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 Cyan (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 9 November 2003 (rm fast-track deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages

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

November 3

  • Old Granny Sweat Weed -- this item completely fails the google test (no hits whatsoever) as does the name of the person the unspecified species of nettle is allegedly called after. Also, there are no Wikipedia links to this page.Vicki Rosenzweig 04:12, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- unverifiable. Maximus Rex 06:24, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no Google hits. Fuzheado 09:04, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kricxjo 23:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The originator of the article cites History of Rumford, ME as a source; I'd recommend leaving at least for now. Google's not the be-all and end-all. - Hephaestos 23:17, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • On my page, no less: User:Wiwaxia Wiwaxia 01:49, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Does anyone, possibly in the US northeast, have access to this book? It's referenced at [1] as A History of Rumford, ME: 1774-1972 by John J. Leane, but as far as I can tell it is no longer in print, and no copies of it exist in southern California library systems (I've checked both the LA county public library network and the one 30-university library network I have access to). Even if nobody can track a copy down, given that it is a real book, I'd suggest giving the author the benefit of the doubt and keeping the article. --Delirium 08:18, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The originator has cited a source, it seems to me that the burden of proof would now lie with anyone wanting to dispute the valiity of the source.
    • Google reveals Sweat Weed to be hibiscus virginicus, found in marshes along the Atlantic from New York southward, with mucilaginous properties of the althaceas. No mention of Granny, Moriori 23:20, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • "Old Granny Sweat Weed" states that it is a nettle, which means that it is from the family Urticaceae, however "Hibiscus virginicus" is of the family Malvaceae and therefore the two "sweat weeds" are not the same. Maximus Rex 23:35, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Folk knowledge" adds value. silsor 04:39, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unverifiable. Angela
  • Presidential trivia - trivial. sometimes unfounded. Kingturtle 06:36, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I suggest that you read the cites in the article talk and the wiki source. Looks as though you object to the Clinton one you removed, saying that the source was inaccurate. Can you support the claim that the author was inaccurate? If you can, I agree that it shouldn't be there. Surprised that you thought the Reagan quote was interesting enough to merit staying in the article on him but the article containing curiosities about the presidents, which is where it came from, isn't worth having around. Thinking the quote worth keeping around seems to suggest the opposite. JamesDay 09:25, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unattributed oddities makes this article seem ripe for misinformation. Any other articles in this type of format in Wikipedia? Fuzheado
      • The sources are the US Bravo TV channel and a book author, links to the sources in the article source and direct quotes from them in the talk page. JamesDay 17:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. Besides not being very neutrally titled (should be United States Presidential Trivia or something) are we now going to have "Trivia of ... " categories for everything under the sky? Should draw the line somewhere. Fuzheado 16:03, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I thought the FDR quote happened more like once. --Jiang
      • I went with what the source said. No idea myself how often it happened. JamesDay 08:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see any need to have a page like this. If the trivia are considered worth keeping (no statement either way on this from me), move them to the pages about the presidents themselves, then delete. If not, just delete. Andre Engels 11:33, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree with Andre Engels above. If these are really worth mentioning, they should be in the main articles. -- Minesweeper 04:51, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This should be kept. Assuming, of course, that people are going to start complaining when the factoids are put on the presidents' main pages. Wiwaxia 01:49, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, non-encyclopedic. Angela
  • Cognitics and cognition theory. Cognitics appears to be a neologism for cognition, I only get 37 Google hits, The cognition theory article may have some useful information, but should probably be merged with cognition or cognitive science, and we already have about 5-6 articles that begin with the prefix "cognit*", I don't think we need another pair. --Lexor 11:52, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • One of these were just listed on Cleanup. Can we give em a few more days? -- Viajero 12:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not for original research or speculation. Daniel Quinlan 05:40, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Moved earlier discussion with User:Dessimoz to User talk:Dessimoz. --Lexor 11:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 23:04, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, original research. Angela

November 5

