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 Jamesday (talk | contribs) at 07:03, 11 November 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

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 6

  • 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 [1] 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)
      • I'm not here arguing the point that it is an idiosyncratic term (although I might point to the fact that it is included in the AskArt glossary, which isn't something anyone people can just add things to, unmoderated, but nevertheless), but I would like to raise another question -- if the Swider sense is not encyclopedic, what about the other meanings, in particular the Korean? I know very little Korean, so someone else is going to have to analyze this. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:12, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ditto what Cyan said. Daniel Quinlan 04:48, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Do we always have to rely on Google as a reliable source? What if Google has no entries on something that is well documented elsewhere? With most topics, it's highly unlikely, but not impossible.
    • Of course that's possible, but is it relevant here? If there is are sources about this term other than those found using Google, then cite them in the article. Otherwise delete as unverifiable. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Zoe Johnson, Zoe Michelle Johnson, Talk:Zoe Johnson - have been moved to sep11-wiki. Andre Engels 09:13, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to a list of apocryphal victims. JamesDay 00:25, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete wshun 05:37, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-verifiable, hence highly deletable. Martin 22:43, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, but please make sure all information is in sep11 wiki before deleting. Daniel Quinlan 04:48, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Rossami 00:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
    • Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr., Pamela Boyce, Swede Joseph Chevalier, Judith Berquis Diaz-Sierra, Anthony Edward Gallagher, Ralph Gerhardt, Paul Innella, Gricelda E. James, Hweidar Jian, Zoe Johnson, Joseph John Keller, John R. Keohane, Eugen Gabriel Lazar, Joseph Lovero, Ann Marie McHugh, Joseph Mistrulli, Kristen Montanaro, Bernard Pietronico, Kevin Michael Williams, Wa Xiang, Daniel Thomas Suhr, Anthony Starita
    • 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
        • Then add coverage of those from other incidents. They will be as welcomed, at least by me. JamesDay 07:23, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • These need to be considered on an individual basis; some clearly have more merit than others. I also feel we should err (in each case) on the side of keeping, for reasons I think are understood. Two other points: This was a recent event, and fairly minor characters from recent events do get featured in the 'pedia; Dennis Kucinich will naturally get more mention than a minor failed candidate from the 1828 election, so do minor victims of 9/11 get more mention than minor victims of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre or even the Holocaust. Secondly, we shouldn't be too Americanocentricophobic. The Slovenian-language Wikipedia will probably feature more minor Slovenian politicians, so I think events more relevant to the Anglophone world can reasonably be given somewhat more prominence here. -- VV 10:11, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • They shouldn't be mentioned to the point that they get individual articles. The fact that they show up on a list proves your point. I would also oppose individual articles for SARS victims. --Jiang
    • Delete unless the individual has specific historical merit (in which case they will get added back with that merit as the entry point). Rossami 00:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep any that contain verifiable information; delete any that don't. There is no reason to restrict coverage to only those subjects with "historical merit" (whatever that might mean). Any subjects that have information published about them are clearly of interest to someone. Those who are not interested can just ignore the articles. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
    • Delete. If a real person that died, make sure tribute is moved to sep11 wiki. Daniel Quinlan 04:48, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
    • If this information was published in The New York Times (I haven't registered, so can't check), then keep. Isn't that a reliable enough source? -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
    • Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
          • Not enough coverage of them yet. JamesDay 07:23, 10 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)
    • Do we have references for the information in the article? Oh, you know what I'm going to say by now... :) -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
    • Delete, reasons above. JamesDay 07:43, 10 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)
    • Keep this one. Coverage of niche-market systems is interesting. JamesDay 07:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • At18's version is (as s/he says him/herself) not very much, but definitely keepable. The original version was crap. Andre Engels
  • 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)
    • Hmm, three votes, but no reasons given. Please could someone provide one, or we have no information to base a decision on. This is former Wikipedian Helga Jonat, I presume? I haven't really followed her tale. The history looks like that of a user page. I suggest merging with User:H.J. and restoring the content, to preserve the record for those who, like me, aren't familiar with the history of this user. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The request of the non-public person it's about seems like sufficient reason to me, absent some ongoing reason to need to refer to them, in which case it's in the wrong namespace for a contributor. JamesDay 06:14, 11 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)
