Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page

Guidelines for admins -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- copyright violations -- foreign language -- personal subpages -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- deletion guidelines -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign

Images awaiting deletion

Software issues mean images can't be deleted at present. Those listed for more than 7 days should be put here.

Image:Doom3title.jpg, Image:Internal reflection in semiC glass block.png, Image:BillGates.bmp, Image:K_Patterson.jpg, Image:George w. bush.jpg, Image:Lightning-Protector-US1266175.png, Image:Manuscript.doc, Image:Adrenalina.jpg, Image:Celje-rscd.gif, Image:Dicass.gif (warning x-rated image), Image:M S A copy.jpg, Image:Rh10X.jpg, Image:Pict0003.JPG Image:Sammikeace.jpg, Image:Websegle.jpg, Image:Melencholia I.png

Older than 7 days

Non-specific September 11th articles --> User talk:Wshun
Judeofascism --> Talk:List of pejorative political slogans
Christian views of women--> Talk:Christian views of women#VfD
Project for a New American Century on Iraq --> deletion holding pending improvements promised on Talk:Project for a New American Century on Iraq

October 5

Jumpin' Jack Flash, Street Fighting Man. Do these really need their own pages? Can't the personnel involved be listed with the LPs? I don't think either of these articles involve enough information to constitute unique pages. Kingturtle 08:43, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Street Fighting Man has some interesting story and some covers behind it. Don't know about Jumpin' Jack Flash. BL 13:30, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Both are major songs. There's a lot to write about them. Quinoaeater 06:02, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender_(1945). The original text copied and pasted in. Secretlondon 11:34, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:58, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Save. This is historically significant.
- Delete and replace with stub pointing to external site. Morwen 18:12, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep Raul654 04:56, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete unless replaced with a stub. Wikipedia is not a repository of source texts. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep now it's no longer a stub or only source text. I've expanded this beyond stub status and resurrected the short full text for the benefit of readers of CD and print editions, who can't so easily follow links even if we come up with a way to provide them. Wikipedia isn't a mass source repository but that's a general principle, not a reason to exclude a modest number of particularly notable, unchanging source documents in articles about them. JamesDay 21:02, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 6

