Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Delirium (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 6 December 2003 (fixing apparently corrupted entry). 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

Votes for deletion subpages:

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

Please add one of these texts to any page that you list on Votes for deletion. The example that follows can be added by typing {{SUBST:vfd}}

''This page has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], where you can discuss whether this page should be deleted.''''

November 26

  • Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse and Who ate all the pies are short notes on British soccer chants. At best merge into a single Soccer chants page. Bmills 15:42, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. First is offensive and should not be a title of an article, but it can be in a soccer chants article (no redirect). The latter could also be merged, I also slightly favor no redirect as well since articles on every chant/slogan will make searches for material including words more difficult. Navigating from Soccer to Soccer chants or whatever is easy. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • The former I redirected to Victoria Beckham, and listed on wikipedia:redirects for deletion (bearing Daniel's comments in mind). No opinion on latter. Martin 21:21, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • First is offensive as a title. A page on chants linked to and from soccer makes sense. I've tried to improve it a bit now with a few links. Keep the chants page now. seglea 22:41, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, put slogan into appropriate article. Delete the redirects too. Fuzheado 09:04, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • These chants are part of football culture and therefore valid. Although potentially offensive as a title in its own right, I think the article itself shows that it is a serious piece of work. Given that wikipedia has all sorts of articles you could class as offensive, I can't see why these ones have been singled out.(comment written by article author Astrotrain)
      • How can an article simply about the chant ever become substantial? Surely it would be better to write about it in the context of the long and varied story of David and Victoria Beckham - otherwise it just seems a tiny article on a childish chant that got sung at Man U games from about two seasons. (I write this because I notice you undid the redirect that Martin put in). Pete 17:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the title, I cannot see how it is encyclopedic to cover them individually. A single chants page would make a better and more useful article. Plus, I believe the VfD notification should remain until a consensus is achieved. Bmills 16:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Incorporate both in one soccer chant page to rule them all, delete the redirects. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Whether as articles or redirects, keep, for information on authorship (required by the GFDL), to enable people to find the content easily, and to prevent later editors from inadvertently adding the same content again. -- Oliver P. 09:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Authorship isn't an issue, because the information moved out of that article amounts to a couple of sentences. Can't we just ensure they aren't copies, as the same way as we would when basing a couple of sentences on a copyrighted source? Onebyone 13:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There are other ways to keep the page history in order to retain authorship such as moving the page to Talk:Football chant/page history for example. I think both should be redirected to Football chant. Angela 21:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect. Does anybody dispute that these are genuine soccer chants?JackLynch 20:49, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Even if the authorship question is not an issue, or can be worked around, I think my second and third points are still valid. A fourth point: keeping them allows people to link the chants directly in future, without having to search for where the content on them is. A fifth point: if people would just merge and redirect these sorts of things when they came up, it would save a lot of space on Vfd. A sixth point: I've added some content to Who ate all the pies? that relates to the chant but not to football chants in general, so merging would be a bit silly now! -- Oliver P. 03:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • In a purely academic fashion, I note that an article on football chants in general might have sections on particular chants, and that the extra information is no bar to merging these articles in such a fashion. -- Cyan 03:33, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge to a single chants page. Each does not deserve its own article. Tempshill 00:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Church of Jesus Christ Elvis. The article itself says it's only one website. And the article's wording is pretty unclear about its subject matter. RickK 06:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:12, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I recall seeing a documentary (unfortunately cannot remember where and when) about how some Elvis fans do regard Elvis as a messianic figure. I have also met a person who claimed to have been a bishop of the "church of Elvis". How serious the would-be "worshippers" are, may be of course hard to discern. Maybe this could be added to the Elvis article - Skysmith 10:29, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Possibly worth an article in (apparently) tongue-in-cheek beliefs, as, for example, (early) Brianism? orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I actually read an article a few years ago on how Elvis has become a new religious icon. The experts said that all the early signs of messiahhood and legend are showing up by now. This is real, folks. Keep. Wiwaxia 10:41, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - church is just a joke. Daniel Quinlan 17:08, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - article is about a one-joke website. Tempshill 00:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

November 28

  • Vijayashanker Paramsothy - a September 11 victim...or are these moved somewhere? Adam Bishop 04:50, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • They are being collected here, perhaps the article in question should be moved.
    • http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributes_to_individuals
    • Move to sep11 wikipedia and delete. I hate voting to delete these. Daniel Quinlan 17:08, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
      • Then vote to keep them. ;) This article is referenced, so the material is verifiable. If it's good enough for the New York Times, it's good enough for us... -- Oliver P. 03:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete after moving to sept11 wiki. Maximus Rex 02:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As Oliver said, this article is referenced, so the material is verifiable. Moreover, the standard complaint that the person being listed played no active part in history is not true in the case of this person. --The Cunctator 13:20, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, non-famous. --Jiang|(Talk)
    • Delete, mention of course in sep11 wikipedia. Tempshill 00:25, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

