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 Hephaestos (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 26 June 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please review our policy on permanent deletion before adding to this page.

Add links to unwanted page titles to the list below so that other Wikipedians can have a chance to argue for and against the removal of the page.

Please sign any suggestion for deletion (use four tildes, ~~~~, to sign with your user name and the current date).

  • If the page should be deleted, an admin will do so, and the link will be removed from this page (it will show up on the Wikipedia:Deletion log).
  • If the page should not be deleted, someone will remove the link from this page. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made.

Don't list here...

  • page titles of stubs that at least have a decent definition and might in the future become articles. There's no reason to delete those - see Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub
  • pages that need editing - see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
  • pages that can easily and sensibly be redirected to another page. E.g., a page called presidant (a misspelling) can be redirected to president; etc. Even misspellings can be caught by search engines and provide Wikipedia perfectly relevant traffic!
  • pages in the wrong namespace (for example, user pages in the main namespace), can be redirected and should not be deleted if there are still old links to them.
  • subpages in your own user space, use Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted

Note to admins

  • As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
  • Simply deleting a page does not automatically delete its talk page or any subpages. Please delete these pages first, and then the main page. Also, if you delete a page, remove it from this list as well.
  • If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item.

See also

Please put new items at the bottom of the page

  • Independent, Neutral, Turkmenistan State Anthem
    • apparently source text cut and pasted, and a strange title to boot Tuf-Kat
    • I think that makes three national anthems listed on here at various times. See List of national anthems. It was decided the first time around that the source text of a national anthem is okay. You can, of course, contest that decision now, since you clearly weren't aware of it. -- Tim Starling 14:15 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • That is the proper title for Turkmenistan's national anthem. -- goatasaur 03:30 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Glasseelu.mov: What are the feelings on use of .mov files with the GFDL? I'm not sure about format transparency here.... -- John Owens 22:31 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Does anyone have the necessary conversion software? I don't even know what we would convert it to. Last time I checked we didn't have a standard format. -- Tim Starling 15:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • I know there was talk of some format I wasn't familiar with myself, I don't remember what it was called offhand. I'm pretty sure .mov doesn't qualify no matter how you cut it, though. -- John Owens 08:53 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Goldtoken.com, little more than an advertisement. Also Turn-based gaming. -- goatasaur
    • Then you need to take down all things like Battle.net and stuff like that, or change it. -- Ilyanep
    • This belongs in the pages needing attention page
      • Battle.net is one of the largest gaming communities on the Internet. Wikipedia has no articles for game services such as Popcap, Playsite, Pogo and so forth. Goldtoken.com is no different. -- goatasaur
    • Some facts: 227,000 Googles for Battle.net. 4,900 for Goldtoken.com.
      • Okay, but we should still keep it, and build. Or at least keep Turn-based gaming, since it's a rather interesting 'technique'. ilyanep 23:20 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Counterstereotype, - I'm not sure what to make of these pages. They may very well be valid, but I'll list them here to be scrutinized. -- Notheruser 05:03 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Counterstereotype is fine in my opinion, although the obsession the writer has with gay and bisexual people needs to be toned down a bit. Queer Counterstereotype Oppression is bunk; a Google search [1] turns up squat. -- goatasaur
      • I second that emotion. This is agenda-driven b/s. FearÉIREANN 05:12 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Some NPOV-fied ideas of Queer Counterstereotype Oppression can be included in Counterstereotype. But alone as it is, "Queer Counterstereotype Oppression" is just a bitter rant. --Menchi 09:55 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • All the phobia articles created by this anonymous user
    • Most of these are probably non-existent. Outside of the top half-dozen most common, there are a few rare phobias and the rest that persist on Internet lists of phobias are linguistic exercises with no real world correlant. In any case, these are all dictionary definitions. Tuf-Kat
    • agree, most are clearly fictional, I've deleted one already. jimfbleak 06:50 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm no expert on phobias so I don't know if they are genuine, but the ones I looked at are more like dictionary entries than encyclopaedia articles. I vote to move them all (including the one jimfbleak deleted without listing it here first [tut tut]) to the Wiktionary, where the word experts can decide whether to keep them or not. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Interstate 91, Interstate 95, Interstate 15, Interstate 5, Interstate 10, etc. -- Copyright. Anon, 18 Jun 2003
    • They are just lists of information. All that has to be done to remove any "creative expression" from the original writer is to rearrange the sections. Information, by itself, cannot be copyrighted but the unique and creative presentation of that information can. --mav 08:15 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep them. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The above have been fixed. The choice and organization of the lists IMO follows a highly logical order that cannot be considered to be a "creative expression" (just like a alphabetical listing in a telephone book). But the prose that is there should now pass the Google text. Any other copyvios Anon? --mav 05:36 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:La2.gif Looks like a newbie expt. Not intended for the encylopedia Theresa knott 09:06 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I think that if after a week or so no good reason emerges for this being on Wikipedia then it should be binned. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The following images he lists as fair use but gives no indication of source, a requirement to protect wiki should any dispute arise over whether they are indeed covered by fair use.