Danny Bamford - a badly written advert for this chap. -- SGBailey 2003-10-06
- Delete, soon. Fuzheado 09:47, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Mattworld 21:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete.-戴&#30505sv
- Delete. Clear case. Andre Engels
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- And not even funny. Delete - Marshman 22:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Save. He'll achieve fame soon enough.
  - Come back then and promote yourself. Or better yet, someone will do it for you (once you are famous) - Marshman 18:09, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers and Premiers - badly titled article (it turned out to be the prime ministers and premiers of Newfoundland); moved to List of Newfoundland Prime Ministers; original useless as a redirect. - Montréalais 16:59, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete.戴&#30505sv
- Agreed, it's of no use. James Anatidae 03:44, 7 Oct 2003 (EST)
- Agreed.
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Fine as a redirect to Prime minister. Keep. Martin 12:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep as the redirect it now is. JamesDay 21:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Rothschild Houses in Buckinghamshire and its associated talk page - something I created, I have now seen the error of my ways. Graham :) 01:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Article is so choppy, I cannot tell what is right (or wrong) about it? Please explain reason other than "it was an error" - Marshman 22:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Error? This is a splendid page. We need a lot more stuff on local history. Definitely keep. (Probably needs moving to a different title, though.) -- Oliver P. 05:40, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, improve, and be proud of. Kosebamse 08:13, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Keep, assuming that they really were notable. Land management policies of large landowners have historic significance, though this article does seem to need to say more about that. JamesDay 21:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of nicknames for George W. Bush, I've let this one sit for a time to let everyone chill. We deleted the nickname page for Hillary Clinton for very good reasons and I propose that those same reasons apply and consistency demands that we delete this one also.Ark30inf 01:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. InanimateCarbonRod 01:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- If you actually look at the record for deleting List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the log erroneously claimed that all the votes were in favor of deletion. If the votes had been counted correctly and mine added, it might not have been deleted in the first place. I was going to respond on the deletion page, but for some reason the article was prematurely removed from the VfD page (and the article prematurely deleted) before I got around to doing it. I'm not only opposed to deleting the George W. Bush page, but I was opposed to deleting the Hillary page as well, assuming there were actually a fair number of real nicknames on that page that they wouldn't have let fit on the main Hillary Rodham Clinton page. Wiwaxia 02:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure if you can get the Hillary page back, but it remains that deleting one, and leaving the other, is problematic.Ark30inf 02:20, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - The Hillary page can be undeleted via WP:VFU, and it probably should be if indeed it was deleted in error or otherwise irregularly. I don't have a problem with either page; the Bush one has useful information (albeit apparent redundancy). They will have to be watched for abuse (only real nicknames please!), but so do other pages. -- VV 04:22, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Dubya is already discussed on [George W. Bush]]. Other nicknames can be discussed in a formal, thoughtful manner, not just a smattering of listed items. Kingturtle 02:30, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This article damages Wikipedia's reputation among those who admire Bush. Flamebait-a-licious. Delete. -- Cyan 03:53, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Above comment is not a convincing reason to delete an article. I say both stay or both go, and since Hillary was deleted prematurely, bring it back and keep Bush. Fuzheado
- Delete both.戴&#30505sv
- Delete both and any others. Nobody has a list of well-known nicknames so long that it needs its own page. --Morven 06:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete both. Lists of ~~random insults~~ nicknames don't need to be documented in an encyclopedia. -- Onebyone 09:59, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. As argued above, including each word ever used to describe something is not a good thing to do. We should only have the terms that are commonly used to call him by. As far as I can see, but that's from across the Atlantic, only W and Dubya seem worth salvaging. Andre Engels 13:43, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete this and all of its kinfolk. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. No place as a separate page in Bush or Clinton examples, and probably nothing but troll bait anyewhere else. - Marshman 18:54, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Minesweeper 01:22, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. And I also think that the Hillary list should be undeleted if it was deleted prematurely and that IF compelling evidence is put forward that there is a large number of nicknames in common use about her, then that list should remain too. BL 05:00, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete and if the HRC is back delete as well (Same Standard for all nicknames of politicans).Smith03 22:06, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This was not deleted prematurely. It was on VfD for at least 7 days and Wiwaxia did not vote on it, so I can't see how s/he is now claiming that his/her vote was not counted when one was not made. Angela 19:24, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Just too tempting a target for namecalling. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep -- How is it democratic to keep requring the "keeps" to keep coming back here, seeing this, and readding their vote? Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I voted to keep last time, and I still feel that way. The Hilary Clinton thing is a red herring, IMO. Martin 12:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Abstain. Perhaps move a few highlights to Presidential trivia, along with small amounts of nickname text for well known wives of Presidents. If that page grows large enough it can be split with clear cause. JamesDay 21:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Laite -- Supposed to be Xena stuff, but it's fake. All Google hits (and 9 only) are unrelated. --Menchi 03:50, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- delete.戴&#30505sv
- More possible pseudo-Xena stuff: Anon 12.228's contri-list. --Menchi 06:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Checking those, I think the following should go: Caerenia (no google hits), Aresinia (google hits not related). On the other hand, the following seem to be valid Xena references: Varia. I also reverted this person's edit on Ares - although it might be a correct Xena reference, putting it amid the Greek mythology draws an incorrect picture. Finally, I added Xena as context to Discord for the same reason - telling it's part of Xena, not of Greek/Roman mythology. Finally, the pieces about Egyptian, Syrian and Pontus princesses and queens seems legit, but taken directly from some genealogy website. Correct, but of dubious worthwhileness. Andre Engels 13:43, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not a Xena expert, but I'd keep the ones that are easily verifiable and get more than a handful of hits. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Laite, Caerenia, and Aresinia are all definitely bogus - couldn't even find plausible misspellings or fanfic refs online - others are OK with the changes mentioned above. I now know enough Xena trivia to last a lifetime. :-) Stan 16:24, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- If these are just characters from Xena, then they should all be made into redirects and the text from each moved to the page about the show. It is silly to develop an encyclopedia of multiple pages on characters in a TV program as none could ever rise to the level of a real article about anything (but all together, could be justified in an article about the show) - Marshman 18:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Leanne Archer--Vanity page? -戴&#30505sv
