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 AlexPlank (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 25 October 2003. 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

VFD subpages: copyright violations -- foreign language -- images

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

October 18

  • Stanford Dollies, unexplained acronym, no country or any other context. Someone might know what it's about, otherwise delete. jimfbleak 07:29, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this one, there's only 15 google hits but it might still be well-known enough to keep. Evil saltine 07:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I suspect you searched on "stanford dollies", which is too narrow. Try searching in stanford "the dollies" and you will find 81 hits, or simply stanford dollies band tree will give you 196 hits. The problem with googling for them is the word "dollies" is often not preceeded by "the" or "stanford". -- Dawkins
    • Delete. Just not much to say about this... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - from the Google hits they don't seem any more important than any other pep squad from any other college (or high school), and we certainly don't need an article on each one of those. (What would they say?) Axlrosen 18:08, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wartortle 21:12, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A real article about a real organization. -Dawkins
    • OK, since it was first listed on VfD, the article has gone from this to this. Any final conclusions as to whether it should be kept or deleted? Wiwaxia 01:12, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It appears uncommon. -- Taku 01:54, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's five people at a college. Do you really think this is encyclopedia material? (Has the world(wikipedia) gone mad?) Also, an extremely bad precedent if this type of stuff is allowed to stay. Maximus Rex 02:05, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. How many students did Stanford have during the last 50 years? That's probably more than people knowing some abstract maths stuff we have. Wikipedia is not paper. -- JeLuF 08:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as per JrLuf's arguments. David Stapleton 09:30, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. As a compromise, the content could be moved to Stanford Band and this become a redirect. The content is worth saving. -- Minesweeper 09:34, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
  • Under Suspicion - sub-stub amount of information. --bdesham 20:11, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Evil saltine 23:51, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Under suspicion (not proper name) and redirect to Right to silence. Doesn't seem to be a page for criminal suspect yet and Miranda warning is too US-centric. JamesDay 23:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Huh? Why? Why would you want to move it to Under suspicion? It's a movie. The title is Under Suspicion. We can either flesh it out or delete it, but moving it to the lower case version is wrong, and even more so to redirect it. RickK 01:07, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • I've changed my mind on that redirect - it's a pretty unlikely thing for a criminal suspect to use as a search term. Not a movie and book I'm interested in writing more about either. JamesDay 09:11, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a real movie, listed in the IMDB and everything What's wrong with this movie? Wiwaxia 13:23, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Sub-stub. Pointless. Delete. Angela 05:28, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why delete this movie? -- Jake 14:18, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why delete? -- Taku
    • Keep. ~~aplank

October 19

  • Sayas. What is this, a story? RickK 02:42, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, delete. Not remotely encyclopedic.Vicki Rosenzweig 16:47, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Nonsense it is. Delete - Marshman 18:03, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 15:10, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wartortle 21:36, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • DeleteDavid Stapleton 14:08, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unsure, maybe it is just badly written. It seems to be an important concept in music that there is a Sayas class in Java. wshun 00:24, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Asassineted, Asassineted, Asassinated, Asassinated, Assassinated - all redirects to List of assassinated persons. I suggest that all but the correct spelling be deleted immediately. Btw, I'm not sure I found all the variants. --Zero 11:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Why delete? Imagine that a person with spelling problems in english (like me, for instance) is looking for assassinated persons? Unless the redirects use an enormous space in the wiki, i say keep. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 11:26, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless a redirect is problematic, it is highly unlikely to be deleted. Is there any reason these are problematic? Angela 11:30, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Is this serious? Do we have entries for every possible misspelling of every article, to accommodate people who can't spell? Tony Blare Tony Bliar Tony Blaire Tony Blear Tony Blaer Tony Blér? Adam 15:35, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep, of course!--Ruhrjung 07:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I think we should fix the misspellings, but I suppose we could keep the misspelled redirects. They won't have anything linking to them once the articles with the misspellings are fixed, but they will at least be there for the next time someone misspells them. Adam Bishop 17:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree w/Adam. It is the place of a Dictionary to catch mispellings and direct user to correct spelling; not a legit function of Wikipedia, except in special cases - Marshman 18:03, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's long been a wikipedia policy to keep spelling mistakes. We might even get a lot of google hits by being one of the only sites that link to these alternate spellings. - SimonP 18:34, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • (I'm the proposer.) I'll add that not only are the spellings ending in eted really silly, the whole set of words violate the rules for article names. They are past tense verbs. If anything, the names should be assassination etc. Who is ever going to type in assassinated (spelt correctly or not) as an article title? Also, though it is true we keep mispellings after they are fixed, in this case someone created all these variants intentionally at the same time. Is that what we want people to do? --Zero 13:12, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't think people are going to type them as article titles, but someone might make a link to assassinated, which would then go to the right place instead of being a red link. Adam Bishop 13:17, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • There used to be one or two, but it's debatable if it shouldn't redirect to Assassin (as other variations) -- User:Docu
    • Delete. I feel like someone's trying to make a point, but this is just over the top. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I think they should be deleted, but the Wiki has some sort of love affair with the redirect. Having all those redirects will probably encourage misspellings, but at least they'll be easy to find in the future. [1] The policy should be only to redirect common misspellings. Two of these return virtually nothing in Google and don't register in Google's built-in spellcheck: [2] [3] These two at the very least should be deleted. -- Minesweeper 01:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I'm in favour of typo-correcting redirects for proper names, where someone can't reasonably be expected to know how to spell something (e.g. Lyme Disease, Lime Disease, maybe Lime's Disease) but not improper, dictionary english words. -- Finlay McWalter 13:14, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wartortle 21:36, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. David Stapleton 14:20, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. No reason to delete redirects. -- Jake 14:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Excessive redirects just clog up search results. -- Viajero 00:12, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • In alphabetical order