  • Indian River Eegdeskit Bridge Island no Google hits, and User:SmartBee's other fictional creations cause me to believe this is yet more nonsense. Maximus Rex 02:33, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, if no source material can be found. Dysprosia 22:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 02:23, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • There appears to be a page on the project with an email address but it doesn't have details down to the names of the component items. No sign of Eegdeskit as a tribe or river name on Google but that's unsurprising for non-federal tribes. JamesDay 04:57, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Abek - another of User:SmartBee's pages. No confirmation found on google, and the mere existance of 'ancient Basque explorers' must be considered minority POV, let alone them having established a city in Brazil and made a mixture of languages there. Andre Engels 12:38, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes; delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:03, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • But it can certainly be moved to Tourist Attractions in Delhi. Morwen 14:22, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I moved it there and added a Vfd notice. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move some information to Delhi article and delete. Daniel Quinlan 02:23, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Since the article contains information about the places of interests for tourists in Delhi, which can be further built on, in my view we should keep the article. Also I have modified the link in the main Delhi article to point to this article to avoid redirection. User:Best Friend 03:05, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikipedia:Cleanup for a couple of weeks, then reconsider the amount of information on all of the Delhi-related pages. User:Best Friend is new, so are the pages, and with a new user who has just started expanding the article on Delhi, there's no urgency about deciding on deleting or reorganizing in some other way. JamesDay 04:14, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. These are all places worth visiting in Delhi and lets give this a chance to develop. Tiles 08:32, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 6

  • The mode of production of free software - Idiosyncratic attempt to philosophize about Free software using the terminology of Marxist theory. An orphan after the author's attempt to insert a link to it into Karl Marx was reverted. --Delirium 02:11, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. original essays and research Daniel Quinlan 02:23, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, single not-so-prominent reference. Fuzheado 03:23, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Free software. I merged the content in there too so that that should be edited there or removed if it is problematic. Angela
    • Redirect should be deleted. Unsurprisingly, all the content was deleted from Free software in less than an hour, so there's no point redirecting to a page which has nothing on this. Angela 05:19, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Might as well keep. If nothing else, will allow creator to retrieve hir text. Martin 23:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Since when was that a reason for keeping something? It is a problematic redirect as the page it redirects to bears no relevance to the title. Problematic redirects may be deleted. If the user wishes to retrieve their text, that would seem like the ideal use for VfU. Angela 00:16, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Doesn't bother me dramatically. Martin 22:24, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The history is sometimes useful to see why the article was deleted. -- Taku 05:08, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article was nonsense to begin with, was deleted from Free software. I think concerns about retrieving the history do not apply. At18 17:23, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article was factually untrue to begin with; it cannot be salvaged. Delete. -- Mattworld 02:20, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Corealism
    • Only three relevant hits on google, plus a half-dozen or so Korean pages that I can't read. Could be proven wrong, but seems non-encyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 07:43, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The articles in Korean are probably about Coreanism: the idea that "Corea" is a better word than "Korea". wshun 05:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Boyerism. --Wik 12:37, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Read the article! Why are you calling it a Boyerism, other than, possibly, bad faith? It is a Swiderism if anything. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:04, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC) [Note: for real information on Boyerism, see for example: http://members.rogers.com/election/2000_federal/on/etobicoke-lakeshore.html]
        • Boyerism is a term coined in 2003 by Wikipedia editor Wik to describe someone's personal term for an art technique which is being promoted by Daniel C. Boyer, although apparently no one else uses it. (The only relevant hit for Corealism on Google is on askart.com: "A term coined in 1993 by painter and cartoonist Nik Swider to describe his style of painting. Credit: Danie C. Boyer, Artist".) --Wik 21:11, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