- Probably. If she really were an archeologist worthy of an article, I'd expect to hear of her writings, discoveries, theories etcetera, not that she got a PhD. Or at least not _just_ that she has her PhD. Andre Engels
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Having put her "resume" on Wikipedia, she is now famous. Delete - Marshman 18:41, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Couldn't find anything useful on her with Google. The information is therefore probably not verifiable, at least not easily. (By the way, the article only says that she began her PhD, not that she got it.) -- Oliver P. 05:40, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Luis von Ahn - (vanity page)
- This doesn't really fit the pattern of a vanity page addition; usually the same person adds a link to the vanity page; this hasn't happened here. Maybe a reword should be in order --Dysprosia
- Delete. -戴&#30505sv
- Del. --Menchi 07:25, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Andre Engels
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Louis and Nicholas must be roomies. Delete bioth - Marshman 18:41, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Del. If we delete this (and Nicholas), we should de-wikify their names at Captcha, so that these stubs don't reappear. -- Minesweeper 01:22, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Both get hundreds of Google matches. Both have published papers. And if they are both mentioned at Captcha, then they are clearly of interest on the Wikipedia, too. So why shouldn't we have information on who they are? And, as well as campaigning against the term "unencyclopaedic", I'm going to start a campaign against the term "vanity page". As well as being blatantly offensive, it's irrelevant to the subject of deletion. Reagardless of whether or not the subject is suffering from a surfeit of vanity, information should be treated purely on its own merits. Is the information not verifiable? It appears to be, to me. That's the most (only?) important issue. -- Oliver P. 05:40, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Convinced by the weight of arguments by Ms. Dysprosia and Mr. Pereira. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 13:12, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Save. Evaluation doesn't have to be crabbed. Given that there is no objective measure, no method for identifying the approporiate threshold, then we ought to be a bit more generous.
- Keep. The news reports on the individual suggest merit to this article. JamesDay 21:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nicholas J. Hopper - (vanity page)
- Delete. 戴&#30505sv
- Same pattern not followed above; again, maybe a reword needed Dysprosia
- Del. --Menchi 07:25, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Andre Engels
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Del. See note above. -- Minesweeper 01:22, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Again, hundreds of Google matches, and again mentioned in the Captcha article, so therefore must be of interest. See notes for Luis von Ahn above. The most (only?) important issue is whether or not the information is verifiable. -- Oliver P. 05:40, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Like previous entry. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 13:12, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Save.
- Keep. The news reports on the individual suggest merit to this article. JamesDay 21:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Meta-complex number (and Meta-complex Number redirect) - No hits on Google, hopefully someone can explain exactly what this is.. I mean.. umm.. I dunno. Maybe I'm just too tired to read it correctly. Evil saltine 13:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Probably best to call it original research, which is not what WP is about. I think the contributor is well-meaning so we shouldn't be too harsh on him but the content should be deleted. (P.S. It says: a meta-complex number is a pair such that each element of the pair is either a real number or another meta-complex number. It is possible to define a commutative multiplication operation on meta-complex numbers as follows... (I haven't checked whether that operation really is commutative)). Pete 13:34, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Oh, okay, I thought it was talking about a pair of complex numbers. Evil saltine 13:37, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Seems a bit hard to read any of it, and agree it should go, but is it at all related to surreal numbers? Κσυπ Cyp 13:39, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC) (Posted via edit conflict.)
- Huh? If it can be folded into something else (somehow) that;s OK, but this article should go. And they did ask for help at the bottom of the article "I hope this is good. If is no good, tel me"-- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:09, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)Брайен ]] 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Seems this person is defining a set M, such that:
  - $R\subset M$
  - If $a,b\in m$ then $[a,b]\in M$
  - Which are then added and multiplied through:
  - $[a_{1},b_{1}]+[a_{2},b_{2}]=[a_{1}+b_{1},a_{2}+b_{2}]$
  - $[a_{1},b_{1}]\cdot [a_{2},b_{2}]=[a_{1}a_{2}-b_{1}b_{2},a_{1}b_{2}+a_{2}b_{1}]$
  - A real number $n$ behaves as if it were $[n,0]$ when multiplied with a non-real supercomplex number. Probably $x$ and $[x,0]$ should simply be identified, that might lead to nicer mathematical properties, but the induction is harder to define.
  - And yes, this multiplication is commutative, as can be easily shown through induction.
  - Still, this looks like original research rather than established mathematical definition (and is written quite badly too). Delete. Andre Engels 14:06, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I made that page. I think that it shud not be deleted. The notes abuve is corect about wat it is about, maybe sumbudy shud just fix it and type it beter. If you want to delete it becuse the original research dusent go here, then tel me wy, and tel me were it dus go insted. - 24.207.69.51 23:57, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is not a place for original research, in mathematics or any other field. It should go to any peer reviewed mathematics journal. Once it has been published in an appropriate place, it will become a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.Vicki Rosenzweig 01:15, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This is not original work. It describes the Cayley-Dickson construction. Other than the source code, it's a duplicate of (some of) that information. See also for example http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/mathematics/numc.html. Onebyone 10:01, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - It's clearly not supposed to be the Cayley-Dickson construction, since it claims that multiplication is commutative, which is not the case for Cayley-Dickson (beyond dimension 2). In any case, it's very poorly written and "meta-complex number" seems to be a made-up term, so it should be deleted. --Zundark 10:28, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Good point. What is described by the code there is Cayley-Dickson (and hence not commutative) - a mistake by the author I guess. The actual structure discussed is the union to infinity of successive constructions, which is not an object I personally have seen discussed elsewhere. So maybe that's new, maybe not. Onebyone 10:05, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mark Welch - looks like a vanity page -- Viajero 16:32, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, and writing is not his forte. Looks more like a check list. Delete - Marshman 18:29, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. At18 19:53, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. But this is going to need a radical amount of work. This isn't an article; it's like a poorly-done resume. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:13, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete if unchanged at the end of the VfD cycle. -- Cyan 04:37, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- There is NO reason to keep this kind of thing. Kosebamse 09:33, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. If it is changed, it doesn't belong here. RickK 19:38, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 7