      listed here VfD note added Google hits
      Asassinated twice yes 858
      Asassineted twice yes 0
      Assasinated no no 19,000
      Assassinated once yes 630,000
      Assassineted no no 5
      Keep Asassinated(858), Delete Asassineted(0), Keep(not on VfD) Assasinated(19k), Keep Assassinated (630k), Delete Assassineted(5) (needs a VfD entry). I think that 5 typos on Google is too few to be worth having as a typo redirect. Does anyone think that 5 is enough? If no, I'll VfD it; if yes, I won't. I did Wikipedia searches for all of these. None make it hard to find the real entries. JamesDay 13:21, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


On a seperate note, the "discussion" here should be preserved at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects. Thanks. Martin
  • Criticisms of Mother Teresa
    • Redundant with Mother Teresa. —Eloquence 21:16, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Not reduntant. FearÉIREANN 21:33, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Continued at Talk:Criticisms of Mother Teresa. See also Talk:Mother Teresa.
    • Should be merged with Mother Teresa. Merge, then redirect or delete. Daniel Quinlan 08:46, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • We should really discuss this kind of thing in a more general context. Nowhere yet I have found a discussion on what to do when NPOV is threatened by the amount of material on one side of a subject rather than the way it is presented. Andre Engels 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, it's standard for Wikipedia articles to drag people through the mud, especially if an editor disagree with their views, hates them (or it, if it's a country or institution). Where have you been all this time? Remember: most obsessed editor wins and unsubstantiated information, slander, and misquotes are all okay as long as you attribute it to "critics" or "detractors". Daniel Quinlan 17:03, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep until Mother Theresa gives a rounded view of the person and falls to one edit a week when not protected. JamesDay 09:26, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wartortle 21:36, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We need to contaminate POVs with NPOV manner.
  • ANT1 television 2002-03 programming schedule, ANT1 television schedule
    • Delete. This sort of advertisement has no place on wiki. (pages now blanked) FearÉIREANN 23:21, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I have unblanked the pages so people can see the content to vote. Evil saltine 00:28, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Undelete, there will be something to be done about this room for an encyclopedia on Television schedules here, so don't delete it, There are other e-museums of the best of television schedules. In the future, new users will try to keep these TV schedule articles, on Allwiki. There are even a user that will put ITV television schedules here, and even local stations, as well. Wiki is one and Online TV-zania is more than one. - Pumpie 23:20, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We're not allwiki. Martin 21:19, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC) - Andre Engels 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Good luck to the other e-museums of the best of television schedules, I'm sure they'll be very popular. -- Finlay McWalter 21:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (on sight, preferably). Kosebamse 13:48, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 20


  • Movies of the United States and Cinema of the United States are essentially the same, except "Cinema" is just a hole-y list. I propose Cinema gets deleted. Where's the best place to ask for a mediation?
    • On wikipedia:duplicate articles! :) Martin 21:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • My suggestion would to the Cinema content to Movies, and redirecting Cinema to Movies. The content seems valid enough as far as it goes. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I think Cinema is more canonical (?) than Movies - rather like Photography and Snaps. Andy G 21:03, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, most of the articles about the movies of other nations do seem to be titled Cinema of . . . (Cinema means a movie you don't want to see, with long shots of gauze curtains blowing in the wind, and subtitles, and no explosions.) So it looks like "cinema" is the keeper. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I second moving content from Movies to Cinema and placing a redirect at Cinema. Virtually everyone calls them movies in the U.S. If there's a summary page somewhere that lists all countries, then just use Cinema if you want to make it pretty. Daniel Quinlan 08:43, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Whichever is kept, it seems better to make the other a redirect than to delete it. Andre Engels 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I third the move of content. Cinema is about the art form and its history. Movies should be a list of movies which references cinema for the art form. JamesDay 09:11, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • What about films? There's already a long list of almost entirely US pictures at List of 'years in film'. Andy G 22:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • I suppose there's an exclusive list for other countries, so we might as well accept the inevitability of a list of only US movies page. Personally, I don't care, I just forsee the inevitability of it happening.JamesDay 11:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • Willy Matheisl I suspect this page to be self advertising. I can't find any biographic data about "Willy Matheisl" and no source to confirm the "worldwide fame" of Willy Matheisl. -- Ericd 20:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:55, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC) - Andre Engels 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like clear self-advertizing to me. The original edit came from an IP address located in Deggendorf, the same location as Willy Matheisl. Daniel Quinlan 08:43, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wartortle 21:36, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Axlrosen 21:24, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. David Stapleton 14:13, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 01:20, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a famous image indeed. If it's made by him, he should be included. -- JeLuF 09:03, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 21

  • Intellectual property education: This page describes an unadopted idea by Shaheen Lakhan and was created by the same. Wikipedia isn't the place to make proposals like this. AaronSw 16:34, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, the article is a thinly disguised POV piece and doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia in this form. But this is not even close to a good enough reason to be deleted outright - deleting pages is for things like vandalism and copyright violations, and this is neither. Blank the page and replace with a stub if you like, but I strongly disagree with deletion in this case. Enchanter 18:59, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is debatable an interesting concept, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a storehouse of unadopted ideas that individuals have come up with. Unless this is actually a field of inquiry or knowledge (which I find no evidence for) it should go. -- BCorr ? Брайен 01:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Googling for "Intellectual property education" and "Lakhan" returns only 3 non-Wikipedia matches. Axlrosen 02:09, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't delete. There are far more official sources for this sort of idea. I'll have a go at POVing now. Pde 10:09, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Pde, I didn't understand your last comment. Axlrosen 21:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • If this can be a POV article accompanied by criticism and corrections it may have som evalue. I've noted some of the more serious errors and ommissions of the original piece. JamesDay 02:03, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • class (computer science) - to make a room to rename class (object-oriented programming).