          • This is absolutely false. People were using the term "Boyerism" in a vague way to refer to theories they falsely said I had made up (for example, surrealism!) no matter how ridiculous the claim I had originated it was, ten years ago! The only "art techniques" I have originated are echo drawing, aspiritage, and connect the dots with no preconceived object; and I have never painted in the corealist style. Moreover, Boyerism has a number of uses that can be found by Google having nothing to do with me, and predating such "coinage". Look it up. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:35, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wik has this completely right. It is one of several terms that only Daniel C. Boyer seems to be aware of, making this idiosyncratica and a clear candidate for deletion. Maximus Rex 20:55, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If it is indiosyncratica the idiosyncratica is that of Nik Swider and not myself; plus, you have failed to address any of the issues I raised concerning "Boyerism." --Daniel C. Boyer 21:02, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • You always seem to try to defend the art terms that only you are aware of by claiming that others created them. Another example is mimeogram. The only information about this came from a certain Daniel C. Boyer, however the page was not deleted when Boyer defended it by claiming it was "pioneered by Penelope Rosemont". According the User:Anthere, the French wikipedia has decided to delete all the Boyerisms [2] there, I see no reason no to do the same here. Maximus Rex 21:11, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Whenever I have claimed that someone else created them, this has been the truth. In the case of the "mimeogram" I have provided a source, the book by Penelope Rosemont, Surrealist Experiences: 1001 Dawns, 221 Midnights, published by Black Swan Press. I challenge you to look up in the book about the mimeogram and you will see that this is true. No one has done this; they have bizarrely claimed that I invented the mimeogram, as apparently the fact that my book The Octopus Frets: political poems is listed on the Black Swan Press's online catalogue means, somehow, that Surrealist Experiences does not exist, or perhaps books are not valid sources, only Google is. I don't know, but this is utterly ridiculous. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:24, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't matter whose idiosyncratic term it is. If it's an idiosyncratic term (and I believe it is), then it doesn't belong here. -- Cyan 21:08, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • The following September 11 tribute pages. Unless we're also going to encourage tribute pages for all people who died in the Holocaust, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Israeli terrorist attacks, Oklahoma City bombing, etc., I'd say these aren't appropriate here. I have been conservative and not listed for deletion people who have even the slightest bit of noteworthiness other than "died in the attacks" (such as Melissa Harrington-Hughes and Neil D. Levin). I'd also oppose making them inter-wiki redirects to sep11, because a tribute site is just not appropriate to an encyclopedia, and editing such redirects is damn near impossible as well (they require manual URL editing to edit). --Delirium 09:41, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • These are not tribute pages. They are encyclopedia entries. Tribute pages are "This guy is great, we love him so much." We *do* encourage people to write entries on people who died in the Holocaust, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Israeli terrorist attacks, Oklahoma City bombing, etc. --The Cunctator
    • We *don't* encourage pages on otherwise-unexceptional victims of atrocities. You do, no one else does. --- GWO
      • It's not true that I'm the only one who encourages such pages. Others have thought it a reasonable policy. --The Cunctator
    • If you consider these "encyclopedia entries", I take it you would not object to a bot importing 6 million stubs reading "xxx died in the Holocaust"? --Delirium 19:10, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. At least one of these is described as an apocryphal victim. Tragic as these deaths were, these are not encyclopedia articles. Bmills 13:01, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • By some measures the apocryphal victim might be of the most historical interest. How is the Daniel Thomas Suhr entry, for example, not an encyclopedia article? --The Cunctator
    • Personally I deplore the practise of dumping a whole group of articles to be summarily deleted as a clump, without considering their merits individually. Swede Joseph Chevalier for example would not fit anyones definition of what encyclopaedic means, but I am sure there are some in that list which one or more wikipedian would prefer to consider as individual cases, and maybe even resist the deletion of. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:04, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • I too deplore the practice of dumping a whole group of articles. Well, they fit the definition of "encyclopedic" being "including all knowledge". The Chevalier entry is a stub, but it's hardly subjective. --The Cunctator
    • We have a special wiki for records of Sep 11 deaths, and that is where these belong. They will be better appreciated there. DJ Clayworth 14:30, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No, we have a special wiki for tributes to Sep 11 victims. --The Cunctator
    • Nevertheless I (Cimon Avaro on a pogostick) encourage at least the following listings be considered individually (add more you think merit consideration):
    • Alas, delete. The appropriate place for these is the September 11th Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 16:27, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sept 11 wiki and delete. These people were mere numbers in the historical event. Their only relation to it was that they were killed. What they did in their lives has no historical major significance whatsoever. We are not interested in their lives. The content is unenclyclopedic. --Jiang