Beginnings of the 2003 California recall. This article just has duplicated, cutted-and-pasted text from the main article (2003 California recall), and furthermore from an old, more POV version. -- VV 23:09, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Fuzheado 23:21, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. This page can possibly be re-instated when 2003 California recall becomes more final and then only if it grows too unwieldy. Unnecessary for now. -- Minesweeper 01:17, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete --Jiang
- Delete. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 8

XQ Mesa - This is a Justin Weaver article. Presumably he just forgot about it when he requested deletion of his other vanity pages. -- Cyan 04:43, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of people who have had homosexual experiences
- I think this should be deleted, since it's not defined what exactly a homosexual experience is. However if someone could move this page to a more well-defined name that would be fine too. Evil saltine 04:50, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:11, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete.Ark30inf 04:53, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- So you want the title to be "People who have had orally or anally insertive homosexual sex experiences"? I think the title is pretty clear, it's not a matter of determining what "is" is. This is a list of people who may not necessarily define themselves as gay but who have stated that they have had same-sex sexual experiences. Keep, with or without a name change. -- Outerlimits 05:23, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. While similar lists may have been of some marginal benefit in making clear what is a useful article, they have ignited much useless debate and provided zero useful content. Kosebamse 05:30, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Trollbait: verification can be difficult and contentious. -- Cyan 05:34, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. This is journalism, not encyclopedia material. Same goes for List of people who have bungie jumped and List of people with unresolved issues with their father if they ever appear. -- Onebyone 10:09, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. This list can never become complete or accurate. It's hopeless, so delete. Paige 16:57, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. What's the point? -- Viajero 17:52, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- DeleteSmith03 22:03, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just nonsense.Vancouverguy 01:54, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, only if the persons in the list actually described having one homosexual experience on press or television. Antonio The Puerto Rican Cigar Martin
- Delete. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. ThereIsNoSteve 01:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as rumours are kept out and only verifiable cases are included, I see nothing wrong with having this list. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of people who have denied being gay created by the same user as the previous. InanimateCarbonRod 04:51, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete.Ark30inf 04:53, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Delete it because I created it? That's good solid reasoning. -- Outerlimits 04:55, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - That was not my reasoning as I am unfamiliar with you and didn't know who created it. Actually, I'm not sure what such lists accomplish, similar lists have become nothing but troll bait in the past.Ark30inf 05:09, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      - Wikipedia is supposed to be able to keep trolls at bay. It shouldn't censor content "because trolls like it", and its a shame that in so censoring Wikipedia aligns itself with the trolls. -- Outerlimits 05:23, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Evil saltine 04:59, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Moved to publically denied to emphasize the content. Keep. BL 05:02, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Outerlimits 05:23, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete - see above. Kosebamse 05:30, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep under new title. More pop culture stuff, but what the hey... -- Cyan 05:34, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's at least see where it goes, right? Paige 16:57, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete Smith03 22:03, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Viajero 17:52, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Vancouverguy 01:54, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete -- Fuzheado 08:32, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- All these "list of people who x" articles are stupid and pointless (I would have thought they are invasions of privacy as well). Adam 12:25, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. ThereIsNoSteve 01:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- It's been moved to List of people who have publically denied being gay, so the privacy concern has been dealt with. As long as rumours are kept out and only verifiable cases are included, I see nothing wrong with having this list. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Coptology - WINAD -- Cyan 05:37, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Somewhere I thought I saw this described as a "made up word" ? If that has changed just make this page a Redirect to Coptic; otherwise delete if not really a valid discipline. - Marshman 17:51, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion
- The votes for deletion system seems to me to be cumbersome, opaque and utterly "un-Wiki". I think it should be discontinued, and replaced by the far simpler, easier and more transparent Wiki system that has been suggested on meta:Talk:Deletion management redesign. Please also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. GrahamN 12:11, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I've read and commented on your proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion policy and essentially agree with it. Of course under the better new world you're proposing, we wouldn't delete this page, we'd just blank it, or if we thought a lot of people might be interested in, and watching, this page, we'd just comment on the talk page that we intend to blank this page and blank it a little later if there is reasonable wiki-consensus to do so. In all seriousness, why does deletion have to be different from any other wiki-decision (thoughts to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion policy) Pete 13:32, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - We had this already: [1]
- I vote to keep. But why were several votes favoring deletion removed here? -- Infrogmation 21:17, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. The proposed "Cleanup" policy is unintelligible and impossible to implement. RickK 19:47, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ecclesall Road - First ZIP-codes, now this. I LOVE saying: "I told you so!" -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 23:59, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. Small articles like this one are created all over Wikipedia all of the time. Simply requires editing to bring it into the larger article where it makes more sense as it is not likely tat a whole lot will be written about this road. This was not an unusual situation in my experience. There are, for example, individual articles on each US interstate that probably should stay as separate articles. Your gloating is misplaced ;^) This is not a print media. - 24.94.82.245 05:57, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. The entries on US towns already occupy a substantial fraction of Wikipedia's articles - what will it be like if every street has one. If course if the street has a claim to fame it should stay. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - To be clear, I agree. Delete after moving text into town article. - Marshman 17:59, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - Ecclesall Road is really a suburb as much as a road, suggest redirecting to Ecclesall and creating article on that around stub Warofdreams 18:23, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This is not print media, but that doesn't mean that a billion articles is fine. And that's literally what we're headed toward. Out-of-control article proliferation is still a bad thing, for a number of reasons... (1) Searching is less accurate (2) Physical size of the database (3) Huge impediment if anyone ever actually wants to use Wikipedia as a base for a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, and many more. I'll try to write them up when I get a chance. Axlrosen 19:10, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This road has lots of things in it, therefore there is lots to say about it. It gets about 5,950 Google matches. Therefore keep. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 9

