  • Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree- delete. Also inaccurate. Markalexander100 05:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Than

  • Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Charles Edward Jones

  • Another September 11 death. Adam Bishop 06:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Retired colonel. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 13:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Did he do anything of note before he retired, or is he only noteworthy because of 9/11? If the latter is the case then delete. theresa knott 14:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 13:29, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to sep11 if not already there - Texture 14:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Climate Research

  • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • agreed but this is no reason to delete. The page needs to be expanded, so that the news story becomes a small snippet. Suggest move to cleanup. theresa knott 08:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Starting point for an article. Anthony DiPierro 13:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tencel

  • This one is also Wiktionary-bound. Denelson83 08:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

  • I think this is a bit hopeless. There is one who refers stars by name - intersting - but others are: shortest verse in the new testament and the likes. Muriel 13:25, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Could some of it be useful in making an encyclopedia. I guess. Neutral. Anthony DiPierro 13:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it is quite interesting. I agree that shortest verse isn't that fascinating for me, but it may be for someone else. The bit about pi=3 though should be in an encylopedia. theresa knott 14:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. very interesting and very encyclopaedic. Optim 14:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote - I found them interesting but it isn't yet an article. - Texture 14:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Texture. By the way, is "list" an appropriate title for this kind of article? I'm under the impression that "list" should only be used for lists where the entries are links. Fredrik 14:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe the interested parts could give the article a better look. I like the concept, i just think the listed items of no particular interest. Muriel 14:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Content-free Space Shuttle pages

  • All pages like STS-61-B, STS-61-C, STS-55, STS-56 etc which incorporate the Space Shuttle mission template but have no actual content whatsoever. Evercat 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It helps people add content, but it is misleading because those with no information appear as blue links and not red. But, in fact, if the template was not ready, I would never add the crew list for STS-55, as I did just now. Optim 14:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the exact equivalent of species articles consisting solely of an empty taxobox, which I trust would never be allowed. Evercat 14:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Im responsible for putting these templates up, and the idea is to help people like Optim out. I believe they add value because the provide a starting poiint for people and they will standardize the look of Space shuttle missions, which helps overall comprehension as well as improving look and feel. I do not believe that they detract from the ability to add information to the Wiki any more than stub pages do. The template provides a link to summaries of space shuttle missions that are in the public domain, so that content can be easily and quickly added, or if somone is just searching for information they can find it Theon 14:37, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. If there only was an ever so short stub text in addition to the blank template, it would be ok, and I recommend all who wish to ease the adding of additional content to put in atleast two sentences as a starter. — Sverdrup (talk) 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless filled with contents soon - just filling the table and list the crew would be enough to keep them. andy
      • I agree that even minimal content would probably be enough. Evercat 14:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I can agree with the minimal content decision, but how much is enough? would just a list of crew be enough?Theon 14:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub or merge and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Ugh. Absolutely do not merge. The current situation is better than a merge. Evercat 14:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed Theon 14:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2625731"