November 30

  • Catarrhini, what's this? --Yacht 04:34, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • -yes, this needs to go - it cuts across the hierarchical series on the order Primates. Could be useful as a page that just redirects into that hierarchy I suppose. seglea 04:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd say keep if some information can be found to put in it. The fact that it doesn't fit modern ideas of how to do taxonomy doesn't mean that its historical use as a classification isn't significant. Onebyone 00:12, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's got a bit of information in it. I think it counts as a stub. -- Oliver P. 03:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I added stub boiler plate. Keep; it could grow. Tempshill 00:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's a copyvio from [1] anyway. Angela. 01:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 1

  • WTO Fighting of 1999- not saying I disgree with it, but somewhat POV to say the least... quercus robur 00:24, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Edit for NPOV and merge somewhere else. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into Anti-globalization_movement#Seattle and keep as redirect. Onebyone 00:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Keep and merge. Anjouli 05:25, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge. I attempted an NPOV edit, in particular noting that much of this was criminal activities, but it needs major reworking. -- Pakaran 05:57, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (no redirect) and merge content as suggested above. Daniel Quinlan 21:38, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge as appropriate and delete this article. Tempshill 00:31, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • KiAi - moved from VfD to Cleanup. nothing was done with it during that time. please delete. Kingturtle 19:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC) P.S. I placed this on VfD about a month ago, because I see it as merely a dictionary definition. And I don't see it ever being more than that. Kingturtle
    • Delete fine with me. Daniel Quinlan 21:38, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Each deletion request should be accompanied by a reason why you think the page should be deleted. This looks like a valid stub to me. -- Oliver P. 03:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It could be merged with martial arts if necessary but that is already too long. I think this is ok as a stub. See Talk:KiAi for the previous discussion. Angela. 01:26, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Image:Free-software-song.au -- accidentally uploaded. I was testing some MediaWiki upload features and updating Antonio Carlos Jobim at the same time, and I typed in the wrong window and... ugh. I'm not actually sure of the copyright info on the Free Software song -- it's fairly widely distributed -- but this should be deleted if only because it's an unused orphan. --ESP 21:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The Village. I can't work out what this is. Maybe someone else can. It's been on cleanup for a long time. DJ Clayworth 23:30, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's source text by George Crabbe. Maximus Rex 23:34, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, I've deleted source text and took article in different direction -- The Village in The Prisoner. Fuzheado 00:07, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move it all into the article The Prisoner. Hardly a good "use" of the term "village" - Marshman 08:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The Village is indeed already described in The Prisoner article. However, I disagree that the term is somehow wasted on the reference in The Prisoner. We have pages on far less significant topics. Fuzheado 14:28, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • True, but usually not with such common words as "village". Now every Google search for some Named Village will present this as one result unless confined in quotes - Marshman
          • I can see that sometimes it's worth taking account of google searches, but in this case I don't think we should allow ourselves to be swayed by the results of incompetent google searches. The article should be kept or deleted on its own merits - if it's worth having, then it's worth having even though it sometimes gives a false hit on some google searches. Onebyone 13:05, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep due to effort by various people. Onebyone 13:07, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Drop into The Prisoner. Not worth its own entry.
    • Too ambiguous. Delete or rename The Village (The Prisoner). When I hear "The Village" I think of and NYC neighborhood. Davodd 04:44, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

December 2

  • Intimidation Wikitionary? Anjouli 06:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not even a good dictionary definition. Sort of pointless? Delete or make an article out of it - Marshman 08:48, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 11:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 11:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fuzheado 14:32, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 03:02, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Panda Hotel - stub article on a generally unremarkable hotel in Hong Kong. Belongs in a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. -Smack 06:36, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Seems to be an advertisement - Marshman 08:46, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Seems to be a bit of a trend of Hong Kong tourism appearing on Wikipedia recently. Bmills 11:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, uninteresting hotel. Fuzheado 14:32, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:21, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Why? -Smack 01:46, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:26, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 03:02, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Haifa method can't find any non-Boyer reference ie [2], perhaps another surrealism technique known only to Boyer? Maximus Rex 14:20, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 14:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 14:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 17:26, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Tlotoxl 20:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Houston Surrealist Group does not seem to be a prominent group ie [3], can't find any non-wikipedia refence beyond their own website (which consists of a couple of pictures and a paypal link). Actually, as far I can tell this 'group' is just one person (Ricardo Barrios Rodriguez). Maximus Rex 15:00, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 17:26, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Tlotoxl 20:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Miss Canada International is only linked to by one page which, quite frankly, won't miss what appears to be an advertisement. - Litefantastic 17:45, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Apparently legitimate beauty pageant. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Maybe just add a stub notice to it? I cleaned it up a bit. —Frecklefoot 19:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just a page that needs significant expansion. -- DavidA
    • Keep. Can/will be developed until a proper article. -- Tlotoxl 20:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Revised Chronology. I have already moved the useful info to David Rohl. I don't want to make it a redirect because then anyone searching for "chronology" will get it. DJ Clayworth 20:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No reputable historian takes Velikovsky and his nutbar theories seriously. Delete. --Mirv 11:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 3