Spectator Club - non-famous high school club. Evil saltine 01:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Also Lynbrook High School, the high school where the club exists. Adam Bishop 01:51, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Keep high school. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:37, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Delete both. I was trying to come here to list these last night when the database was locked. RickK 02:44, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure I see a problem with a crisp article about a particular High School, as this seems to be -- is there a particular policy about what levels of institution make acceptable entries (there are some High Schools that are more notable than some Colleges, for example)? The club article should be deleted, since there is a link to the HS website in the main article, where such transient details could go. Jgm 13:03, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - axe it, axe it good. Poor Yorick 02:48, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to deletion, but a high school has a higher population than many other places with Wikipedia articles: list of places with fewer than ten people. Martin 11:46, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I vote to keep both, merge info on club into article and keep as redirect. Inclusionism is getting to me. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 14:48, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
- While it seems inconceivable that every school (highschool, secondary, etc.) should be in here, I really cannot think of any reason why not. Keep - Marshman 05:01, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC) Actually, I meant merge article into highschool and keep highschool article. - Marshman 06:01, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Yet another thing we need to decide on: Does every high school in the world belong in Wikipedia? Seems like we're going to need a formal policy on this kind of stuff. (I vote no.) Axlrosen 19:00, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I would vote no as well...otherwise I'm going to have to write an article about my high school, it's famous because the former bass player for Kittie went there! Adam Bishop 21:21, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I can suggest as a general rule: no schools below colleges. Place a link on the appropriate town article to the school's website instead. - Marshman 03:10, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - General rule, with exceptions, like, perhaps, Columbine High School. RickK 19:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Delete the high school as well. There's nothing about it that makes it especially well known; maybe a better idea would be to put high schools on the respective town's page. Evil saltine 06:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete both. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:15, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- "Yet another thing we need to decide on", says Axlrosen. Not at all! There is no point in having lots of separate arbitrary rules for different types of articles. We only need one all-encompassing general rule: keep anything that can be verified; remove anything that's can't. I can't imagine that any school in the US could be founded without somebody somewhere writing about it. Therefore there is bound to be verifiable information about all of them. Therefore we can keep all of them. QED. :) This school gets about 3,650 Google matches, by the way. That's quite a lot. (The club, on the other hand, only gets 8 matches, and its own website provides only about a sentence of usable information, so I can't imagine how to get an article from that.) -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I would like to propose merging this article and the high school into San Jose, California. er.. yeah.
  - The problem with that sugestion is that Santa Clara County, California has 37 high schools, with the majority either in or near San Jose. For larger cities like Los Angeles or New York, the merging of info from high school articles would be unmanagable. In this case, I say delete the club and the school articles, yet keep the option of letting truely famous schools in open. (I hope that my two aunts who graduated from Lynbrook don't get offended) Gentgeen 08:35, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - I agree with your first two sentences, but counter your third suggestion with that old favourite, m:Wiki is not paper. -- Oliver P. 10:39, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Tristan Jones - vanity page Morwen 10:51, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- In case the author registers with a user account it should be moved there. I already contacted him by email. andy 10:57, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:15, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

James J Brown - looks like self-promotion of insignificant artist. --Wik 21:09, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete - I get more Google hits that he does. Axlrosen 18:57, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:15, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:Cyan/Internet child pornography - this article was deleted prematurely, so I undeleted it and moved it to my user space. I have a feeling this one may become contentious, so let's do the commenting at User talk:Cyan/Internet child pornography -- Cyan 22:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Since the article no longer exists in either the normal wikipedia article or your talk page, we might as well delete this entry in the VofD page. User:Raul654 23:31, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Um, it is still available at the above link, as far as I can tell. I prefer this listing to remain here, so that people realize that a deletion debate is going on. -- Cyan 03:58, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Please note that the discussions and vote are currently taking place at User talk:Cyan/Internet child pornography rather than here. -- Oliver P. 08:32, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 10