    • We have a Sept 11 wiki, move any that haven't been moved to there, and then delete them. Maximus Rex 22:28, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. (1) They aren't encyclopædic. (2) They convey the impression of a hierarchy of importance, ie, those killed in the heinous outrage that was 9/11 deserve more attention than victims of other far bigger outrages; the Holocaust (as Delirium correctly points out above), gays, gypsies and Poles killed by the Nazis, people of Hiroshima, victims of Pinochet, victims of Mao, victims of Stalin, victim of apartheid, people who died in the English Civil War, the Irish Civil War, the Irish War of Independence, the Spanish Civil War, the Hundred Years War, etc and so add to the Americocentrism of wiki) (3) we have a specially created wiki for information on 9/11. Jiang,, Maximus, Delirium and others are right. Move what can be moved. Then delete all this irrelevant, unencyclopædic information from wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 23:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This attack reportedly caused the largest number of British civilian deaths of any terrorist attack. It's not exclusively a US event. If another terrrist attack causes two conventional wars and a long campaign, the victims of that event will also merit coverage. JamesDay 00:26, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • But were the exact identities of the victims relevant to the subsequent wars? Although it's cold to say so, I think that *any* 3000 people could have been in the WTC that day and there would have been the same outcome. The victims merit coverage, but individually the coverage should be contingent on whether that person is famous or historically significant. I think that Delerium has done a fairly good job of preserving those who were, and the rest should either be aggregated into a 'list of victims' (by floor if necessary) with links to sept11 tribute pages. -- Tlotoxl 01:10, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Even with that fact, the victims are disproportionately Anglo and the event occurred exclusively on American soil. --Jiang
    • Delete, because we have a much more respectful, complete and contextual memorial at the Sep11 wiki for the victims. Also, all the entries I've read so far don't mention the 9/11 link until the end of the article, which I find rather misleading and not consistent with the trust we are trying to project with Wikipedia articles. We will have a problem too -- there is an aggregate vote here, but then indvidual votes below on certain individuals. It's going to be tough to sort this all out. -- Fuzheado 00:59, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to the sept11 wiki and delete, IMO. Most of these "victim" articles have already been moved over there. Bryan 04:52, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The reasons were addressed enough. -- Taku
    • Delete wshun 05:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. The same for the following (why are they voted separately?) At18 17:29, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move and delete. Kosebamse 11:28, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Antonio Alvarado
    • "MY FRIEND ~ANTHONY ALVARADO~ WAS 31 YEARS OF AGE. HE LIVED IN THE BRONX WITH HIS FAMILY. ANTHONY WAS WHAT YOU COULD CALL A TRUE FRIEND, A GOOD SON, FATHER AND BROTHER. HIS LIFE WAS CUT SHORT ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001" is an encyclopedia article now?? *boggle*. I was unaware our standards had slipped so drastically. --- GWO
      • No, I don't defend the Alvarado entry. It is disingenuous to imply that all the entries are equivalent. And it's not true that I'm the only one who encourages such pages. Others have thought it a reasonable policy. --The Cunctator
    • I don't mean to defend the Alvarado entry. --The Cunctator
    • Antonio Alvarado would not fit anyones definition of what encyclopaedic means. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:04, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Martin 18:53, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Stephen Emanual Poulos
    • Keep. It's objective and referenced. --The Cunctator
    • Keep. I particularly find the application of a google criterion to disqualify this person remarkably poignant. An internet troll who failed the google test. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 19:02, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Obscure troll on an obscure online forum, died in a tragedy. --Delirium 20:06, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete --`Jiang
    • Keep this 9-11 victim. JamesDay 00:34, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as per big vote above. Fuzheado 02:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's on the 9/11 wiki. Daniel Quinlan 03:10, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, being a failed opera singer and dying in a tragedy is no reason to be in Wikipedia. Andre Engels 08:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete wshun 05:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Valerie Tschetter
    • Keep. The apocryphal victims are of historical interest. --The Cunctator
    • Delete unless she is referenced as an "apocryphal victim" by someone other than the anonymous Wikipedia contributor. I could make up dozens of "apocryphal victims" myself, but that wouldn't make them notable. --Delirium 20:06, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Jiang
    • Delete. No evidence of this "apocryphal victim" outside of wikipedia. Maximus Rex 22:20, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to a list of apocryphal victims. JamesDay 00:26, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as per big vote above and Maximus Rex comment. We should not coin terms on Wikipedia like "apocryphal victim". Fuzheado 02:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I'm tempted to say we should have a section on apocryphal victims somewhere, but we should not coin the term ourselves and we should make sure it's not just a Wikipedia thing. A "real" apocryphal victim would surely show in up more places than here. Daniel Quinlan 03:10, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. See Maximus Rex' comment, but even if it were a 'real apocryphal victim', I'd vote for deletion unless the story was rather famous. Andre Engels 08:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete wshun 05:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There is nothing remotely interesting in this article. Unencyclopedic. Delete. Kosebamse 11:36, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-verifiable, hence eminently deletable. Martin 18:44, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • John Joseph Murray