  • Romans road and biblical salvation. These were essentially religious tracts posted by a new user. I took the text from Romans road and added it to salvation, attempted to state it somewhat more neutrally, and wikified it. Biblical salvation is a sub-stub. These pages are now redundant, though. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:57, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I took most of the pure evangelism out of Biblical salvation and what is left does not justify a page. Romans road is tract material. silsor 02:48, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete. We already have a salvation article, so both can be deleted, I think. I suggest merging the content into salvation or Talk:salvation first. Daniel Quinlan 09:36, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • The GFDL requires attributing contributions to authors. You can't use the material unless you preserve the attribution. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
      • I don't mind giving the people the rope to hang themselves with.:) Some will use it, some won't. JamesDay 07:43, 10 Nov 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)
    • Keep. Three movies of this title, one released in Ireland got good reviews, Due for release this year in Britain. JamesDay 07:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You want to keep a page because there are films of the same name? The article contains nothing about these! You can't keep an unsuitable article on the off-chance someone will write about the films. I'm not disputing whether there could ever be an article called Intermission, just saying that this one does not belong. What is there now will be of no use to someone writing about the film, so why keep it? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article now is only a dictionary definition. Angela 07:54, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiwaxia extended it; in the new version I vote to keep. Andre Engels 09:41, 10 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)
      • At least when an item is listed on VfD, a notice is put on the page directing the newbie or whoever created it to this page. When an item is listed on Cleanup, what gives the newbie any information as to where to go to see the discussion as to what might be wrong with his/her entry? RickK 01:42, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • A comment in the article, on the talk page or a link to a specific description of the problem. VfD makes a very poor impression on a newbie and strongly discourages productive participation in the project. JamesDay 08:00, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. User seems to have an agenda, and this is part of establishing his rightful nobility or something similar. Maximus Rex 23:17, 10 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)
    • And what is wrong with factionalism? Factionalism is naturally occurring and essential for a healthy community. How many people here have read We by Yevgeny Zamyatov? Anyway, no significant group can be unanimous on every issue. Any time people disagree, factionalism occurs. And just because a person associates themselves with a certain group doesn't mean they follow that group's stance or philosophy on every issue. - Calmypal 21:00, 10 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)
      • "Play" was not intended as a positive comment on it.:) JamesDay 08:00, 10 Nov 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)
  • Delete. I want to be on that deletionism list. Wait a minute....DJ Clayworth 14:31, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Is there a list of those who'd rather decide case by case? I looked at the two 'lists' on meta: a bit POV???? Bmills 14:40, 10 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)
    • Keep now. Looks fixed now. Another success story for VfD! Oh, and mumble mumble... I guess Dysprosia too. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 11:04, Nov 10, 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)
    • Keep. It's not fictitious, though it is obscure [3]. Producing good human-robot interactions are a robot design topic of growing importance. The Asimov fictonal subject is also significant enough in the history of science fiction to merit an article or portion of one. JamesDay 08:00, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Rewritten, hopefully all the crud is gone now. Dysprosia 10:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Removed even more crud. Now entirely about Asimov's concept. DJ Clayworth 14:48, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Last version is stubbish, but acceptable. At18 22:22, 10 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)
    • I don't understand any of the proposed reasons for deletion. "Source text"? From what source? "Esoteric"? Is that a bad thing? (The word "invalid" is POV, however. It implies, "Donisthorpe said this. But he was wrong." So the content needs to be moved to a different title.) -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 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)
    • Remember, no matter what something is, it might be useful to somebody. Someone writing a thesis on cults and minor religions, for example. The religion of the Ancient Egyptians is dead, but that doesn't stop us from talking and teaching about it. - Calmypal
      • Remember, this is an encyclopedia. We do not accept any unverified and unverifiable information just because somebody thinks it might eventually be useful to somebody. If this Ism ever reaches even remotely the relevance of old Egyptian religion, it will have an article (a relevant, fact-checked and balanced article, that is), but not now. Kosebamse 09:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. In addition to what else has been said, the information is basically unverifiable and will only grow increasingly unverifiable. The religion of Ancient Egypt, however, was practiced by hundreds of thousands of people and is verifiable and is the matter of much study and writings. It is not possible or even sensible to keep absolutely any and every article as legitimate, it is simply not a philosophy compatible with producing an accurate and excellent encyclopedia. Daniel Quinlan 04:45, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless someone finds evidence that it's somewhat more notable than "two guys made up a religion and got sick of it five months later". I made up a religion too, when I was around eight years old, and then I got sick of it a few months later, but I don't plan to document it. --Delirium 23:11, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Rabababaism is blasphemy to the true faith, Zagagagaism! Delete. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:05, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, delete delete. It would take me ten minutes to create a 'religion' with this much wolrdwide interest. DJ Clayworth 14:51, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Anyone for the Church of Wiki? Andy Mabbett 21:42, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Does the word "irrelevant" have something other than its standard meaning here? To me it means "not relating to the matter in hand". Everything in the article relates to Rabababaism, so I don't understand that objection. However, the fact that the only information on it seems to come from one single website does make it virtually unverifiable, so... delete. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Cobra programming language, Cobra Programming Language, COBRA programming language Cobra is a Java API, not a programming language. -- JeLuF 23:27, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like User:aplank confused "Cobra", a little-known project, with CORBA. As such, using redirects to either a proper "Cobra" page or "CORBA" would be very confusing so I do not advise redirects. Daniel Quinlan 04:53, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC) To quote aplank on IRC:
      Nov 09 15:26:00 <aplank> oops. i thought it said cobra
      Nov 09 15:26:06 <aplank> haha
      Nov 09 15:26:28 <aplank> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORBA
      Nov 09 15:26:31 <aplank> already an article
    • I agree with Daniel Quinlan about the confusion between COBRA and CORBA. Does the actual COBRA project at cobra.sf.net deserve an entry though? Markcollinsx 05:02, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I think that's an orthogonal issue. It gets some hits on Google, but not many. I think there are better places to put effort (like the redirect project, Muhahaha!). Daniel Quinlan 05:15, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • The disambiguation page Cobra should have the link removed as well.
    • Keep (now undecided, waiting on Aplank to clarify what it is supposed to be about), based in part on the history of the Mother Teresa edit war, in which both lister and creator feature. Cobra appears to have some interest, though not as broad as CORBA, so merits the coverage. JamesDay 08:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • What does this article have to do with Mother Teresa? We're deciding what to do with these particular articles. These articles should be deleted since the titles are confusing and misleading for both Cobra and CORBA. Neither Cobra nor CORBA are programming languages, but especially not Cobra. Daniel Quinlan 09:11, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
        • He thinks I listed Cobra programming language to punish aplank. I did not. I don't argue about Cobra.sf.net being not worth to be included, that's not the point. Cobra is no programming language, it's an API. So the title is completely wrong, no matter how important Cobra is. -- JeLuF 09:18, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Punish aplank? That would be uncool, but it's totally not what happened. JeLuF was even involved in the IRC discussion where we talked about it. It was quite congenial. Daniel Quinlan 09:30, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't think you did. I simply don't know, so I wanted to make others aware of the possibility. My own view is that the edit you made to Mother Teresa was a good one and my own keep choice was made on the merits of Cobra itself, having concluded that your action on Mother Teresa was not a factor. JamesDay 09:59, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • But why should we keep an article named "programing language" on a topic that is no programing language? We don't have an article on George Bush programing language? (Attention, straw man argument ;-) => Move to Cobra API and delete all "programing language" redirects. -- JeLuF 10:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • I think Cobra is more of a server thing and CORBA is a bit of everything. Why it's necessary to save the content, I don't know — there's nothing really there.
        • I suppose that the best thing to do is leave it to Aplank to decide what it's about and move the article where it belongs based on what is supposed to be in it. JamesDay 06:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I am sorry to have mixed up CORBA and COBRA, but I found a website which called COBRA, a programmming language --Aplank 13:18, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • But this is not the Cobra the article is covering. Same name, different software. So rewrite it to cover the language, not the API. -- JeLuF 20:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 10

  • Really Dodgy Dossier - seems to be a made-up term. --Wik 07:33, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Google shows that it's one author and a title of one of the stories of that author, not anything in great use. Interesting theory, not otherwise known under this name. JamesDay 08:30, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. - user:zanimum
  • L. J. Magnus - moved from Cleanup. Extremely stubby, no google hits found. Andre Engels 11:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Comments from cleanup:
      • Can't find any relevant Google hits
      • extreme stub, nothing found on Google. Delete
      • So what, it's false? There's no proof to that. Lots of things aren't on Google. Tristanb
      • The article is not really giving any useful information, and we can't find the additional information to make it a good article. Add to that that there is no evidence at all that it actually is not false, and I don't see what use it has. Delete. Andre Engels
    • Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 05:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete LJ Magnus, now it's a redirect. Moved to Ludwig Immanuel Magnus. Same birth and death years, so I assume that LJ is a misread or typo for LI. A google search on that name explains why the entry is merited. Later: and it's no longer a stub.JamesDay 06:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Tryphaena Cleopatraina - From Cleanup. Extreme stub, and on the talk page severe doubts about its correctness have been raised. Andre Engels 11:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - invented. The only daughter Cleopatra VII had was Cleopatra Selene. Muriel 20:48, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sniggle - From Cleanup. Dictionary definition. Andre Engels 11:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Worth keeping if anyone is competent to expand on the culture jamming aspect of the term. Bmills 11:30, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Adium - basically this page appears to be a POV plug from the guy that wrote it. IMO it needs majot changes to be kept. GRAHAMUK 11:49, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to cleanup. -- Finlay McWalter 11:57, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not so certain this is that bad. We could find an Adium user to go through and add some stuff about weaknesses, or ask the original author for a rewrite.