Sadie Law - non-existent person; was having one of those moments when I typed the name in (should have been Sadie Frost, Jude Law's estranged wife.) Zannah 04:18, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- So why not just make it a redirect? Reason please? - Marshman 04:59, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. "Sadie Law" scores 77 on Google. "Sadie Law"+"Sadie Frost" scores 3, "Sadie Law"+"Jude Law" 12. Sadie Law isn't her name and never has been. An encyclopedia doesn't need an article/redirect for every possible mistake a user might make. -- Onebyone 09:38, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Sorry. It is a simple matter to make it a Redirect and not take up space or time at VfD for this kind of mistake (which is one anyone could make - not a typo) - Marshman 17:44, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - But a redirect is still cruft. At some point someone might think that Sadie Frost is sometimes known as Sadie Law. If it's really a mistake on the part of the author, it seems like deleting it is better than leaving this redirect around until the end of time.
      - If the mistake was made once, it's a real mistake that will likely be made again, and redirs record the fix in the "community memory". If you're concerned and want to leave a breadcrumb, add a note to Talk:Sadie Law and Talk:Sadie Frost. Stan 23:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Redirect is fine. Keep. RickK 07:03, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image:Floppy disk 5.25 inch.jpg - mistake by me (real image is Image:Floppy disk 5.25 inch.JPG). Evil saltine 04:20, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Janet Lynn McCurdy. Non-famous. Angela 06:43, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Evil saltine 11:09, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Axlrosen 18:51, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Deeeleeete! Definitely not someone I'd wanna meeet! Antonio Hollywood Martin
- Delete. Orphan article, too. --Morven 20:38, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

University Pro-Independence Federation, in Spanish, unwikified and point of view. Maybe it needs to be translated, but (my point of view here) is that this organization doesnt merit a wikipedia article. Antonio El Sensacional Martin

Wikipedia:Cleanup
- This new system, which seems plausible on the surface, but actually makes no sense at all, was suddenly sprung on us fully formed and "operating". The people who sprang it on us, and their friends, are the only ones who claim fully to understand it. GrahamN 16:06, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I haven't personally claimed I understand it fully; nor could I, since it is still far from finished or fully formed. It is nothing but a strapling, waiting to grow and form itself. We can all mould it (or "mold" it, if you like). -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
DELETE! How is this different from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention *or* Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements? Cleanup is redundant, And why was Wikipedia:Pages needing attention removed from the utilities list on recent changes? Kingturtle 17:44, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- - WP:PNA was taken off RC because a request was made that Cleanup be on there, and I thought it was better to replace PNA than to replace VFD. That said, PNA had a long enough name, that there is still room for another Utility with a short name. I had already typed in Wikipedia:WikiLove, but then I remembered that it is not a utility. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:37, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. An attempt to impose unneeded layers of bureaucracy on us. RickK 19:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Liable to suffer the same probems as TTBMTW. Angela 23:47, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
  - Not voting either way, but as I see it, the page should not be deleted for the sins of TTBMTW. Don't really see what the problem exactly is with that page anyway, since I haven't really used it. IMO the page should be deleted if there is a better way of breathing life in to the utilities which Angela and Kingturtle list. I think cleanup could even reduce the number of pages ending up on Pages needing attention, if we are lucky and it catches on. As for bureaocracy (sp?); the page is intended to be a wholly non-bureaucratic training-ground for newcomers, who may have difficulty navigating the bureaoucratic system we already have, or at least ease their way up the learning curve to our community editing procedures and exception handling methods. Anyway, its fate is very much up to wikipedianship at large, vote as you like, but vote! -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 14:16, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

October 11

Hermann Wolff - Seems to be some useless biography of an Unimportant Person™ . --snoyes 00:00, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- He certainly seems to be a real person - google search produces over 400 hits, mostly on pages regarding opera, music, etc. Remove the POV, perhaps, but otherwise the information seems perfectly acceptable. 80.255 02:12, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, though move to Werner Wolff because it seems to be mostly about him. Evil saltine 12:08, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep Werner Wolff. Lots of information to be found via a Google search, and he even wrote a book! So lots of verifiable information out there. (And can we set a new policy that votes placed on here without an accompanying reason can be ignored?) -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I think I'm becoming sloppy in my old age. In fact I can't find more than a dozen or so pages that mention Werner Wolff. (See here and here.) And I can't find even a single webpage that confirms that he was the son of Hermann. But maybe he was well-known locally in Chattanooga. Maybe there are books on local history there that can tell us... Oh, if only people would cite their sources... -- Oliver P. 10:39, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Why is Hermann Wolff now a redirect to Werner Wolff, when the Werner Wolff article explictely states that Herman is his father? If, for example, someone were to look for marie curie, why should they end up at Irene Curie's page? --Raul654 09:25, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Because the text was originally at Hermann Wolff, and has been (rightfully) moved to Werner Wolff. The situation is not the same as your Marie Curie example - we have information on Marie Curie other than that she was the mother of Irene Curie and the wife of Pierre Curie. Nevertheless, delete the Hermann Wolff redirect page (I'm making no statement either way on whether to delete Werner Wolff at this point in time). Andre Engels

