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 Kingturtle (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 26 October 2003 (keep 400 blows). 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

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


October 19

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)
    • If he really took that photo, then keep. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 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)
    • Delete. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 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)
  • I cannot believe that nearly 6 months after this issue was decided by a vote in which you lost 6 to 2 (see Talk:Inheritance (object-oriented programming)) you are bringing this subject up again. Please leave the pages as they were. Mintguy 21:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
    • Please don't get emotional. Wikipedia is not a place to contest your POV with others'. Inheritance (computer science) has been looking terrible. The article exists only for the justitifaction of POV that inheritance is not CS but OOP. We are not supposed to teach people don't mess up classes or inheritance in OOP with others in CS. It is not important to show a clear definitions if there is no such. I know in your head the idea of OOP is clear-cut and of course in my head that is clear-cut too. But they differ. Why don't we just stop disputing over the definitions of OOP but simply state general ideas instead of clear-cut definitions and views that we have disagreement. You may say I am the one who is bothering you, which might be true but the truth is the long time doesn't seem to make the situation better. What I don't like is not my POV doesn't prevail. I don't care if I am right or wrong that is why I try to minimize exposing my POVs. What I do care is that the articles are in such a sorry status thank to our dispute. If you think inheritance (computer science) is a good article or would be a good article, show me evidence not one that supports your definition of OOP. -- Taku 21:37, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep in accordance with the opinion poll on Talk:Inheritance (object-oriented programming)) (and move this discussion there). Martin 11:39, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you. I had enough 6 months ago. I will only say this: Myself, User:Stan Shebs, User:JamesDay, User:P3d0, User:Cadr, User:Fubar_Obfusco, User:Mbecker and others, have found it impossible to work on the computer science articles that you keep mangling. Please stop. Mintguy 22:02, 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)
    • Keep. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. although this is a fun moment for me. it is the first time an article i helped edit has been nominated for this list :) . my spot edits weren't great, but i was trying to save the damn thing. true, it needs more work. Kingturtle 16:37, 26 Oct 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)
    • Keep it now. A real motorcycle gang and a real band. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 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)
    • This seems like a technical issue that needs more thought. -Nydigoveth
  • 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.
    • Keep. It's been redirected to an internal page, and it's useful.--AaronSw 04:43, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Delete. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Less than a stub about a non-famous person. RickK 04:59, 26 Oct 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)
    • Keep. --AaronSw 04:43, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete vanity pages. RickK 04:59, 26 Oct 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)
    • Don't bite the newbies. Ought to be fixable. Keep.--Ruhrjung 15:21, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Doesn't matter if this is a newbie. This topic would fill a book, not an encyclopedia article. RickK 19:24, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Complexity of topic isn't a reason to keep stuff out. --AaronSw
  • 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)
    • Delete. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep User:Delirium's disambiguation page.--Ruhrjung 18:32, 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)
    • Keep, but rename and NPOV - I cannot speek to the truth or falsehood of the points made in the article, but behaviour modification is a well known branch of psychology and the military have commissioned numerous experiments in the field. mydogategodshat 20:08, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --AaronSw