  • Dream resume - claims to be part of the surrealist movement, but no reference from that page. Info is scanty and incoherent, and contains a link to a dead Geocities page. --zandperl 01:21, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • We should at least search for some clarification on standards rather than make up rules on a case-by-case basis to exclude things we don't like. Is our analysis of citations going to include what links on the page are, and whether they're live now? Or is this just going to be employed when it comes to surrealist techniques, looking for any excuse (not applied to other pages) to delete them? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:26, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I didn't VfD this b/c it was related to surrealism. I found it through the Wikipedia:Most_wanted_stubs page (it's not listed there currently as the VfD boilerplate makes it too long for the stub limit) and only afterwards realized there was debate going on on the surrealism page. --zandperl 12:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Link worked for me and concept seems to have some validity. Suggest merging into the Surrealist techniques page. By the way, something odd about the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion link on the Dream resume page. Was it copied from the new boilerplate? When I clicked it, it opened VfD Dec 2 for editing. Bmills 09:12, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I get no hits for "Dream resume" + surrealism OR surrealist. Clearly it's not some important 'surrealist technique' if Google can't find it, so I am against merging it into surrealist techniques, which is already full of 'techniques' of questionable validity. Maximus Rex 09:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It is absolutely untrue that the surrealist techniques page is "full of 'techniques' of questionable validity." I would challenge you to list which techniques are so and the reasons why. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:26, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Deeply reluctant to go too far into this, but a couple of points. First, given that the Surrealist techniques page exists, it seems pointless to create individual pages for each technique. Second, a point on the content of the Surrealist techniques page in a field in which I happen to have some small knowledge. George Yeats (wife of W. B.) was a gifted linguist, not 'barely literate' and Yeats' A Vision is not a poem. Admittedly they did both dabble in automatic writing, but I think there are better examples you could come up with. And are you claiming Yeats as a surrealist? Or is this not just a surrealist technique? The Surrealist techniques article would be much stronger if detailed, documented examples created by surrealists were given for each technique. Bmills 16:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Well since you asked, a good example of a questionable technique listed on the surrealist techniques page is the 'mimmeogram' technique. A google search for sites that don't reference wikipedia or boyer, brings no hits for a surrealist technique. The hits it does return are actually related to another and older use of 'mimeogram' to mean that which is produced by a mimeograph (logical, no?). So not only is 'mimeogram' another surrealist technique that only Boyer seems to be aware of, it is also one that is ambiguous.
          • Please explain to me how it is "ambiguous". --Daniel C. Boyer 23:30, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • And I already know what your reply will be 'I didn't invent the mimeogram technique, Peneloped Rosemont did', which was your excuse when I listed the standalone 'mimeogram' article on vfd a couple of months ago. Maximus Rex 17:35, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • Did you ever hear of reading books? Over and over and over again I have cited Penelope Rosemont's book in which mimeogram is defined, and I have also cited an online review of it in which mimeogram is mentioned. "I didn't invent the mimeogram technique, Peneloped [sic] Rosemont did" is not an excuse, it is a fact, a fact that I have already proven. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:42, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, the kind of schoolboy holwers I identified re Gorge and W. B. Yeats will tend to call the accuracy of the entire article into question, and will certainly call the reputation of Wikipedia into question if read by anyone with the least knowledge of Yeats' work. Again, I suggest that Dream resume be merged with Surrealist techniques. I've corrected the Yeats-related factual errors and will try to do some more research on the whole article. Bmills 09:59, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Santorum
    • Disambiguation page recently undeleted after several people supported such an action at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Discussion can be found at Talk:Santorum. My opinion is that it should be kept, by the way. -- Oliver P. 10:21, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If that is so, it is only due to the persistence of a few people. Daniel Quinlan 15:52, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
        • I think the problem here is that very few people look at Votes for undeletion compared with Votes for deletion. Therefore the "bloody-minded" and others can push through what the community clearly voted to delete. This just wastes everybody's time. Secretlondon 15:57, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
        • Not to start a ruckus or anything, but it was also the persistence of a few people that kept the term out of the Rick Santorum article, where it probably most logically belonged (in NPOV language of course). This term is not lacking in currency; I for instance learned about it neither from Savage's column nor from Wikipedia. And it quite passes the "Google test"; a search on santorum lube results in 1,350 hits. - Hephaestos 16:09, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the disambig. -- John Owens 11:04, 2003 Dec 3 (UTC)
    • Is the sexual reference actually used by anyone? It's not really a disambiguation as both references refer to the same person. Secretlondon 11:06, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. To me it makes more sense to have Rick Santorum mention and link to Dan Savage, which already links to the R.S. page. How can you disambiguate someone from themselves? Bmills 11:14, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Santorum in the sexual meaning is used by a small segment of the population and should be kept just like the entries on erotic humiliation, sexual bondage, and erotic spanking, all of which are sexual practices used by only a small segment of the population. If desired, we can put some boilerplate saying it is a new use of the term (does said boilerplate exist?). --zandperl 12:51, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't "just like" those other entries. I bet dollars to donuts there are a lot more google references to "sexual bondage" than there are to "santorum" in the invented meaning. "Sexual bondage" is a far, far more commonly-used term. This isn't a question of inclusionism for minority sexual practices, it's a question of whether the term is generally used as a word, or whether it is solely a stunt on Dan Savage's show. If the latter, then it shouldn't be disambiguated or referenced from Santorum or Rick Santorum, because although the stunt is notable to Dan Savage, it's probably a lot less notable to Rick Santorum. Onebyone 13:01, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It's a valid disambiguation page. See talk:Santorum for way too much discussion of this already. People have already weighed in on this issue about 6 times. That for undeletion the article's merits have to be defended twice (both before and after undeletion) is absurd. --The Cunctator 15:35, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, restoring original consensus. The Cunctator has again abused his sysop status by undeleting this page. The disambiguation page title and content is a transparent POV usage of an idiosyncratic term with virtually no usage in the real world. It's absurd that this page is repeatedly undeleted. Daniel Quinlan 15:46, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This page has been deleted twice, and undeleted twice. This is an utter waste of everyone's time. I think some people have too much time on their hands to keep bringing this rubbish back. Secretlondon 17:02, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
