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 MartinHarper (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 19 November 2003 (Note that redirects don't "rack up the google hits" - google is smart enough to only give one hit, no matter how many redirects we create.). 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 -- lists and categories

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 12

November 13

  • A few selected articles created and edited mostly by User:Khranus, now banned for various problems. I don't trust a word of these articles or whether they should even exist. Daniel Quinlan 10:30, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Alex Grey
      • Alex Grey looks ok to me. Keep. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep, quite well known artist.JamesDay 16:53, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Bohemian Grove
      • Bohemian Grove is a valid subject, but one that easily will be handled wrong by a conspirologist like Khranus. Nothing lost in deleting. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Should be kept and would bear being expanded. Bmills 17:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I feel no confidence from the text or the link provided that this is anything more than a movie script description. Delete - Marshman 17:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. Seems accurate and Google finds more references than the pair I added to the article JamesDay 22:30, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Everyone's heard of Bohemian Grove. The topic should obviously be kept. Wiwaxia 19:48, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • 8-Circuit Consciousness
      • 8-Circuit Consciousness gives little information, but what is there seems right, though too little to be useful. Seems rather idiosyncratic, though, so I'd say, merge it into the Timothy Leary article and redirect. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Certainly needs a lot more text to be of value. And some citation giving asssurance Leary had anything to do weith this (and was conscious at the time) - Marshman 17:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I think it may be usefully folded into Timothy Leary. It exists, but I would not vouchsafe his state of consciousness (altered or otherwise) while he scribbled it. But he did originate the schema. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 10:55, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • all of the pages listed at User:Cyan/chain, and any others in the sequence that I missed. -- Cyan 22:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge history with User talk:BuddhaInside as explained on that page. Angela 22:47, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to be a total bother here, but I have to oppose deletion. Part of what made this user so annoying was his creation of these 'Deletexxxx' pages. Seeing these pages in the way he had them shows their stupidity, as well as showing the precedent for why he moved the Main Page to the place he did. -- Mattworld 22:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • But that can be explained without needing to keep the pages. Angela 22:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I know, I just feel that showing rather than telling is better. -- Mattworld 23:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 14

  • Cock - Until we someone wanting to write about the signifcance of male chickens, this is just immature. - user:zanimum
    • Maybe Wiktionary would be a better home? -- Pakaran 21:19, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are more uses just need editing. Archivist 21:36, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reasonable, if incomplete, disambiguation. Andy Mabbett 23:26, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - disambiguation is a good solution. Some day we will have an article on cockerel. Martin 00:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Slang terms go to Wiktionary or an article about slang, or both. - Arthur George Carrick 01:31, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, what else can we write about? Water pipes? Cocked dice? Weathervanes? They're gotta be something we can do with that word. Wiwaxia 02:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I thought I was being good I left out stop cock ! :) Archivist 03:05, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary, please. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The edits have wikified it completely. - Arthur George Carrick 03:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, " JamesDay 19:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Illuminati Order Illuminati Order of the United States (relisted with new location 21:28, 14 Nov 2003)
    • Delete - not encyclopedic as it stands. --Minesweeper 09:12, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Appears to be a very minor internet-only organization dedicated to promoting some sort of vague philosophy and associated mp3.com band, as far as I can tell. --Delirium 11:59, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE. Totally POV! Besides, we already have an entry on Illuminati. —Frecklefoot 15:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Previously listed as a copyvio from [1] but the talk page claims the submitter of this article also owns that. Angela 22:07, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bizarre. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • This article is about the Illuminati Order, and not specifically about the definition of an Illuminati. All information is verifiable. How can this entry be brought up to Wikipedia standard? 01:42, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It should be written like something you'd find in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It should be in third person form and shouldn't read like an advertisement. It should be written under the assumption that the reader knows almost nothing about the article topic. See also: Wikipedia:News style. --Minesweeper 10:08, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • mv any applicable content to applicable Illuminati order article; make a redirect; otherwise delete. reddi
    • Keep. Edit as necessary to conform to Wikipedia's editorial standards. -- NetEsq 19:52, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 15