The following image he lists with the questionable justification that it belongs to the Government of Canada as is as a result public property.

IMO we should delete the lot of them. Better to be safe than sorry plus it gives a clear message that coprighted material will not be tolerated.Theresa knott 09:02 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Remainder of discussion moved to Wikipedia:Copyright issues/Images

I vote against User:Jtdirl's statement that these images should be deleted. And I give the following reasons:

Remainder of comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright Given the history of DW/Black Widow/Joe Canuck in returning to wikipedia even after banning, I think it is fair to presume that the banning of Joe Canuck will not mean an end to the danger that these images may still be used by him. The odds are that he will return in the near future and if the images still exist, reinsert them. To ensure he can't, I would suggest that the image be deleted immediately the seven day waiting period is over, which means that they should be deleted as soon as possible after the 26th of June. A question: given that the user who downloaded them and so knows their source is now banned (and it is unlikely anyone else on wiki will be able to trace their source), do wiki rules allow in such circumstances for their deletion ahead of the 7 day waiting period? As the person who put them here I will not be the person who deletes them in any case. FearÉIREANN 09:24 21 Jun 2003 (UTC) [I am reinstating this comment which User:ChuckM removed. It isn't about the images in detail but about their status following JC's banning. As such it belongs here, not in a page discussing the images in detail.] FearÉIREANN 02:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  • I'd be all for deleting these at any time; they were uploaded by a hard-banned user, and as such are subject to being reverted; additionally the only defense of them I've seen is by what is probably an illegitimate multiple account of the aforementioned user. Not to mention, if it's ever found that we can use any of these under copyright, they're easily found on Google images. - Hephaestos 16:36 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Amen to that. I'd say delete them now and get the "debate" over with. -- Wapcaplet 21:15 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Ken Mondschein
    • User:Someone else added him a few days ago, as a "query rather than a vote", but maybe we should have a proper vote about him. He's a writer, but I can't find much about him apart from in his own online writings. -- Oliver P. 16:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I'm not really voting for this to be deleted myself; I just thought other people might want to. It seems no-one's bothered by it, though... -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Don Imus
    • Possible copyvio. --mav
    • Mav, I apologize I was unaware that this violated copyright, The original text was given to me by a friend. I did not know that he copped it off the Internet. I though he wrote it himself.
  • Alexander III - material duplicated by the disambiguation page Alexander; any pages that pointed to this page I have already disambiguated. -- llywrch 04:30 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This should certainly remain as a disambiguation page. I suppose a case could be made to redirect it to Alexander, if the material is all there anyway, but I see no reason to make people wade through that list to find the subset that refer to the Alexander IIIs. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • SeaVIEW, at first I put this under Wikipedia:Pages needing attention but on consideration I feel this mistitled, badly written, largely off-topic article should be deleted. 212 09:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • If it's mistitled, it can be moved; if it's badly written, it can be rewritten; if some of the information is off-topic, it can be moved to an article where it is more on-topic. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Counter-Strike tips - we are not a gaming help site, Rmhermen 13:06 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. While an article about counterstrike (maybe even incorporating that into it) would be ok, this seperate article is not. Ilyanep 21:09 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This is clearly not the type of info for an encyclopedia; dump it User:Ike9898
  • David Anez - useless as-is. - Hephaestos 19:39 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Doesn't seem to exist (already deleted?). -- Timwi 20:35 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I deleted it. It contained graffitti only. -- JeLuF 20:43 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • It's back again, so I'm putting this back in as-was. Oh, and upholding its deletion. -- John Owens 23:08 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Ulps. I deleted it again, and after checking, it was the slightly more credible version. I undeleted it (I think (and with apologies)). Nevertheless the original reasons for its deletion stand, in my view. Does someone have the original talk for deletion archived somewhere? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 16:00 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Gott straf England - A dead stub. If this was real, it was very unpopular. Not even German yahoo showed any page. Only 1 English Google link (an entry of a soldier's diary -- authenticity unascertained), except the two "WP" pages created by that banned person. --Menchi 04:53 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I actually would let that one stay; the English translation (God punish England) comes up with 91 hits, and the first page is all in that context. - Hephaestos 04:59 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The banned user named it wrong. It's "strafe". --Menchi 05:11 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Aha. My conjugation is lousy too. ;) - Hephaestos 05:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Someone vandalised AIDS Kills Fags Dead (which previously was a redirect). Then someone deleted it. I restored it as a valid redirect (and will list on VfuD. Martin 08:48 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This is indeed a valid redirect. No need for it to be deleted. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Doing searches I keep finding this turning up on AIds links and it makes wiki look like a bigoted homophobic site. Given its sensitivity we should have no redirects that do not explicitly include the word 'slogan' to make it clear to the world that this isn't some repulsive attack on gay people but a proper encyclopædic article. As far as I am concerned, this link should be binned as soon as possible. FearÉIREANN 20:06 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan, AIDS Kills Fags Dead, AIDS kills fags dead, 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan, AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan)
    • These are all redirects to Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. user:Tannin, user:AxelBoldt, FearÉIREANN and Eloquence wish to delete them. Martin, Toby Bartels, and Oliver P. do not. Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions for offensive slogans
    • I said delete some of them, not necessarily all. The AIDS Kills Fags Dead redirect should stay in place IMHO because that one is actually useful for linking. --Eloquence 17:49 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Argument in favor of deletion of these unused redirects: people searching for "AIDS" currently get 17 title matches, with 6 of them being about this one article. The current title (with "Slogan" in front) is the clearest and least offensive. AxelBoldt 21:59 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Considering that AIDS Kills Fags Dead is the title that writers would naturally link to, that (recognising this) it's what our naming conventions would choose if not for the exception made for offensive slogans, and that this exception is inherently POV (since it judges slogans for their offensiveness), it seems patently obvious to me that Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' ought to redirect to AIDS Kills Fags Dead. However, I'll settle for the other way around in the interests of harmony with other Wikipedians. The other titles were never used for other than a brief period in each case and can safely be disposed of. -- Toby Bartels 08:03 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree: delete this -- keep the one with "slogan" in if you must (although I would delete that too, if I had my way) -- The Anome 09:01 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I also agree that most of them should be deleted. -- Minesweeper 20:00 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Media in China is bizarre. Reads like the last two paragraphs of a longer article. Bill 16:32 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, it seems it was snipped from one of the main China pages. Perhaps it needs to be re-integrated or re-written where it is... Evercat 20:10 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Repetition is a bore, and the repeted sections should be changed, but there's a lot to be said a bout the current media control methods in China, as well as a history. --Menchi 00:09 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe it could be merged with Internet in China until the subjects get more robust. (After all the Internet is part of the media.) - Hephaestos
  • Busking - dictionary entry. --Eloquence 19:11 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Could turn into a decent article, but this ain't it. As is, I'd support deletion. -- John Owens 22:16 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Trollkore - zero Google hits, their IRC channel had a single person in it... Evercat 20:48 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • United Pentecostal Church - this page came up when I clicked on "Random page". There's nothing there but two links to external websites. RickK
    • Delete the ad. --Menchi 05:15 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't understand. What ad? RickK
        • An article with nothing but external links is considered equivalent to an advertisment for those websites. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I'm quite happy for it to be deleted. -- Tim Starling 02:30 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Ha Wing Ho, and Ho Fuk Yan - not too sure that these gentlemen should have an entry in the 'pedia. olivier 13:46 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Not sure about Ho Fuk Yan, but Ha Wing Ho at least should go in my opinion. -- Schnee 20:25 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Entries amount from Hong Kong Yahoo:
      • 30 entries for Professor 何福仁 (Ho Fuk-yan), some aren't even about this "renowned author in Chinese literature".
      • Principal 夏永豪 (Timothy Ha Wing-ho) has 20 entries. --Menchi 03:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • List of highest-grossing films - I don't see the value of having this on the wikipedia, considering that this will always just be an outdated list of a list provided easily by IMDB. The actual list will always be out of date, and it doesn't provide the information that the imdb link does. It just seems unnecessary. A similar argument for Top-grossing movies in the United States.-- DropDeadGorgias 16:25 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • So? IMDB isn't free, and the articles are more or less encyclopedic. I say keep 'em. -- Wapcaplet 21:20 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. IMDB is free. Yes, it has a sister site that requires payment, but the information linked to from these pages is, indeed, free. RickK
    • We've been through this before, see Wikipedia:Village pump/June 2003 archive. Believe it or not, there is very little support for scrapping our movie section because "IMDB is better". Nor are we going to scrap our mathematics section in favour of Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics, and we're not going to drop all our history articles because Encyclopaedia Britannica is better. If IMDB is public domain then import it. -- Tim Starling 02:35 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • 100% agree with Tim here - given that Wikipedia is not a web directory, the fact that something can already be ound elsewhere is no reason to not put it on Wikipedia. Andre Engels 10:05 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Just looking at their website again. I think RickK means it's "free" as in you can look at it if you agree to their license conditions and glance at their ads. Just don't go "screen scraping", and no bots allowed! It most certainly is not GFDL compatible. The "sister site" RickK is referring to is probably http://imdbpro.com, a subscription-only enhanced service run by the same people. -- Tim Starling 02:44 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I meant free (speech). I think RickK meant free (beer). I probably shoulda said "open content" to avoid ambiguity :) -- Wapcaplet 13:14 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Even if IMDB is free (in either sense), do we still have license to copy its information word for word into our encyclopedia? Is it really worth the effort of shifting every number down every time a blockbuster comes out? -DropDeadGorgias 18:30 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • If IMDB was public domain, yes we could copy it word for word. We've done the same thing with a number of PD sources. But it's not so we can't. As for renumbering, why on earth do you need to do that? We have automatic numbered lists, I've converted the article to use them. -- Tim Starling 00:31 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I certainly never meant to say that IMDB was something we could copy into Wikipedia. I certainly don't think we should be doing that. I meant that it wasn't a pay-for-view website. I don't understand what Tim Starling means about having to agree to their licensing demands, you can look at the site all you want. I wasn't making any value judgement here, sorry I ruffled feathers, I just meant that you don't have to pay to use their site. But I also don't think Wikipedia should have its movies section dropped, it's certainly a valuable (IMO) part of the Encyclopedia. RickK 03:51 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know what you mean, it's just that when Wikipedians say "free" we generally mean something different. Free as in "free encyclopedia". And I know you weren't suggesting dropping all movies -- I was referring to the previous discussion where someone suggested exactly that. As for licensing, if you look down the bottom of the main page, you'll see something that says "Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you." Following the "terms" link takes you to a page which says "Welcome to IMDb. IMDb provides its services to you subject to the following conditions. If you visit IMDb, you accept these conditions." Now IMHO this is legally rather dubious, but assuming they can get away with it, it means by using their site you have entered a restrictive license agreement. (See my user page for an IANAL statement) -- Tim Starling 05:13 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiMoney - Delete! Dumb, Dead, Distracting, Discuss! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:08 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Take a look at the history of the page. It's obviously not dead. This is admittedly a silly way to give people incentives for fixing up various parts of Wikipedia, but it works, and people use it. I don't see why it should go. -- goatasaur