      • Ever hear of pegging? Not listed here, but it's a term referring to female-on-male strap-on anal sex (asisdes from the more common uses in the stock market and staking plants). That too originated in Savage Love. [4], [5] The santorum entry as is is only a disambiguation page with a refernce to its coiner, and I agree it does not yet deserve more (no full page on its own), but I think it does at least deserve that. --zandperl 01:53, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This is an utter waste of everyone's time, yes. I can't for the life of me understand why this is even up for discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. That means that its aim is to help people find information on things. We have content on a person named Santorum, and we have content on a word santorum. So we should help people to find that content. Simple general principle: if Wikipedia has content on x, a reader should be able to find the content by going to x. -- Oliver P. 03:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Tokratan
    • Google has 49 hits......... It's not even close. --Menchi 10:33, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete advertisement - Marshman 02:24, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Swami Vivekanada
    • The title is a typo, therefore no need for redirecting. It should be Swami Vivekananda. If information in the article has any value, it could be integrated to that article. Andres 11:09, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've already made it into a redirect Secretlondon 11:11, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • Deramore Arms - it's a pub in a village outside York. Not notable. Secretlondon 12:28, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Just beat me to it. Appparently it sells beer! Delete. Bmills 12:31, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless you buy me a beer. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If it doesn't need a whole page to itself (I have no particular opinion on that) then it should obviously be merged with Heslington. Merging pages doesn't require the use of Vfd. -- Oliver P. 03:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • If it merged, it should not be redirected. There is probably 1000s more than 1 pub with the same name, so a redirect to any one town is inappropriate. Angela. 03:32, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Nope. About 101 Google matches, and although I didn't look through the whole lot, the first page of matches all refer to the one in Heslington. :) -- Oliver P. 04:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, that would be true of other pubs. Maybe not this one. Angela.
  • Charles XII - this place sells beer too. Secretlondon 12:32, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Doesn't actually say so. But it is popular with students. Delete unless we can verify that it does not sell beer, which would make it a pub of note. Bmills 12:34, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I suggest that if it didn't sell beer it would have problems attracting students. Secretlondon 12:36, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
      • Can I add the Marquis of Granby? [6] DJ Clayworth 21:54, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:24, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This should probably redirect to Charles XII of Sweden (as one of the links to it refers to that Charles XII, and I don't think there are any others) Adam Bishop 01:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I moved that Sweden link to point to the proper page. Onebyone 12:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Same comment as above. -- Oliver P. 03:28, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What Oliver said, apart from the "keep" part. Angela. 03:32, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Again, all the top matches for "Charles XII" pubs are for the pub in Heslington. Go on, admit you're wrong. ;) -- Oliver P. 04:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • will not. :P
  • ZERP Apparently an ad for a product that does not yet exist (and no beer). Bmills 14:58, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Might it one day be used to make beer? If not, then delete. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't see any point in an article about a product that might, some day, be commercially available, assuming the company stays in business long enough. Ortonmc 05:26, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Men slimming -- Likely copyvio; reads like USA Today prose, though I haven't found the same text online anyware; it is not encyclopedic, and the content deals mostly with Hong Kong/Chinese men. POV to boot. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 16:54, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:48, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Karada 00:28, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but needs substantial rewriting. Perhaps it may be better to delete and start with a blank slate? Anyway, the title's a bit inappropriate anyway. Dysprosia 13:14, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Rmhermen 14:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, poorly written article, bad title, not encyclopedic. Maximus Rex 02:54, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. News, not encyclopedic. Ortonmc 05:26, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Socialist Standard - copied and pasted in old articles. I'm worried this might be a well-known email list spammer who did the same until he got banned. Secretlondon 22:00, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Replaced with a stub, but might be a copyvio? Morwen 22:09, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Should be removed from VfD now that potential copyvio problem has been resolved. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:33, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I cannot imagine a socialist propagandist organisation objecting to extra publicity for their ideas. Secretlondon 22:22, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
        • We should still delete it; we should not second-guess anyone's motives. -- Karada 00:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep new stub. Perhaps potential copyvio history should be excised, but I don't consider that a huge priority unless the copyright holder has complained. --Delirium 08:12, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