    • Keep. It needs some editing to remove the hagiographic aspects. --The Cunctator
    • If we use the google criteria, then it looks like none of the above three qualify. I don't think that the entries should be decided upon as a group, but the ones that I have looked at do look to me like they don't belong in the encyclopedia. Wouldn't a single 'list of people killed in the WTC attacks' or whatever serve the same purpose, if it also included links to the sept11 wiki tribute pages? -- Tlotoxl 16:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • No, it wouldn't serve the same purpose. If the content in the individual entries were put into the list, the resultant entry would be huge. Putting the objective content into the tribute wiki is certainly not equivalent to having the objective content in Wikipedia. --The Cunctator
      • Then you can divide the entries up by association (employer/floor worked on). If everyone who died in the attacks is given their own entry, then why not every victim of crime given an entry? I don't think Wiki is or should be the obituary for every single person in the world who's friends or family have internet access. Just as an indication of how ridiculous it would be to have 3000 entries, one for each victim, I only had to click six times on Special:Randompage before I ended up at a sept11 victim: Steven B. Paterson. Steven B. Paterson belongs on memorials and the wiki tribute, but unless someone offers up a compelling reason why his life was significant enough to merit his entry on the encyclopedia, I don't think he should be here. -- Tlotoxl 16:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • With 3,000 victims and 130,000 articles, the chance of hitting one is about one in 43, giving ballpark odds of doing it in 6 tries of 1 chance in 7. Too high. You have a good point about a flaw in random pages, but that's the piece which needs to be fixed. We need a way to indicate the significance of items and random using that to bias search to significant things. Also need this for print and other editions. Single pages here are no more costly than combined pages, so long as you don't stumble on them unless you're looking for minor items. JamesDay 07:22, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Just out of interest, do we have articles on obscure victims of non-American tragedies? jimfbleak 17:16, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't know, but if there were; as a non-American I would be screaming bloody murder, if they were treated cavalierly as a clump of non-individuated articles as above. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:31, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, we do. The 9-11 attack caused many non-US casualties. JamesDay 00:23, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • What about non-American tragedies that didn't happen in the USA? Onebyone 16:03, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, already moved to the Sept 11 wiki. Maximus Rex 22:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. JamesDay 00:23, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as per big vote above and Maximus Rex comment. Fuzheado 02:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete --Jiang
    • Why are we voting on these all separately? Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:10, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
      • I did try to make sense of the formatting, but that was "reverted". This entry is now an unsightly - and more importantly, difficult to follow - mess :-( Andy Mabbett 08:08, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • A bit more doubting on this one, but it does seem that 'Putt for Progress' is not a charity of even local importance. If someone can give some evidence that it might well be, then keep but cut out everything but Put for Progress and his death in 9/11, if not, delete. Andre Engels 08:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. wshun 05:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 7

  • Poznan (old article) - according to Cleanup, this was created by a vandal after Poznan was protected. The redirect is misleading and problematic. Something with a heading "old article" should not redirect you to the new one. Angela 01:51, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • yeah, delete, but make sure nothing uses the redirect. Daniel Quinlan 03:06, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing links to it. At18 17:42, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • THEOS Multi-User Basic programming language. The page currently is just a list of filenames. It might be possible to improve it, but the TEHOS website doesn't provide much of anything but marketing marterial. Also, as far as I can tell, the language is just a variant of Basic, so there should be a THEOS article, not one on the THEOS variant of BASIC. -- Khym Chanur 02:45, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:06, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. not written properly/advert Archivist 11:16, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • I tried to make something out of it, but the result is not exciting. At18 17:42, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • H. Jonat - perhaps this should be completely deleted at this point. --Wik 03:57, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. JamesDay 07:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I'd like to pat myself on the back for removing the backlinks to it. :) Martin 22:20, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • BOHICA - should not have its own article. it should just be listed within acronyms. Kingturtle 16:01, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or make a redirect. At18 17:42, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Doomsday Accounting. Unencyclopedic