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)
    • Keep. We should not be deleting years. These years will be happening and, hopefully, theoretically or supposedly Wikipedia will still be around when they do. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:42, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Cross-referencing years with fictional (as well as real) stories is useful. --AaronSw
  • 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
    • Keep if it is converted into a non-ad. See Sourceforge. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I seem to recall this was listed not too long ago? As obvious as it might seem that this could never be more than a dictionary definition, someone has managed to make it worthwhile piece. Keep - Marshman 17:20, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • The illustration was only accurate to readers living in the Andromeda Galaxy, and I don't know that we have many of those. ;) The opening part is all dictionary stuff; the rest is random trivia which would be interesting in other articles, but has very little to do with the concept of here. So I vote delete. Sorry. -- Oliver P. 01:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The illustration sounds funny too. --AaronSw 04:51, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Persecution of Muslims - According to the page history, this was copied by User:Wshun from the talk page of genocide, first posted by RK. A miserable scrap of text, it needs deleted or merged somewhere else. -- Viajero 21:32, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I am the creater, so I will vote KEEP. Isn't it better to post the article in Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention? wshun 21:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Is the material factual? It is not strongly POV in its presentation. Probably needs to go under a different title or be merged with another article, or listed as needing attention. Deletion NOT called for - Marshman 17:14, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I listed this on Wikipedia:Cleanup which seems a better place for it than VfD. -- Viajero 17:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of locales in Britain where ant species have become locally extinct
    • 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)
    • I agree with MR too. An article vanished ant populations in the UK (or whatever you'd call it, but I claim points for the shortest name so far ;-)) is worthwhile. Included in such an article would be a list of vanished populations. But I don't see the point of an article which is solely a list, except maybe as a redirect to the real article. Onebyone 16:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • That is right on. A list of places where something no longer is (even if limited by the fact that it supposedly was there once) is of no interest. But the bassic concept of discussing where and how ants disapppeared could well be interesting. - Marshman 17:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • I diagree; a list is relevant, otherwise you could argue that all lists of anything are "of no interest" - the point is that they reference more detailed articles! 80.255 21:23, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - this is a valid way of organizing this data. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 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)
    • Delete. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 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
    • Regardless of the OOP handbagging, delete. Wikipedia is not a MS Windows programming guide. Onebyone 15:24, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Martin 19:13, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Delete. Seems local to a rather small group. Andre Engels 16:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Most Popular Names, and all it's subpages; the lists are entirely empty. -- Khym Chanur 05:47, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't bite the newbies! Keep! --Ruhrjung 14:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • If on the pages are still all empty in a week's time, I'd suggest moving to the users personal space, deleting the redirects and dropping User:MattSal a note explaining what's going on. In any case these articles might be somewhat controversial because they are "almanacic" rather than "encyclopedic". If they're going to be unpolular anyway because of that, then MattSal should be spared the effort of filling in the information only to see it zapped later. Onebyone 15:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete if not filled. Andre Engels 16:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the lists are made part of an article explaining different naming-related aspects of different cultures. Tuf-Kat 14:03, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Imperial Court in Kyoto is only a signle sentence. -- Khym Chanur 06:55, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article can become relevant. --Ruhrjung 14:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Even that one line is incorrect - it talks in present time, but the situation described is that of the Edo period. Andre Engels 16:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • How about now? :) -- Oliver P. 05:02, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep but indicate as stub. Btw, being only a single sentence is never grounds for deletion. --Zero 10:54, 26 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)
    • Although I would in principle be for merging the two lists, the result would be awfully long, so I guess I'll vote to keep. Andre Engels 16:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good category. Martin 17:33, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Hockey fans might find this useful. -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Useless pointless list. What next, Retired NFL players who have had heart attacks, ''Retired NFL players who have had 2 heart attacks, bin. FearÉIREANN 22:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Should probably be split up by team or by decade at some point. - SimonP 23:05, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, excellent; relevant list. Separate alphabetically or maybe by country of origin, as it grows too large, some have played in multiple teams, and decades are too fuzzy and difficult to ascertain. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 02:20, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, could be useful Tuf-Kat 14:03, Oct 26, 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)
    • Actually, 140 is the estimate - the true number is 44, and half of them seem not to be about the subject at all. For the type of subject (an Operating System), this is extremely low. The article itself is low on NPOV. If someone takes the trouble of making this a decent article, I'll revert my vote, but for now I vote delete. Andre Engels 16:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Ironing - dictionary entry. -- Viajero 16:30, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good stub. Lots to be written here. Invention date, fashions, technology, etc Martin 17:31, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:12, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Invetion date and technology should be in an article called Iron (appliance). Kingturtle 19:30, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless article. FearÉIREANN 22:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Early methods of ironing would not use an appliance so this is a fine title. - SimonP 23:05, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
  • Max Nicholson, Harry Witherby articles about ornithologists, only mentioning name, date of birth and the fact that they are ornithologists. -- JeLuF 19:20, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Both are notable people and the information is encyclopaedic.80.255 21:26, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fine stubs. FearÉIREANN 22:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Cat skinning - this is drivel. Kingturtle 19:27, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Not to mention offensive. RickK 19:31, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete the "comedy section"; the rest looks alright. 80.255 19:57, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If you don't like the stuff on comedy, move it to talk. The food and animal rights issues are certainly relevant to an encyclopedia, and could easily be expanded. A google search gets aprox 13,800 hits. Martin 20:17, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove jokes (source material), keep rest.—Eloquence 21:21, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove the comedy section and keep the rest. Evil saltine 01:29, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing on the page (other than the jokes) relates to "cat skinning". Eating cats under famine conditions is NOT cat skinning. "Some people" "possibly under the influence" - not encyclopedic. No known relationship between mind altering substances and cat skinning. In fact, only the jokes (but most are not even funny) have any "merit" in this article - Marshman 02:39, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • The animal cruelty issue is perfectly encyclopedic - check the external link. The famine issue is related to cat skinning, because cats are best eaten skinned, then cooked (again, see external link). Martin 12:26, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --AaronSw 04:53, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, for the same reasons as User:Marshman gives. We don't need an article for every (noun,verb) combination in the English language, only notable ones. Onebyone 10:39, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Tejan Vallabh. Tejan Vallabh is a New Zealand high schooler. I actually found him on Google, but that doesn't mean he deserves his own article, especially this one. RickK

October 26

  • History of Poland -- World War II 1939-1945 From Wikipedia:Cleanup - shoddy outline with little content - History of Poland already covers this - keep, maybe in progress - no, last major edit was done over a year ago -- Moved here by Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 08:08, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • If the wikipedians interested in Polish issues weren't so much into edit wars they maybe would have energy over to make something out of this. The edit wars make many articles a mess and scares away good contributors. I think one must consider the General Government article. Exactly what's best to do, I don't know. Merge/Redirect/whatever?--Ruhrjung 08:18, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Battle_of_Washington_D._C.. I'm not exactly an expert on the US civil war, but this looks to me like it never happened. Morwen 12:10, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • This is fiction. There was no such battle. RickK 16:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Anti-Semitism in Poland, the article has very little to do with a significant topic. It is just a laundry list of hate crimes in the past 5 years, and has nothing about any truly significant events. It should be deleted and replaced with an article on the History of the Jews of Poland. Danny 13:21, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • This does seem to be raw data, rather than information. Might be better to redirect to Poland for the time being. Martin 13:49, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • An article on the history of the Jews of Poland would not be a bad idea. However, it should include the information (in some form) that we presently have in the current article. It is an important topic that much has been written on. RK 14:39, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1629379"