December 4

  • Nathan Meyer Seems to be a vanity page. Google search for "Nathan Joseph Meyer" brings up 0 results, author won't discuss it on the talk page. --snoyes 01:39, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. I removed the one link that goes there, which was an attribution of the author on Kim Zmeskal. Since articles are submitted under the GPL, the attribution should not have been there - since this orphans the vanity page, it can be safely deleted with no effect. GRAHAMUK 01:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete...even if google for Nathan Meyer + olympics + toronto it doesn't bring up this guy. Adam Bishop 01:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think our new friend moved the page to Member page, which Ihave redirected to Wikipedia:How to log in. I have moved the page from Member page to its final resting place (hopefully) at User:Grcboy2. -- Cyan 02:57, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Regarding "author won't discuss it on the talk page", it was 19 minutes from the comment being made on the user page to the VfD nomination. I agree that the article shouldn't have been there, but I recommend more patience when dealing with users who have made mistakes. Onebyone 11:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • And the page will linger on Votes for deletion for 7 days, more than enough time to respond. I also marked it as on votes for deletion to actually get the persons attention, because s/he wasn't responding to other inquiries on their user talk page ... and still haven't. --snoyes 13:43, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I agree with the listing, I just meant that it was a bit harsh to say "author won't discuss it" under the circumstances. Onebyone 14:31, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete 7 days is enough for author to respond. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 03:08, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Chocolate (disambiguation) - An orphaned disambiguation page, which does not really serve a purpose since the two articles it links to are spelled differently, Chocolate and Chocolat (the movie). Mark Ryan 03:01, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no use. Onebyone 11:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I added VfD boilerplate text to the article. Bmills 16:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 06:14, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wage - definition already at Wiktionary Rossami 04:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this article would be alright if maybe it included in-depth data about average wages in countries around the world. But in its current state it is rather drab and uninformative. - Mark Ryan 07:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 11:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I added VfD boilerplate text to the article. Bmills 16:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Geonosian style execution - This page references a single scene in the latest Star Wars movie. Not an appropriate topic for a general reference site. The execution method discussed isn't even novel. Isomorphic 04:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maybe the content could be transplanted into a Star Wars page somewhere... I mean, I love my science fiction but personally don't like the idea of Wikipedia getting padded out with silly stuff like this. It would be the equivalent of having whole articles about particular episodes of Star Trek. - Mark Ryan 07:29, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (And we do have individual articles for Twilight Zone episodes.) DJ Clayworth 17:32, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Gallery of John S. Mosby photographs. Why does John Singleton Mosby rate an entire article of nothing but photographs? RickK 04:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Should be integrated with John S. Mosby. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:58, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. One cannot gain a true sense of a person's physical image without quite a few images, and Mosby was a truly interesting charactar who deserves to be scrutinized. I plan on adding captions to the photos. Each photo has its own story. One of the photographs for instance pictures Mosby wearing a union uniform despite the fact that he was confederate: there will be a story added concerning how he obtained the uniform etc. If this is deleted, many other pages such as Image:Cow_with_calf_thumbnail.jpg would also have to be deleted. Alexandros 05:01, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. He doesn't (additional photographs belong in John S. Mosby). Daniel Quinlan 04:55, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • I somewhat warily would support keeping these sorts of things. I don't think Wikipedia should become a photo album. However, photos are generally harder to come by than articles, so I think these sorts of pages are a good repository of photos for future use: when more and longer articles are written, many of them can be worked into articles proper in floats. This keeps them somewhat well-organized and findable in the meantime. --Delirium 08:10, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we're ever short of disk space, I'm sure Jimbo will "have a word" when necessary. Onebyone 11:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I see nothing wrong with this as long as some text is added to the page so it isn't only pictures. Angela. 22:03, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have TONS of lists here. Why should pictoral lists of significant people be different? Davodd 06:23, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)