  • inheritance (computer science) - to make a room to rename inheritance (object-oriented programming). (these were listed by Taku AKA TakuyaMurata in some edit histories.)
    • I still cannot see why we want to make an exception for above two articles in naming. Most of programming and cs related articles are named foo (computer science). It is like we have two zero articles because it is used sighly differntly in number theory and set theory. See each talkpage for details. -- Taku
    • Keep inheritance (computer science), it includes two different topics. Move the other one. Evil saltine 03:49, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Rename. Apparently the chief use of inheritance is that in OOP. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a textbook. We should discuss as the idea not just as technique. The article should cover history, different approaches and so on. foo (computer science) makes far more sense. -- Taku
    • keep both and do not rename OOP to generic computer science. Class (computer science) needs to disambiguate OOP, Windows and other uses for class. Inheritance is also a concept not solely related to OOP. Cascading style sheets (CSS) on web pages are not OOP but are an example of inheritance. JamesDay 11:55, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I think you are missing my point. Because they are both not limited to OOP, I want to rename them to more generic term. The question is if we want to regard oop is part of cs or not. -- Taku
      • You're trying to take an article about mammals and make it the article about animals. The specific case is not the same as the general. We could call one (OOP) and the other (CS) but that would be less clear than keeping all of the OOP articles under (OOP). Based on the inaccurate claim about the design of the Windows interface in which was in class(OOP) you might usefully review the difference between structured programming and object-oriented programming. Some research into the theory called abstract data types (taught in universities during the mid 80s, while Windows was being written and before the ADT concept was widespread); callback functions (what the Windows API uses); and the history of the design and development of Windows would also be useful. It would explain why you didn't prevail in the discussons on the talk pages. The lack of OOP in the Windows API is why Microsoft developed MFC to provide an OOP wrapper around it. Living through the evolution of these things is probably why User:Mintguy and others were disagreeing with you then and is why I'm disagreeing with you now. Try adding the OOP concepts which you think are generic to the class and inheritance pages instead and let consensus between those in the field get those accurate and generic. JamesDay 01:15, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • The 400 Blows see by yourself. (seemingly by User:Ericd who didn't sign it)
    • Bad article (reads more like a school paper than an encyclopedia article). Is the topic unencyclopedic? It's a fairly well known film. Is the 'review' a copyvio? --Morven 23:30, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's been a happily stubby article for months, but someone decided to add the "review" to it. -- BCorr ? Брайен 01:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I deleted the review. Keep the rest. RickK 03:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (in its current form). This really wasn't a VfD candidate, as it was fine before being spammed by the prolific User:Miguel marques -- Finlay McWalter 20:40, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Jake 14:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. David Stapleton 16:50, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • The Bastard Brothers seems to be about two random guys. David Stapleton
    • Delete. Tempshill 05:57, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 09:13, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Frecklefoot 15:38, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I suppose I should mention that the article has been edited so that it is no longer about the original two guys. It is now about an obscure band and an Irish motorcycle gang. Still Delete David Stapleton 04:23, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Marcelo Garza. Googling for "The Engineer Who Saved the World" turns up zero hits. RickK 04:03, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 22

  • Mandarin language needs to be deleted, so that the article currently at Mandarin Language can be moved back there. (Someone had moved it to Mandarin (linguistics) for unknown reasons.) Mkweise 08:14, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose; See the discussion at Talk:Hakka (linguistics). This was also announced at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Mandarin cannot be considered a "language", but rather a dialect of the Chinese language. We chose this format for all Chinese dialects to prevent taking sides on this issue. Please discuss before you move things next time. --Jiang 08:16, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I know nothing about it, but if Mandarin is not a language, should the article start by stating "Mandarin is the official language of..." - Marshman 09:08, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • It can be considered a language. See the points made by Patrick0Moran at Talk:Hakka (linguistics). The current naming convention is intended to be neutral. --Jiang 09:21, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. As Jiang said. -- Jake 14:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • List_of_United_Kingdom-related_topics (orphan - List of United Kingdom topics is being used instead)
    • Unless a redirect is problematic, it is highly unlikely to be deleted. Is there any reason this is a problematic redirect? Angela 18:19, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC) (didn't I already say this?)