R P Sandbox - I don't know where this should be, but surely not in the article namespace. Angela 00:23, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Evil saltine 12:08, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- User:Mike Dill/Sandbox seems to be the correct place, but since Mike Dill has not been on Wikipedia since August 2001 (when there were no namespaces yet), deletion seems to be the way to go. Andre Engels

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee - was a redirect to User:Mediator/candidates, which is inappropriate, since redirecting from the Wikipedia: namespace may appear to give it unwarranted authority. --Camembert 02:05, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- delete. Martin 15:07, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. No longer points to the controversial User:Mediator/candidates. There is a useful notice on it and some discussion on the talk page. — Alex756 19:35, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki - fails Alexa test. See this link. -- Cyan 06:27, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. RickK 06:54, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Who is Alexa, and who made her dictator? I don't see why this is any less real or less worthy than any of the other sites on the List of web comics. If we can have a List of Pokémon, we can have an article on this webcomic as well. Keep. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:22, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- All those sites at List of web comics deserves a line or two of description even if they are not so important. But putting all those stubs on the list-page itself would make it really large. BL 05:35, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think the Alexa test is the correct way to go with this kind of thing. Google test seems better. Google gets to ~800, not sure whether to judge that as a 'keep' or 'delete' though. Andre Engels 13:32, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Parts list for the '61 Studebaker Lark. No content. No point. Angela 10:55, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete, would just be a verbatim copy from a manual or another source. Evil saltine 11:36, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete if no content added after the 7 days. It may be a pseudo-stub to advertise the external link. Dysprosia 11:40, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Surely it is a joke, see October 5, List of international direct dialing codes - Ark30inf's comment above.
  - I'll have to learn to keep my mouth shut.Ark30inf 20:58, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete as per Dysprosia's comment. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Yep, what Dysprosia said. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia.com
- now fixed. Martin 15:40, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bedrich Hrozny --> VfD foreign

Eager Beaver - describes a bar in the movie Striptease. This article should never have existed. -- Cyan 21:36, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Redirect to Striptease (movie). Evil saltine 23:43, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Would have done, if I thought it was appropriate. But such a redirect would hardly exhaust the usage of the phrase "Eager Beaver". -- Cyan 01:30, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Delete then. Evil saltine 06:06, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Astral. Only content is Being or relating to light as it appear on clear sky with stars. Angela 22:26, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)~
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Evil saltine 23:43, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Mere dictionary definition, and not even correct as such. Delete. Andre Engels

Image:Earth-arch.jpg. No such image. Angela 23:34, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

October 12

Dmgice. Is this site important enough to have an article? I doubt it. -- JeLuF 00:47, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Alexa ranking. -- Cyan 01:36, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete: Unimportant. --Menchi 03:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a good article, and it is not up to Wikipedia to decide what's important. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. It is up to Wikipedia to decide what is important enough to include in Wikipedia. Otherwise I'd write an article on my aunt's hair color. Axlrosen 19:59, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image:Xpmaolaugh.jpg not funny and useless --Jiang 01:02, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Not only an orphan, but one scary picture! RickK 01:54, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete: Bad graphic. --Menchi 03:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete: Useless. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image:China (58).jpg orphaned propoganda photo uploaded by User:Paektu --Jiang 01:09, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. It's an orphan. RickK 02:07, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete: Obviously copyrighted. --Menchi 03:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of schools in the United States. Please can we delete these lists before they spread? RickK 02:34, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Evil saltine 02:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I think whether this page is deleted depends on what the rule is for having articles about schools. Perhaps cleaer guidelines are needed on which ones are allowed to be articles. Or is it ok to list all of them? Angela 02:53, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
  - There are 128,484 schools in the US alone. I think it would be a waste to list every single one. Evil saltine 03:09, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. BL 02:51, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Why? It would help if you had a reason. Angela 02:53, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
  - I've been in seven different schools during my time in the education system. Each of those schools were older than 30 years, more than 10,000 persons know about each one of them. If you check your library, I'll bet that you will find a remarkable wealth of information about your local school(s), least I could. Just because it isn't on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist kinda. BL 03:42, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete: How many elementary schools pass the 5000 test (or even just 500)? Some of those that do pass the test deserve an article (such as those with famous history or have been on the news); those that do not pass the test: Maybe later. --Menchi 03:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Being on the news definitely does not make something or someone worthy of an article. A lot of schools would pass the 5000 test but I still don't think that's enough. Angela 03:19, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
- My suggestion earlier is that only schools that have some special reason for listing and perhaps all (?) colleges/universities should eventually get articles. All others can be named (listed) with their town, and an external link to the school's website provided there. Otherwise we are in the position of providing websites for these very numerous entities (see what Wikipedia is not) - Marshman 03:28, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - I agree with this. Evil saltine 03:30, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - And if students are interested in writing about their schools, let's push them to instead flesh out the article on their town, which is of far greater general interest. I mean, if you have been in one middle school in America, you have seen them all - Marshman
- Keep, obviously. There is no reason not to have articles on all these schools. Even if we only ever get articles on a small proportion of them, we need the list to keep track of what ones do have articles. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - Anyone wanting to look up a school will look up the respective town; having info about schools in the town article and redirecting the school to the town is adequate. Evil saltine 07:30, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - Having all the information about all of a town's schools in a single article is impractical. (See Gentgeen's comment above.) When the list of US schools becomes too unwieldy, it might make more sense to chop it into separate sections for separate towns, and to put the bits on the town pages, but at the moment the list isn't all that long, so I think for now we might as well have them all in a single master list. -- Oliver P. 10:39, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful category. Martin 12:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- The schools deserve articles, but this list is impractical. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - What about a List of schools in (whatever city)? Then people could include elementary schools and universities on the same list, if applicable... Adam Bishop 19:45, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Not everything that is factual belongs in an encyclopedia, even an electronic one. Axlrosen 20:02, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see the reason to delete the article. It maybe doesn't belong to wikipedia, then redirect or blanking is good enough, no reason to get rid of history. Strive to show the reason to delete the article permanentally not the reason that is not appreciate article. -- Taku
- Keep. I view a lot of these lists as unpleasant weeds, but this one has some potential I think. It might be useful to restrict it slightly to List of notable schools in the United States. That would, for instance, knock nearly all of the current Arkansas entries out except for Little Rock Central. Notable schools both past and present should continue.Ark30inf 20:19, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. And if someone is actually willilng to work on this for the next few month (years?), at least make it a bunch of much smaller lists... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Reality Hacker. Three dictionary definitions. RickK 03:24, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete Tiles 03:57, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Don't delete articles just because they're stubs. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, improvable. Axlrosen 20:14, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