    • I moved the content to User:Jianshuo and made it a redirect. RickK 16:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Relaxed - The article copies verbatim the wiktionary entry for relaxed. Nothing more chance 13:37, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. However, User:Patrick describes it as a stub in the comments, so maybe we should check what plans there are for it. Onebyone 14:31, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • My current vote is to delete, but I'd say this is a soft vote; if any modification is made to make it encyclopedic rather than fit for the dictionary, or any proposals are made clear for such plans, I'll change my vote. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:58, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as stands. I added VfD boilerplate text to the article. Bmills 16:57, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looking at the page history, Fonzy had it correct in moving to wikitonary, but made a mistake in blanking rather than deleting. Patrick then decided an stub was better than a blank page and reverted. There isn't scope for an encyclopedia article under this name, though there presumably is under relaxation... any takers? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:12, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Delete. There should be no article or redirect under relaxed - Marshman 02:12, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Eat Poop You Cat - Noldoaran 20:38, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Why? --snoyes 20:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I read this and I like it alot. It seems to be a real game (and alot of fun, from the sound of it) and while the title is unpleasent, I guess thats what it goes by? Keep, please! JackLynch 20:58, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems a sensible description of a silly game. Google returns enough hits to suggest it's not entirely the invention of the autor. Keep it. Andy G 21:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It's a game popular among Everything2 users -- I think one of them, possibly the same person who wrote the article, invented it. Note that most of the 300-odd Google hits come from only a few pages; most of those pages are the creations of E2 users, and a number are from E2 itself: a search on Everything2.com for "Eat Poop You Cat" returns 58 results, and the better part of the rest come from two or three websites. --Mirv 21:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Could use some editing, but don't delete - Marshman 02:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I learned something interesting from the article, and isn't that what it's all about? :) Could use some linking into/outof though, as it's a standalone orphan. Fuzheado 03:50, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Title is offensive. Delete, or change to Eat popsicle you cat. ;) mydogategodshat 05:50, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Offensive to who? To cats? When I said it to my cat, she just started purring. ;-) -- Cyan 16:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Davodd 06:08, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it, and keep the name the same. An encyclopedia records the world as it is, and if that's what the game goes by, that's it.
    • Keep. It's a game that exists. Anjouli 12:43, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Should not be deleted. It is a real game and a very accurate description. Tony The Tiger 15:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a real game, and that's what it's called when people play it or talk about it. Changing title, as User:Mydogategodshat suggests, will lead to confusion and make it harder for people to find information.Vicki Rosenzweig 16:32, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Vicki, the wink after my comment is there to indicate that I was not serious. I couldn't resist making the comment because several of the people discussing the title have recently tried to pressure me into changing my name because they think they can read a variant of shit in it. mydogategodshat 05:26, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Your right, It should be kept, sorry. I will remove the VfD text from the article.Noldoaran 16:36, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • One reason I wanted to delete it was because i didn't think wikipedia was the right place for games. If it is then where's Steal the bacon. -- Noldoaran 16:42, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • Chadguay - It's a mystery to me where the zealotry to quickly revert the redirect came from considering this doesn't even deserve an entry in the first place. 213.73.231.245 20:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • 1,180 google hits Alexandros 22:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. About as stupid an entry as I've ever seen - Marshman 02:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it was a small part of an ephmeral joke. ping 08:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Tending towards "Delete", but if somebody wanted to look up this phenomenon, where would they go? Anjouli 12:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think it would work as a redirect, especially if that's what it was before. - Hephaestos 16:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. Added vfd notice to page.Anthropos 13:11, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy - and its sister Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy 2 - I am not denying -or for the same price, agreeing with- its abstract content (that there were priests involved in those crimes), I am stating that the page does not deserve existence by itself in the WP. The list is ridiculous (again, I am not denying the facts but there is no way to credibly check what it meant to be a Ustashi member) for an encyclopeida: it would be OK in a monography, but should require a lot of documentation to support the claims. Pfortuny 21:58, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! 22 google results for "Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy", and most of them were from wikipedia. Alexandros
    • Delete as is unless someone bothers to re-work (and re-title) this into an article explaining the entire Ustashi movement. That would be a good keeper. Davodd 02:59, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • Gary Nichols non-famous. DJ Clayworth 22:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Soon. Sounds like a feud using Wikipedia - Marshman 02:00, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (or perhaps delete in favour of articles on court cases in which he has been involved, but leaning towards keep); he was involved in some court cases marginally significant enough for inclusion. But article needs to be extensively rewritten for NPOV and some of this has to be substantiated with sources, for example the serious accusation that he made death threats (if this is relevant enough to be in the article). Must be recast nearly totally. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:55, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - that particular court case is not important, it's just some random guy. Adam Bishop 07:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not famous enough. --Jiang|(Talk)