      • Not exactly the kind of title you'd stumble on accidentally, so not much point of redirect...
    • Delete. User:Docu appears to be speculatively creating these, as for the assassination variants on the 19th. Maybe a search for redirects by the user would be useful?JamesDay 13:06, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I've changed my mind. Keep. Should we move "UK related" to "UK-related" and make the less correct "UK related"?
    • Keep. "List_of_United_Kingdom-related_topics" is really "List of United Kingdom-related topics" isn't it, since spaces in our URLs get turned into underscores. And adding the hyphen is more grammatically correct (I think?) Axlrosen 21:32, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed.JamesDay 10:42, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. More grammatically correct anyhow. -- Jake 14:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. See wikipedia:redirect. Martin 22:20, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Chemical ASCII-art - not an encyclopedia topic with basically useless content. Maximus Rex 21:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- The content is pretty useless. Information on a subject that is obvious and needs no elaboration (e.g. "How to Draw Stick Men"). —Frecklefoot 14:29, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Page "Chemical ASCII-art" moved to "Wikipedia:Chemical ASCII-art". Keep the latter. If somebody wants to delete the former (now a redirect), please fix the links to it. - Patrick 22:38, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Why? The page is essentially useless it only tells how to 'draw' linear molcules. They can simply be stated in the body of the article without needing any 'drawing' since they are linear. If a molecules has a more complicated structure, then the little 'guide' will be of no use. I think if anything a .png of the molecule should be uploaded, although it would be nice if wikipedia supported TeX for it, like they currently do for mathematical formulas. Maximus Rex 00:47, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • These are 2D figures, more easily editable (for corrections and variations) than png. The page is simple but not useless for everybody.
  • Ned Beauman - nonfamous? "ned beauman cambridge" on Google didn't come up with anything specific... Dysprosia 22:54, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. non-famous and sub-stub. Axlrosen 21:34, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. David Stapleton 16:55, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Joni Dourif -- self-promotion/vanity page. Maximus Rex 23:04, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- I don't know who wrote it (it could have been her), but it's probably mostly true. She has been on TV and such so is at least mildly famous. I did some rewrite to make it more NPOV. —Frecklefoot 19:30, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, as above. Needs more NPOVing, but that's got nothing to do with deletion. -- Jake 14:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is just vanity. David Stapleton 14:47, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

October 23

  • John Stein -- previously on VfD/copyvio, as it's a copy of a bio on johnstein.com, but a comment on the talk page indicates Mr. Stein submitted it himself. As far as I can tell, he is a relatively poorly-known jazz musician, and I am unable to verify the majority of the information in his biography. Seems a bit self-aggrandizing on the whole. --Delirium 02:29, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Google turned up this and the other hits suggest there's merit to this one, even if it needs work. I'm inclined to trust unverifiable personal career details from the primary source individual. At least, for this one, so far.:) JamesDay 13:19, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, althoughit could use a NPOV rewrite. David Stapleton 17:01, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Medieval cultural life Reads like a Junior High School paper. If every false statement and oversimplification were taken out, the article would be blanked entirely. David Stapleton 03:21, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • If we had to delete every article which read like a junior high school paper, we'd have to delete the whole damn wiki. If you don't like that article (no, its not that great) then improve it yourself, or wait for someone else to do it. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • I think no page would better than having a page with false and misleading information on it. Just because a subject is a valid encyclopedia subject, doesn't mean that we should keep a poor article that would have to be entirely re-written to be good. Delete, and if someone wants to write another article on that topic they will. I'm tired of listing stuff that is garbage but people think that "it can be improved" or "fix it, don't delete it". It should be the people that make votes to keep who should have the burden of fixing the page, not the person who listed it for deletion. Maximus Rex 04:30, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. What Maximus said, and more of it. A proper rewrite would be 1) total deletion and 2) starting from scratch. So let's do part one here and now. Fuzheado 04:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's irrelevant who the burden of improvement lies with - in any case there is nothing in this article that is worth keeping, and even the title isn't that special other than that it's linked from one page. Onebyone 09:56, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not sure what this could even be if improved... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:45, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • If you were holy, you would wear long woolen habits. If you were a benedict, you wore black, and Cistercians wore undyed wool or white. It reads like something from Non Campus Mentis. I can't see a useful article appearing under such a nondescript title. Delete -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:20, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Geneva Accords on Humane Weaponry - just a copy of some agreement. Evil saltine 07:06, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Hague Convention - same as previous. Evil saltine 07:30, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I've posted a warning to anon creator to give them a chance to amend as proper article jimfbleak 07:32, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I replaced Hague Convention with a disambig. page and a link to a proper article on two of the Conventions bearing that name. --Delirium 09:06, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and relist in one week. Time from newbie creating articles to action: less than ten minutes. We do not need to delete source text which is a basis for an article immediately. This page needs work, not deleting. I've added comments to both requesting that the creator make them articles