London E17. A list of post codes was bad enough but individual articles for each postcode?? Angela 03:29, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
- I voted to keep the list of postal codes, but this is too much. This informatin could be included in an article about that part of London, but has no value just as a postal code, because no one would look up information that way. Use the place name. Delete - Marshman 03:32, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Del. Content is better placed on the list -- maybe then the list will finally become encyclopedic. --Menchi 03:37, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- From London postal district: "Note that London postal districts rarely coincide with the boundaries of London boroughs". So how do we find out what the boundaries are? Why, from their Wikipedia articles, of course! Eventually this information will be added, and maps, too, if we're lucky. In the meantime, this can be kept as a stub, as it provides the very interesting information that the band East 17 was named after the postal district in question. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete: Pointless to have an article on a postal code. Maybe if the article on the boyband is written, E17 can be a redirect to it, with the article on East 17 having a little bit of information on the postal code. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Not surprising that it showed up since the silly list is there to index it. Anyway, delete.Ark30inf 16:07, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- We should not have articles on post codes unless they are important for being more than a post code. Most countries have examples; Ireland has Dublin 4, which is seen as a state of mind, a place where the political, business and cultural establishment live and look down on the ordinary people from. Does E17 have a particular significance? If it does, then keep. The fact that a band was named after the post code certainly gives it some appeal as an encyclopædia article. Our job is to answer questions, and one obvious question is, why was a band named after that post code? Are they from there? Does it have some specific significance for Londoners, the music industry, London youth culture (or given Brian Harvey's antics, London's drugs supply?) etc. A stub on a post code where one is talking about more than merely a post code is perfectly logical so I say keep and expand. FearÉIREANN 16:53, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind on this. I think postcode articles might have potential. Angela 19:17, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia should not try to replace every other source of information on the planet. There has to be a better source for this information (more compelete, more accurate (no transcription errors), more up-to-date) than Wikipedia. Let's let Wikipedia do what it does best (articles about important topics, not mere data) and let other sites do what they do best. Axlrosen 20:11, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry, but this could also grow out of control...and to no real end. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

22nd century and 23rd century (both articles are linked to from Centuries). Right now, the only thing either article contains is a statement of what years they comprise. Can they in some way be salvaged? --Raul654 07:47, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Also, add to that 30th century, which contains more of the same.
- Delete: Pointless. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Nicely improved; keep. --Infrogmation 18:59, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As I was Going to St Ives - looks like nonsense. --snoyes 15:59, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- It's a good analysis of a famous riddle. It's SO famous in fact would we should definitely keep. Now things that are not famous we do not have to keep. Perhaps things like the Sergei Kopeikin article should be deleted. But not a real riddle that's been around a long time. Quinoaeater 18:36, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Nicely improved; keep. -- Infrogmation 18:59, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Whatever about the original text created, the new article is superb. I grew up hearing that nursery rhyme but never knew its origins. Thanks to wikipedia I now know. This is wiki at its best. Keep. FearÉIREANN 20:01, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image:Map.bmp - does not appear to link to anything. Vancouverguy 16:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia_Help_the_Eager_Beaver_Article_Foundation - asking for contributions to stop deletion of Eager_Beaver (a fictional strip club in a movie). -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sergei Kopeikin. Non-famous. Only around 600 Google hits. Angela 20:29, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)