December 5

  • Wikipedia:Constitution of Wikipedia - Nonsense - no relation to reality - American bias - Somebody's idea of a bad joke. mydogategodshat 06:50, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • not an article but maybe a suitable topic for discussion, move to amore appropriate place maybe. Personally I prefer anarchy, it's more flexible. ping 08:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is appalling. Bmills 09:27, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Suggest moving to Wikipedia:Yet more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Appallingly Americocentric, and just plain unnecessary. Arwel 12:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Or save for 1 April, then delete. -- Viajero 12:23, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with all the above. Delete -- Tarquin 13:16, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and turn it into a game of Wiki Nomic. Or delete. Onebyone 15:54, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I believe the contributor is serious...so what about sending it to m:Constitution of Wikipedia? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Maybe making it a personal user subpage would be better? Maximus Rex 18:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've copied it to Meta which seems a more appropriate place for it. Angela. 22:42, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article's rules are the same as wikipedias. Alexandros
    • DELETE. This Constitution is a mockery. Wikipedia:Copyrights says everything we need to know already. Kingturtle 09:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Chate - incoherent definition of personal slang. Mirv 13:54, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, even though the article has changed since listed. I added VfD boilerplate text. Bmills 14:21, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is a slang dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article Dogface
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:07, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Simulacra. Dictionary definition. Bmills 15:03, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It just went up today, give it a while and see where it goes. If it stays the same, then VfD it. --zandperl 02:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've added the word to Wiktionary. Ortonmc 05:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Elections Group - I can't see how the name of a committee conducting elections in one British students' union can be made into a more general article. The committees are called different things in different institutions, and are pretty boring in themselves. Secretlondon 21:50, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not even worth really merging into the union's article itself. Delete. Morwen 21:52, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Sterling D Allan looks like pure self-advertisement to me. Haven't we had this one before? seglea 22:00, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Author is Sterlingda. Delete. Secretlondon 22:02, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Enough said. Delete. DJ Clayworth 22:07, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. self-promotion. Maximus Rex 23:46, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete with extreme prejudice. RickK 07:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't delete, edit. Is it "self promotion" or an autobiography, which is going to be pretty accurate. If you find information to be false, then edit that out, or comment to the contrary. What is Wikipedia about, if not to be thorough, clear, and concise? The review I gave is all of those things. A starting point. I certainly expected people to go in and perhaps make comments one way or the other within the piece, but I must say I am wondering why you woul delete this. Do you want to discourage such presentations? Delete it on lack of merit, not on whether or not a person wrote it themselves about themselves. Sure, that might be a little corny, but at least it isn't innacurate. If there is inacuracy, then change the inacuracy. Deleting it is like burning down a guys house because you don't like the way it looks. Rather, go in and make a few fixes. Please don't delete. You don't know me. I have the potential of bringing a lot of people to Wikipedia and bringing a great deal more content in areas that will prove to be of extreme value to your encyclopedia. What if Tesla had come along and posted somethign about himself. Don't you think that would be worth something? I'm not saying I'm a Tesla, but you never know who you are dealing with. Don't delete. Just edit anything that is not concise, or accurate, or relevant, etc. Sterlingda 07:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Biographies are nice when they're about people who are important. You are not. Move it to your user page. RickK 07:54, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • 'Do you want to discourage such presentations?' Yes, actually. Delete. Morwen 10:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Denmark Yaneza looks like a vanity page? Created and mondified only by User:Vera Cruz, who is hard-banned. Anthropos 22:59, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, looks like vanity. (wasn't Vera Cruz widely believed to be banned/unbanned User:Lir, or am I mistaken?) Maximus Rex 23:32, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Illuminati order of the united states this page has been deleted more than once before. Maximus Rex 23:01, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought it had been decided to be moved to that page and kept? Ok, how about someone answer the question posted here -> (talk:Illuminati order of the united states)
    • Keep. Needs work to add historical context and NPOV. Davodd 04:45, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • There is no 'historical context', it's simply a club that has co-opted a famous name is using that name to sound important. We already have a page on Illuminati. This page was deleted before, so if anything it should simply be deleted again to stop wasting everyone's time. Maximus Rex 06:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Java humor - having an article for this makes no sense. Contributed by anonymous users. Either the title is wrong or the content is in the wrong article. Jay 23:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 6