and I'll check back and either work on them or relist them a week from now. JamesDay 13:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect after a week here. I've updated the header to point the anon to Geneva Conventions and suggest a redirect there once a week here on VfD expires. Didn't just change it now because we can afford to leave it as it is for a week to be more encouraging to an anon newbie. JamesDay 11:52, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Cognotechnology; non-encyclopedic paranoid rant -- The Anome 12:17, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is a paranoid rant in its current form. I don't object to the subject matter (it is encyclopedic), but it needs to be NPOV-ed. The author states as fact many things which are pure conjecture and conspiracy theory. —Frecklefoot 15:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's POV, it's paranoid, it's mostly crap. The name, and the concept, have a life of sorts beyond wikipedia, however, and a decent article could be rather interesting. POV alone is not grounds for deletion. -- 81.128.24.236 16:07, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • (sorry, that was me. durn timeout -- Finlay McWalter 16:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC))
    • Keep. Definitely fixable. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:45, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Jake 14:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (unless completely rewritten within a week). It is basically a conspiracy theory rant based on a not well known term about technology that doesn't exist yet. Perhaps move this to [disinfopedia if for some reason you like this sort of stuff (not suitable for an encyclopedia). Maximus Rex 15:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of Queer composers - Totally bogus. What has sexual orientation to do with composing music? I am unsure if the people adding this crap are for or against homosexuality, but this approach is, IMHO, troll bait, anti-intellectual, in your face, and just plain silly. Do we want another list of "composers not queer", "bisexual composers", and a fourth list of "composers of uncertain sexual orientation"? If you want to discuss the sexual orientation of individuals, do so under the article about each composer. - Marshman 17:46, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Of course sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with composing music. But then neither do the following two factors: nationality and gender. Yet we have a lists for Polish, Italian, Indian, and female composers! (and now African-American composers) I would argue that century, genre, and medium have little to do with composing music, yet we have a List of composers which is broken down into the following categories: film, ragtime, jazz & blues, orchestra, vocal, pop & rock, folk & country, new age, and video games. This page also contains links to the entirely seperate List of classical music composers, List of 20th century classical composers, List of opera composers, and List of uncategorized composers. We also have a list of queer wikipedians, and a list of Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people, despite the fact that being queer has nothing to do with being famous or wiki. These lists are extremely useful for correcting bias and discrimination, I use these lists to find out about people I may never have heard of otherwise. Being against a list of lgbtq composers is not anti-gay, but allowing the deletion of an lgbtq list while keeping lists of women composers and composers of various nationalities would be homophobic. I propose we either keep all the lists, or delete all the lists. Note that we would not need a seperate bisexual composers list because they are included in the queer composers list. Hyacinth
      • Would you say that intersex and T* individuals self-identify as queer and should be on this list? JamesDay 02:27, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • See above discussion of list of biracial people. --zandperl 18:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's actually (to me) an interesting list, and as appropriate as other similar lists. Also, it was less than 20 minutes from creation to VfD, and User:Hyacinth is doing a good job adding new content. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. What is the point? -- Viajero 20:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lists were bad enough when they were growing linearly, but now they're growing exponentially! We'll have N professions times M attributes (queer, biracial, overweight, left-handed, Bulgarian, ...). Why stop there, why not a list of queer biracial composers? Overweight left-handed Bulgarian lithographers? Maybe being overweight left-handed and Bulgarian really influences their art. (And yes, Hyacinth, I think we should delete all those lists.) Axlrosen 21:19, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Some people find it interesting, so keep it. If you don't like lists such as this, just ignore them. --Camembert 23:46, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Article has been moved to conform with naming conventions, (lower case "q") ☮ Eclecticology 00:27, 2003 Oct 24 (UTC)
    • By all means keep the content. But calling them "queer" strikes me as offensive, and capitalizing "Queer" manages to be both offensive and trendy. Move it to list of homosexual composers. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:25, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • What about transgender or transsexual composers, then? Wendy Carlos immediately comes to mind. Anyway, why not move somewhere to remove the "composer" tag, if it's to be kept; "composer" suggests something quite different Dysprosia 00:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to list of allegedly homosexual composers. At least some of the names listed are debatable. Looks like an attempt from the pro-homosexual lobby to "claim" famous people in my opinion. 129.234.4.10 00:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Dear User:80.255/User:129.234.4.10, please stop trolling, i.e. the pro-homosexual lobby. Having checked out your recent edit history here and here and your talk page historyhere, it seems like you've decided to up the ante. The Donisthorpe pages were quite enough, thank you very much. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Trolling my foot. I have done nothing but add factual, informative articles; if you have a complaint about any of these, I suggest you put it on my talk page. However, I shall call a spade a spade, and the &quot;Queer Composers&quot; list is nothing if not the work of the Pro-Homosexual Lobby! Who else would produce such a list? 80.255 03:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Who else? The anti-homosexual lobby? The bi-curious lobby? Some individual not associated with any lobby group at all? Stereotyping narrows the mind ;-) Onebyone 10:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. - SimonP 01:36, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It is not NPOV to divide people up based on a single attribute like this. Daniel Quinlan 01:43, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Minesweeper 03:50, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It has nothing to do with a pro- or anti-gay bias, but entirely with an attempt to stop the proliferation of nonsense lists. RickK 04:01, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We need to get a grip of this proliferation of useless lists. If these people are prominent for having done something, they should be listed for their accomplishments, not just for what they are. -- Arwel 11:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though I think we need to make some effort towards consistency of terminology (Queer vs. Homosexual). Such lists may not be something you'd look up on their own but serve a useful cross-referencing function; those lists that are more useful will be more used -- it's a self-regulating thing. Jgm 12:13, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though I'd prefer a different term. Hyacinth makes good arguments. -- Jake 14:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep but move to List of Homosexual/ Bisexual... I think this could come in useful if a university student were doing a paper on the effect of Homosexuality on a gay artist's work. Aplank 20:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)aplank
    • Delete. If you really want this sort of information, what's wrong with just searching for it? That way you can construct all the searches and search combinations you want, without us having to have millions of lists that are always woefully out of date. --Delirium 03:09, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as queer (lower case, it's not a proper name) for those who self-identify as being in the broad queer category, until there's enought to warrant sub-category lists. These lists appear to have use as organizing tools, though without automated help keeping them up to date is a pain. JamesDay 10:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 24

  • Adam Teiichi Yoshida - a 20-year-old Canadian "neoconservative political commentator" whose writings "have been widely distributed over the internet for some years". However, Google finds essentially no references to him apart from things he has posted himself (e.g. forum/usenet posts, his self-created Yahoo group and his personal website), and the webzine he writes for (freedominstitute.ca) does not appear to be particularly influential or popular. --Delirium 02:43, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • 2199. Unnecessary "see also" that really has nothing to do with the year in question. RickK 03:15, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with article on the matrix (film) 80.255 03:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing to merge. The entire content is Time setting (approxamently) of the film The Matrix. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The info should already be in The Matrix. -- Minesweeper 03:50, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • List of caucasian people. This HAS to go. I almost deleted it on sight. RickK 03:47, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I believe this came about out of the discussion at List of biracial people above. Delete, of course. -- VV 03:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • What a silly, silly, proposal. Keep, of course. -- Audia
    • I created the page in response to the above discussion on list of multiracial people (Oct 20). I didn't realize there had already been some amount of debate on such a page which was subsequently deleted, otherwise I would not have made the page. However, as a multiracial individual, both of which are ethnic minorities, I am (1) offended by the concept of having lists of "minority" peoples, and (2) feel that espouses the POV of the "majority" group. I understand that it is not the place of Wikipedia to make everyone happy, but it is proper for us to maintain a NPOV. Is there a solution which at the least addresses this concern? -- zandperl 04:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you are new here? In the past it's turned out badly when people create articles (lists in particular) to "prove a point". Maximus Rex 04:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Refer to comments above. This does not espouse the majority group view so much as recognize the simple objective fact that the majority is a majority. -- VV 04:36, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Wrong. Caucasians are a world minority, and even in the US, it's no longer a majority, just a plurality. -- Jake 15:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • Perhaps I should clarify. I did not say whites were a majority, just that if a group is a majority, then they should not have a list (this is because the word "majority" was used by Zandperl). My notes under List of biracial people explain in more depth my criterion, which is "small relative to the relevant population", which does not apply to whites. -- VV 22:25, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • Oh, apparently that discussion has been moved to Talk:List of multiracial people#deletion. -- VV 22:30, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Consistency is key. It's no better or worse than any of the other lists. If there's a list of frenchmen or a list of africans then there's no reason why there shouldn't be a list of caucasians, as long as all lists are factually accurate and correct. If it relevant to know the race of famous people in some articles (list of biracial people, etc.) then it is equally relevant to give list of people of another race. 80.255 05:31, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • If you're offended by the concept of having lists of "minority" people, perhaps you should go back and notice that no mention of minorities or majorities was made in the list you parodied. Admittedly the number of multiracial people is smaller than that of uniracial people, but if we have a list of astronauts, for example, are we then also required to have a list of people who aren't astronauts? But the "disputed" tag next to Harding's name was great. MK 01:29 EST, 24 October 2003
        • Of course I'm not "offended" by the concept of listing minorities - great scientists (for example) are and have always been in a minority, and there's no reason why there shouldn't be a list of great scientists, etc. I do, however, believe that if you start using utterly facile criteria for such lists ("biracial people", etc.), you should at least have the consistency to accept similarly facile criteria for other lists (caucasians, for example). Now, I've nothing against facile criteria per se (some people may use them, and more to the point, what one considers to be facile is very subjective), but you cannot accept one list of people meeting a certain racial criterion, and reject another. The people of both lists are not notable because of their being biracial or caucasian - it is simply an exercise in listing in the hope that some people will find the compiled information useful. Astronauts, however, are notable for the fact that they were astronauts, so any comparison between the two is highly specious. 80.255 07:04, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • My apologies, 80.255. I was directing my remarks towards Zandperl's original post, not towards your response. But because of the timing of our posts and my accidental placement of an extra asterisk, it appeared I was addressing you specifically. MK 14:13 EST, 24 October 2003