      • You take a look at it! Most if not all late edits are just people like me wanking off! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:30 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Leave it here; I don't see any reason why it should go away. -- Schnee 20:25 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Yeah, leave it alone. Yes it's silly, but it falls in the same category as the other silly distractions we've had votes for deletion on. It's harmless. -- Wapcaplet 21:20 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't use it, but some people find it fun (at least for a month). If it makes WP a bit more entertaining, I think we can accept the cost of making us looking a bit dumb too. :-) --Menchi 02:40 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Is there an Anti-WikiMoney club? I want to get together with Cimon and PP and other likeminded individuals and discuss how we can sabotage their economy. I have some ideas about flooding their markets with counterfeit currency. :) -- Tim Starling 05:19 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • It's silly, but let's keep it. -- The Anome 09:01 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • How very hypocritrical of youaal. none of youse wanna solidly support tha page! Michael Godwin onya! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 10:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Sean Stanek, MonkeyBalls - I suspect these fall into the "pre-famous" category. There's also a link to Iowa State University. - Hephaestos 21:00 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Ballard Power Systems - looks like an advert. Viajero 22:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • How about now? I recently edited it (today). Also, what would prevent people from editing it to include criticisms? It wouldn't be the first company listed in wikipedia. Silver Maple
  • image:Rvalcore.gif plus it's talk page. Appears to be self promotion for some sort of club. Does it deserve an encylopedia entry? Theresa knott 08:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Non-encyclopedic, in my opinion. The Anome 08:55 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. I'd be for deletion. -- Schnee 12:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Ox goad, a very obscure reference even in Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897), difficult to see the point at all in 2003 jimfbleak 13:06 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • IMO, that's not a reason to delete it - obscure entries are fine, as long as they meet Wikipedia's other guidelines. -- Schnee 16:57 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe merge and redirect to Ox. After all, people still train oxen with goads, though not ordinarily of the size and severity of the one described in the article. Kat 19:06 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it, though maybe in the aforementioned merged form. -- John Owens 22:16 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • William, complete contents: "A First Name" Bill 15:41 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Though I agree that this article is a stub, I think it shouldn't be deleted, just better furnished. I believe that "William" does mean something like courageous, and this is based upon meaningful roots, as seen in this external link here. There is definitely encyclopedic value to name meanings, as well as a sort of disambiguation among famous, common names (as seen in the wikipedia article for Mary). - DropDeadGorgias 18:30 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it, we've been over this before with some Scandinavian name that meant "sword" a while back. -- John Owens 22:16 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Lamer, a speculative attempt at a jargon definition, not encyclopedic, does not further the goals of the project Kat 16:32 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Van der Waals - possible copyright violation. -- Minesweeper 00:00 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • "HyperPhysics (©C.R. Nave, 2003) is a continually developing base of instructional material in physics. It is not freeware or shareware. It must not be copied or mirrored without authorization." - delete. --Eloquence 00:12 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Serbian empire - I have accidentaly created it with small 'e', delete it as I've later made Serbian Empire and removed all links to the former. Nikola 03:59 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • WP retains all typos, especially minor ones due to capitalization, in case somebody else used it wrong, and another came along think the article is non-existent and made an extra copy, repeating info and doubling efforts, hence wasting WikiTime. --Menchi 04:13 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, not all typos, but certainly one as obvious as this is worth keeping. -- John Owens 04:52 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Christer Pettersson, may be salvageable, but unclear whether the two items are the same person, and only OLaf Palme actually means anything to me. jimfbleak 07:15 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • It's legit. I vouch for it. Could be spruced up though, that much is true. Keep it. Sorry, forgot to sign -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 19:40 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Also 1299 BC created by the same user which has evolved into a redirect but has no "what links here". -- SGBailey
    • No, this is part of the standard early-year redirects now, should definitely stay. Notice how that creation was back in February? -- John Owens 08:25 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Well its neighbours don't have redirects yet. -- SGB
        • Are you looking for WikiWork? ;) -- John Owens 11:24 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)





Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1081309"