  • Lekker - move to Wiktionary? --Pakaran 01:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Less than 24 hours old. --zandperl 02:58, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Is it even an appropriate English word? - Marshman 03:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. How is Afrikaans slang relevant to English Wikipedia? - Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. Doesn't matter if it's not English there. English Wikipedia welcomes definitions of foreign words. Ortonmc 04:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You mean "english wiktionary"? Noldoaran 06:36, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Peng Guangqian - only 179 hits; orphaned, and the article does a poor job representing anything special/unprecedented in his statements. --Jiang|(Talk) 01:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think this should be deleted. Maybe it could be expanded. - Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • There's almost no information available to expand this further, except to properly represent the comments he made. We shouldn't be making articles for some random foreign ministry spokesman either. --Jiang|(Talk)
    • Delete. The one interesting fact could perhaps be incorporated into Politics of Taiwan. Ortonmc 04:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Frame of reference - this article is POV and breaks all sorts of wikipedia conventions. If it cannot be re-written in the proper way, it should be deleted. It is embarassing having such an article here. Kingturtle 02:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move or cut'n'paste into relativity and start from scrate on the frame of reference page. Current content shouldn't be lost. --zandperl 03:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not thrilled with the style of writing, but I would not delete. Perhaps ity can be improved or worked into elsewhere as suggested by Zandperl - Marshman 03:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's probably good material, the main problem is that it's written as if it's a transcript of a talk someone has given. Keep, but do something with it to fix the language. - Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. What's POV about it? I agree that the writing style is not appropriate, and that major editing is needed. Isomorphic 08:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Kings Arms - plug for a pub in Dorset- it links from public house as a 'notable english pub', but there must be bucketloads of pubs in the UK with the name Kings Arms. If it is truly a notable pub fine, otherwise lets all just put in an entry for our favourite local- mine would be The Spread Eagle, Prittlewell.... quercus robur 02:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 03:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - a pub's a pub. And there are gazillions of pubs in the world. - Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. They're not just in the UK; there's a tavern in Colonial Williamsburg with the same name. Ortonmc 04:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Some More - Delete. This song is not of importance. If it is, the article certainly doesn't tell us that. Kingturtle 02:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Songs are difficult to establish importance on. While some are clearly well-known, where does the line of importance get drawn? I'm inclined to leave these alone for now (keep) - Marshman 03:30, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Songs like American Pie are notable encyclopedia material, but I don't think Wikipedia has reached the stage wherein there's nothing left to do but write about our favourite songs. -- Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:User page -- this page has no usefull content. I don't think that this page needs to exist, unless someone can think of something to go here. -Noldoaran 03:34, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • The page is currently nonsense but the talk page isn't. I think there should be a page on this. Angela. 03:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's history is useless, so I think that it should be deleted even if usefull content will exist there later. It can be recreated when someone write something usefull there. Noldoaran 03:50, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • I deleted the history. The page now just has 3 subheadings to suggest what it should contain were it a real help page. Angela.
    • If nobody minds, I wouldn't mind having a go at starting an article here. It would be a good place to give hints and ideas for what your User page should be used for. - Mark Ryan 04:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Go for it! Noldoaran 06:06, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Added some stuff. Hopefully we can unlist from VfD now? Dysprosia 04:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The current incarnation of the page looks useful. Ortonmc 04:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Angelian - A conlang without a user base, all google hits refer to pages created by one person -- JeLuF 05:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Some conlang creators have the obnoxious habit of advertising their creation any way they can. This guy isn't the first. We had this "Cimera" language a while ago too. --Menchi 05:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 06:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Terminology - one-liner dictionary defintion. Stub since February. Jay 07:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 08:38, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • 3Dlabs. Advertisement. RickK 08:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Copyvio [7] Davodd 08:42, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia commentary and all its subpages [8] (Wikipedia:Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Avoid Cabals for example). Is there any reason these shouldn't all be moved to Meta? If they are moved, should the pages be deleted or left as interwiki redirects? Angela. 09:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Moved and deleted: things in the main namespace in particular should only be legitimate encyclopedia articles, not meta topics or redirects to meta topics. And interwiki redirects are evil as a general principle, not least because it's damn near impossible to edit them once set up (requires manual URL construction). --Delirium 11:19, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1885067"