          • Ah, very well; sorry - I thought you were addressing me.80.255 19:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I doubt that it's useful, but keep, since I see no specific reason to delete it. A potential cross-referencing nightmare - anyone adding information to it which is not in or added to the page of the individual in question should be hunted down and yelled at. I don't agree that "consistency is key" here - it's a waste of time trying to argue a highly partisan issue by means of analogies that the other side won't accept anyway. However I'd say that either Lists of people by race is worth having or it isn't, and if it isn't worth having then all the sub-lists should go to. Onebyone 09:48, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE! Like the List of biracial people above and everything of the king. I propose as above a creation of WIKILISTS separate from wikipedia, to include all this trivia collecting mania. I can contribute with List of royal twins, List of royal menatlly disabeled List of historical nervous breakdowns and the likes. It's all fun, but does not belong in an encyclopedia that want to be taken serious. And dont tell me that wiki does not want to be taken serious. Yes we do! Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 09:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We need to get a grip of this proliferation of useless lists. If these people are prominent for having done something, they should be listed for their accomplishments, not just for what they are. -- Arwel 11:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • How about a list of people with two arms and two legs? Honestly, I'd rather kill every single list on Wikipedia (and there are many, many useful ones) than tolerate this rampant idiocy. Kosebamse 12:54, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree completely with Kosebamse. Sure it is difficult to determine which lists are valuable, and which are silly, since POV is involved. But most of the ones that end up on this page ARE silly. On the other hand, the concept of having a Wikipedia "Book of Lists" has some real merit, could be popular (the original publications were), and could be a way to simply avoid all this time on discussions which are getting nowhere. Delete "List of Postal Codes" and keep "List of people with one eye" or "List of Caucasians" or "List of Queer Composers" ? I see a lot of not very serious people with agendas here; but mostly I see confusion: how can we (keep/delete) one without (keeping/deleting) another? Make a "Book of Lists" Wikipedia and let the market of contributers determine usefulness/silliness. Lists that grow and get use, are clearly valuable to some people. Lists that are truly silly will remain static and wither. - Marshman 18:39, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • I agree. A list of lists would be a most useful compilation.80.255 19:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - Caucasians are a recognized minority, no reason to discriminate against them. -- Dawkins
    • Keep all these lists, they do not distract from more useful information, so they do no harm, I find them useful. Making a list of any things in an category is non-NPOV. In some cultures there are no composers or the concept of composition and so they not have created a list of composers, someone made a POV choice when they created a encyclopedia in the first place. We should however, attempt to carry out the titleing and the editing of these "silly" lists, as NPOVly as possible, and I would suggest "List of famous people of European descent", instead of "Caucasian". NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill), created and distributed flyers with lists of famous people who have had mental illness. The Human Rights Campaign, a national group which promotes gay-straight equality, promotes National Coming Out Day. People don't like these lists because they are about coming out, but both NAMI, HRC, and queers agree that it is a helpful process that decreases bias and stigma. Please keep lists as long as they are relatively NPOV and respectful.Hyacinth
      • While most of these lists indeed do not distract from useful information, some have been outside the borders of good taste or otherwise inflammatory, and many have lead to enormous amounts of totally fruitless dispute. If you find pleasure in wasting other people's time, create a trivia list and have it placed here. Kosebamse
    • Racism warning. Delete! --Ruhrjung 15:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of famous caucasians If the above list of caucasian people is deleted, this redirect should be as well. -- zandperl 04:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree - delete. Tiles 04:15, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - A valid redirect to a valid list. -- Dawkins
    • wikipedia:deletion guidelines for administrators already strongly recommends that admins delete redirects when they delete pages - indeed, it goes further than that, and recommends orphaning pages that should never exist. However, thanks for listing this redirect, which will ensure that it isn't missed, if we do decide to delete the list above. Martin 21:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Of course! --Ruhrjung 15:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Xtras.Net - advertising; user (216.91.86.37) has linked Xtras.net on many of the .NET-related webpages Dysprosia 11:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Ditto for VBxtras. -- Minesweeper 11:13, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE! - user:zanimum
    • Delete - just an advertisement. -- Dawkins
    • Delete - Marshman 18:28, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • So just exactly *how* does someone make reference to the thriving 3rd party component community for .NET and VB/ActiveX for which there is exactly NIL information on WikiPedia? Mike Schinkel Oct 24, 2003
      • Mike, as the president of Xtras.Net you kinda have a vested interest adding info about your website here - have a look at What Wikipedia is not Dysprosia 02:17, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Dysprosia, I appreciate your point, which appears to have been influenced by my initial edits as a new user who was not completely aware of the rules (I'm learning) but it did not address the question I posed. My question was how to provide information about the topic of 3rd party components in a manner than is acceptable to the community? I would also like to point out that (it would seem) that merely having a vested interest in a topic shouldn't disqualify me as an author on the topic. On the contrary, the people with vested interests are often the ones who know the most about a topic. Please have a look here Please do not bite the newcomers and understand that as a newcomer I am learning. Mike Schinkel Oct 25, 2003