    • I'm the original author, and I've rewritten the article; hopefully it's less POV now. Do any other changes need to be made in order to keep it? --bdesham 16:55, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I didn't look at previous versions, but the article seems OK right now. At18 22:30, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article may be okay, but I think it's inappropriate as it is advertising for his own program (and also self-promotion, there are many programs with many many more users that do not plug the author). Daniel Quinlan 04:47, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
      • Er-- how is this self-promotion? I'm not the author of the program, nor has the author of the program edited the article at all. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was a minor developer for a while, but that's not even stated anywhere in the article.) In any event, Daniel, do you think it would be enough to remove the author's name? --bdesham 04:56, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Any article on any work should say who authored the work, of course. And really all these attempts to ascribe bad motives to contributors have got to stop. No-one can read the minds of the contributors, and in any case their motives are irrelevant. Content should be judged on its merits, regardless of who contributed it. -- Oliver P. 06:10, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Fathers' rights - complete POV. It would be nice to have a balanced objective page on this topic, but this isn't it
    • took me a minute to kill it and Dysprosia (compliments!) another one to make a stub out of it, so keep. Kosebamse 12:26, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd be happy to revise the POV version, but I can't seem to find it. It's not in the history.... Can someone help me locate the deleted version? Voyager640 15:56, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It looks like Dysprosia submitted her rewrite the same moment I deleted the first version, so perhaps the database has swallowed it somehow. Rest assured it wasn't really worth reading (something like "fathers are the pariahs of our society etc." Kosebamse 18:49, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If it's not a good article yet, it should be. This is an emerging social phenomenon getting significant recent press in the US. Rossami 00:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems an OK stub with potential. FearÉIREANN 00:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • DG Bank building - Until we have a page on this bank itself, there's no purpose to an article on a building that it solely runs. - user:zanimum
    • It's linked to from a page about the architect - if it is an interesting building then maybe someone will add to it. Secretlondon 14:14, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've added enough to make it a proper stub, I think. --Michael Shields 17:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I added some more info, and some links. (is there a Berliner wikipedian who'd like to pop down there and take a photo of it?) -- Finlay McWalter 18:33, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It is generally accepted as alright to link to a page that does not yet exist. Someday there will be an article about the bank. Calmypal
    • Keep. Angela 23:06, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Madhavi_bhosale - even if this person did exist (which I can find no evidence for, although I probably missed the correct permutation of letters), they certainly don't seem to be notable enough for an article here. Only one link to them which was added to the September 25 page to indicate that they died september 25th this year. Morwen 17:58, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Vector (disambiguation) - Unused disambig. to a disambig. page. Skeetch 20:24, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete wshun 20:36, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Redirects don't do any harm. And they might already be spidered by google et.al. Removing them will make users receive empty pages as a result of a google search. -- JeLuF 20:42, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, same reason. Onebyone 21:03, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Angela 23:06, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No links in. While it may or may not have already been spidered by google, leaving it will certainly create a bad hit in the future. We want google to go to Vector directly if possible. Rossami 00:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Virtue (economics) - from Cleanup Andre Engels 00:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Remarks on Cleanup:
      • huh?
      • would be dictionary definition, if it only made sense
      • unwikified, poor article
      • delete
    • Yes. Delete - Marshman 02:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Google shows no relevant hits for +virtue +economics or "virtue theory" economics either. Delete unless someone can verify it actually exists. --Delirium 04:44, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • Mary Bell and most cases listed in Child murder - I don't see why we need articles on each case. They are sad but of no historial significances, except to those involved. I know some historial significant child murders, they are all related to power struggles within royal families, but they are not on the list. wshun 06:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Not sure I agree. Articles don't need to be of historical significance to be interesting, there is plenty of trivia in other parts of WP - lord knows I've added enough myself. Someone reasearching the cases could get a decent overview from WP, so it's got value. Keep. GRAHAMUK 06:50, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1711298"