and indecipherable. Hate to bash a new user but I can't understand this. Ed Cormany 05:43, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I asked this user what this is and if they could clarify it but they haven't responded. Dysprosia 05:47, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't know what it is, but perhaps it's related to the Domesday Book. Maximus Rex 05:54, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • An accounting (list) of the towns in the counties of England, as given in the Domsday Book (often called Doomsday Book). Presumably these will end up wikified and linked to descriptive text about each place at the time of the last conquest of England, about 900 years ago. Suggest moving this one to wikipedia:Cleanup for at least two weeks so the newcomer and new page have a time to get properly started on the project. I'm adding a header to point our newcomer in the right direction. JamesDay 06:50, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree with James. Such a list is just a source text and should not be kept. Move it ps if you want think it would be useful. Angela 06:53, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Too early to tell. If it stays as it is, it's source text to be deleted. If the newbie expands it and writes what it needs to link to, it's an index to articles on Norman Britain and not deletion material. JamesDay 12:02, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, source text. This user appears to be adding incorrect and bizarre (and a clear copyright violation or two) to a large number of articles. Daniel Quinlan 08:22, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Take a look at the diff of Normans between the way it is now and the way it was after your reversion and you'll see the net effect of all of those small edits was a modest expansion of the article, not vandalism. Just a newbie not knowing what he's doing. Suggest that you remove the vandalism note from his talk page and/or explain that the set of small edits caused you to think it was and introduce him to the joys of Show preview. JamesDay 12:02, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • He's added copyright violations, added blatantly incorrect information to Richard Stallman, and his user page indicates that he is suing England because he is the rightful heir to the Norman crown (dating back to the 11th century) and his edits seem to reflect such views. Some of the edits were incomprehensible and seemed to be connected to his lawsuit. The small edits weren't even on my radar. Daniel Quinlan 20:48, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Newbies screw up and people have odd ideas. I don't care about newbie screwups. I care about how they develop into useful Wikipedians and if they do. Too early in the education of this one to tell whether it'll be only useless things or something more productive. The approach you're taking encourages the former and makes the latter less likely. JamesDay 21:39, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • By all indications this one is a crackpot. It is already extremely unlikely that he will become a useful Wikipedian. And we don't need to grasp at every minuscule chance of getting another contributor. Some people seem to still have a mindset that may have been appropriate in the early phase when the point was to get Wikipedia off the ground. But the critical mass has long been reached and it's time to concentrate more on quality than quantity. So our patience with users of this kind should be limited. --Wik 22:00, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Intermission. I can't see that this could ever be more than a dictionary definition and it already exists at Wiktionary. Angela 06:39, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (or add a picture of a potters wheel or a goldfish ;-) ) Andy Mabbett 07:44, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, Wiktionary. Fuzheado 16:52, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ivan of Contentin and Malahue. POV, and not really anything which explains who the person was. Are we going to list everyone in the Domesday Book? RickK 08:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • "All he is known for is hating is Mother". Great article. Delete. Angela
    • Over to cleanup for a couple of weeks. Part of the history of the Normans that newbie User:Vernon Nero De Stafford is working on. If English history doesn't interest you, you can always skip reading about it. It's probably a little more interesting to the English than Congressmen from the 1100s would be, if they existed, but I wouldn't suggest deleting the Congressmen just because they aren't interesting to the English. JamesDay 12:02, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 8

  • Neil De Saint Sauveur II. Why is this article in the Wikipedia? RickK 08:33, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Over to cleanup for a couple of weeks. Part of the history of the Normans that newbie User:Vernon Nero De Stafford is working on. Work for the wecloming committe teaching Vernon how to edit rather than VfD material. JamesDay 11:39, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, if you want to spend two weeks doing that you can. I think this should be deleted. Angela