      • Mike, write an article (non-POV) on the topic. If it is good, and fair, few would deny your mentioning companies involved, and possibly you could sneak in an external link at the bottom. - Marshman
      • Sorry if it seemed like I was biting - didn't mean to. However listen to Marshman, he makes a good point :) Dysprosia 07:17, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the help. As you saw, I'm trying my hand at providing some real value tonight. Mike Schinkel Oct 25, 2003
  • here - a mistake - someone has entered 'click here' in their article and then put information on the here page. Secretlondon 19:18, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've fixed up the here page, and added all the information about here I could think to add, plus a helpful illustration. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:22, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete? No way! as it's a nice article now. Kosebamse 03:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of localities in Britain where rare ant species had previously been recorded but are no longer considered to be present - if not deleted, at LEAST the title of the article needs to be parsed. Kingturtle 22:19, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a useful compendium, and will slot in nicely with the various articles I'm writing on the ants in question. 80.255 22:33, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If such information is deemed necessary, it can go with another article about ants; there is no need to have dozens of lists relating to the same topic and the title is completely unencyclopedic. Angela 01:00, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. What about the title Places in Britain where ant species had been found but are no longer considered to be present, it conveys the same information and is a third shorter. - SimonP 02:48, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • It strikes that perhaps an actual article about this topic would be better than simply a list. Maximus Rex 03:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I would agree with Maximus. And it seems like another silly LIST! Does the contributor realize that we could have a list of places where literally millions of species once lived and no longer do (once we get into the fossil record, there would be no stopping us! Coming at the topic this way is a big bore to biologists. I'd rather see a discussion of some (or all) of the nearly extinct ants and in that discussion some sense of their former range would be appropriate. Otherwise, lets shorten the title and expand the list to "List of localities in the world where British ant species are not found" - equally challenging, equally interesting - Marshman 06:03, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 25

  • Tunnel vision - reads like a dictionary entry --> Wiktionary? -- Viajero 00:08, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Why not wait! The entry is fresh. It might improve.--Ruhrjung 14:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Quasi-Governmental Multi-National Conglomorate Corporations - nonesense masquerading as serious info. -- Viajero 00:14, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • No Google hits. I think I know what the author means (so I wouldn't say it's nonsense), but I don't think this is the right title for that article, if indeed an unbiassed article is possible. Delete. The author should consider adding the information to multinationals. Warning - this was an anonymous post, so we're probably biting a newcomer. Onebyone 00:31, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Has more than a hint of leading to some kind of POV article. I'd rather see the topic disussed under a real title - Marshman 05:55, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an orphan. In order not to bite the possible newbie maybe redirect to multinationals together with a friendly note on the talk-page.--Ruhrjung 14:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • window class - the huge part of the article is used for the debate between wikipedians who claim the window class is OOP but those who disagree. Worse, the article has been used to justify class (object-oriented programming) is to distinguish from [[class (computer science). Also I don't see the reason to cover classes other than one in cs. In cs, classes almost always means classes in oop. The current situation is misleading, distracting and more importantly confusing and inconsisten with other cs related articles. -- Taku 01:08, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Revert, keep the reverted version. Please stop listing for deletion pages where you didn't prevail in or even engage in discussions with others. VfD isn't for circumventing consensus-forming. I expanded the description you had previosly deleted and have now deleted again to explain to you why you didn't prevail in the discussions on the other topics in their talk pages.JamesDay 02:45, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Because we are not interested in this sort of debate. The article should not be used for such a debate. -- Taku
  • Yellow Pig Day idiosyncratic non-topic, not an encyclopedia topic, seems not widely known only 25 Google hits, the first 3 all wikipedia. Maximus Rex
    • Delete. We don't need every summer camp's inside jokes on here. --Delirium 03:14, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. MrJones 03:27, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of retired NHL players. In the 80 or so years that the NHL has existed, how many hundreds of people would fit on this list? RickK 08:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Another entry for the [Wikipedia Book of Lists (see wikipedia talk:list) - Marshman 08:30, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Many. So what? Wikipedia is not paper. We can have articles for every one of them. So a list to find them seems fine to me. -- JeLuF 08:59, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Note also List of current NHL players. This is not a vote on either article. Onebyone 14:59, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Meta-systems. Non-encyclopedic. Tries to explain something using many metaphers. -- JeLuF 08:59, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Improved. Don't bite the newbies. Keep! --Ruhrjung 14:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Halfix. Non-encyclopedic essay. -- JeLuF 09:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • 140 Google hits. Maybe the article could be weeded instead? --Ruhrjung 14:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1623126"