      • Beats taking everyone's time with VfD. Newbies seldom belong here - education is usually going to be a more fruitful welcome. This newbie certainly needs it. JamesDay 12:05, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Plum smuggling - wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Kingturtle 08:52, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. Daniel Quinlan 09:01, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I have made a brief (sorry!) mention on Sexual slang Andy Mabbett 19:47, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Sexual slang, though I'm tempted to suggest redirect to Really uncommon sexual slang for a term with an estimated 20 Google hits. JamesDay 22:02, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I like the idea that one could look up even very littled-used slang terms somewhere on the web. Move to Wiktionary - Marshman 18:11, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless there can be some significance added to this article beyond a simple definition, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:37, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: Wiktionary --Menchi 08:10, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedians by inclusionism/deletionism - Trollings. Serves no purpose but to increase factionalism and make things more difficult for people who actually hope to make a useful Wikipedia. RickK 20:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Such lists already exist at Meta and have no place in the Wikipedia namespace. Evercat was right to delete this on sight and I don't think there was a reason to undelete it. Angela
    • If the list aleady exists, redirect to it. If it doesn't keep it, though I won't be using it or any of them. If Wikipedians want to play, let them play, in the right namespace. JamesDay 22:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It isn't a namespace issue. This is Wikipedia - an encyclopedia in case you'd forgotten, not a place to play! Angela 22:25, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. 4.46.195.127
    • Delete since we have two such lists on meta. Meta's the place for this, imo. Martin 22:55, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, same reasoning as Martin. -- Mattworld 02:24, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • For the duration of voting on this entry, count me as a deletionist. This has no business here. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 02:31, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. FWIW, interwiki redirects are evil (ever tried editing one? You have to manually construct a URL with wiki.phtml?title=___&redirect=no tacked on). --Delirium 02:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: Metapedia. --Menchi 08:10, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep not, lest I be labeled a deletionist. -- Fuzheado 11:15, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Robopsychology - appears to be complete hogwash -- The Anome 22:47, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I've seen a few Google links that seem to deal with the concept, but I agree that the rest of the article is probably just fiction. Unless it can be cleaned up, probably no great harm in deleting Dysprosia 23:26, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Since the main topic is, itself, entirely fictional, I don't see how anyone could object; nor why anyone would bother deleting this amusing entry, unless to conform to the generally boring and anal tone around here, which, of course, I'm all for. Not-The-Author-But-Close? Just a fan of actual wit, so lacking here. Get your facts straight, O Humourless Ones. Facts are facts, this was fiction about fiction, and fit for a psuedo-pedia. (Nice attempt at violation of privacy, though. Hah! Funny! A bumbling nazi geek!) Stardate 24.4.56 (for your minute records)
    • Delete. It's nonsense. Perish the thought that Wikipedia try to provide factual information (which extends to concepts from fiction). Daniel Quinlan 02:36, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Del: Fictitious. --Menchi 08:10, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Why does that sort of junk even get listed here? Delete. Kosebamse 11:45, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 9

  • Invalid insect taxa described by Horace Donisthorpe. More nonsense from User:Wiwaxia. RickK 04:48, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Source text. It's from 80.255, not Wiwaxia by the way. Angela
    • Delete. ditto what Angela said. Daniel Quinlan 08:12, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm very confused with this Horace Donisthorpe business. Apart from Wikipedia entries Google finds very little about him, but what there is seems to be solid (mentions in the Devon library service's local studies index, a mention in the American Philosophical Society's manuscripts guide, a lengthy entry in the Biographical Dictionary of British Coleopterists (from which a fair bit of the Wikipedia biography seems to have been lifted). Did Donisthorpe actually exist (and describe invalid insect taxa)? Or is the entry in the BDBC one of those test articles publishers put in to find copyright violators? I've had run-ins with 80.255 over UK counties, and if I can regard everything he writes as suspect things would be much easier! -- Arwel 16:50, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As a person with considerable taxonomic experience I have to say this level of detail is getting very esoteric. At best, this list should 1) simply be folded into the bibliography of Donisthorpe, 2) put into a "list of species described by Donisthorpe" (if such exists), or 3) relegated to "facts no one cares to know" (that is, deleted). - Marshman 18:05, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Rabababaism Irrelevant, three Google hits. Kosebamse 12:15, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Why not keep it? Three Google hits shows that it's actually out there, the article does not go off-topic, there are no opinions, it's not a stub. - Calmypal
      • The Google count is nothing more than a concession to the rampant inclusionist faction. I don't need Google, only common sense, to recognize irrelevant entries as such. This is an encyclopedia, not a showcase for everybody's ad hoc vanity trash. Ceterum censeo, common sense is the encyclopedists' ultimate virtue. Kosebamse 19:27, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Irrelevant. -- Finlay McWalter 19:19, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The three google hits are two polls, and a link to a site about it. A religion in which the two leaders have already left? Delete. Secretlondon 19:30, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1701891"