  • Yugu is a set of 3 articles which themselves only redirect (incorrectly) to yet another page. -- Pakaran 04:22, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like it's been fixed... -- Pakaran 04:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It looks like 61.186.115.162 has been creating a lot of pages which all redirect to the same nonexistent article. I don't have a boilerplate on hand to talk with this user, or I would... articles probably need deleting for fixup? -- Pakaran 04:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Democratic_Evolution - orphan. dull. self-promotional vanity page.
    • Idiosyncratic. Delete. Andre Engels 15:07, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even sure he has his terms right. Seems more like a description of a republic than a democracy - Marshman 04:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Polyconomics - advertisement -- JeLuF 14:59, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as fast as possible advert Archivist 15:02, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Clear advert; nothing left when removing POV. Delete. Andre Engels 15:07, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Reverting (not just withdrawing) my vote. Has been improved enough to keep now. Andre Engels 00:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Advert. Delete. orthogonal 15:45, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. All POV has been removed. What's left is a valid stub. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - It is just one of thousands of wealth management firms. The fact that they are guided by supply side principles is interesting, but no reason to treat it any differently. mydogategodshat 03:59, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If it was a true think tank it would be worth keeping, but they seem to generate income from subscriptions to a financial/political news service that makes financial recommendations. mydogategodshat 06:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Advertisement. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • A NPOV article is not an "advertisement". An advertisement is something that tries to imply that the company in question is better than the others. That objection is therefore not valid. -- Oliver P. 06:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Although I think you might want to reassess the definition of advertising that you are using, I agree with you that the article itself is NPOV. I would put this article in the same category as a vanity page where the person dosn't claim to be better than others. I just don't think Wikipedia should be used by thousands of minor companies that use us as a tool to attract traffic to their web sites. It the company was a important think tank or major financial services firm, then they would deserve an article. mydogategodshat 07:23, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Whether it's NPOV doesn't matter; wikipedia is not a business directory. 129.2.217.134 10:27, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Dolphin brain -- unverfied speculation, pseudo-scientific nonsense. An embarassment to Wikipedia. orthogonal 15:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Speaking as a non-expert on neurophysiology, it seems to me totally legitimate, mostly composed of neuroanatomy facts and maybe a little speculation at the end. History shows some edit wars that have since settled on an evidently acceptable form. And as a wannabe scientist, it doesn't seem in the least "pseudo-scientific nonsense". At18 19:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can you show me in what scientifically reputable publication there is evidence for
      • Dolphin brains appear to be composed of two similar sub-brains, each of which has two hemispheres, so dolphins might be said to have 4-lobed brains....each of the two dolphin sub-brains has an independent blood supply. orthogonal 22:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmm.. it appears that I was too quick. A Google search turned out many peculiar sites but nothing legit. I retire my vote. At18 23:00, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Dolphin brain" is a legitimate topic for an article. Correct any factual errors, but don't delete. The article already contains a notice that the factual accuracy is dispute. -- Miguel
    • Seems like we have to keep the article. Probably just needs work to remove any non-factual material - Marshman 04:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It has a LOT of Khranal influence, though. I'll try and work on it tonight... the problem is knowing what is and isn't true... -- Pakaran 04:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable to keep, but I suggest we cut out anything suspect and let the article build up again. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ile2 - on a finnish usenet troll. Secretlondon 16:09, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove. This is personal info, which is in no way related to the purpose of Wikipedia.
    • Remove, borders on abuse. Morwen 22:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 04:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Protologism - to quote "a newly created word which has not yet gained any wide acceptance". Morwen 16:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • just an old fashione delete req Archivist 16:51, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. See [2] for the possible reason why it is here. JamesDay 19:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - doesn't appear to be a real word (if it was, would redirect to sniglet or somesuch. Martin 20:40, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Someones website, nothing more - Marshman 04:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 10:06, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • [[3]] - an advert Morwen 16:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Alexa ranking is 60,647. Angela 16:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advert Archivist 16:49, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK 19:15, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del, advertising. (I can't help but noticing though that Angela justifies deletion by the site's low Alexa ranking, although she voted against deletion of EncycloZine, which has an even lower ranking. Well, maybe that was just supposed to be additional information here, not a justification in itself.) --Wik 20:23, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real content, no reason why it might be notable. Martin 20:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 10:06, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Automatic mathematics - this article was blanked. I reverted it. Its merits should be discussed here. Kingturtle 22:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no such thing. Morwen 22:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pure fiction - Marshman 04:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Regardless of what Marshman says, there is such a thing (I've added the well-known example of Meret Oppenheim's "equation," which might be so described). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:51, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Boyerism. --Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • Would you stop using the term "Boyerism," Wik? I have already established that,
        • the term has a meaning, actually more than one meaning, having nothing to do with me, for which I provided references
        • the term was used with reference to me about ten years before you claim to have "coined" it
        • the term is vague and you use it inaccurately.
      • Moreover, by your definition Automatic mathematics can have nothing to do with Boyerism ("someone's personal term for an art technique which is being promoted by Daniel C. Boyer, although apparently no one else uses it" as automatic mathematics is pretty clearly not an art technique. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, idiosyncratic/made-up. Maximus Rex 18:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Doesn't exist--Robert Merkel 22:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I've rewritten it in a way that I hope makes it clear that "automatic mathematics" is not mathematics. Michael Hardy 23:49, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Marcus McCallion, and Reflexive typography. Probably an autobiography (the person described lives in Brighton and that IP is in brighton and has edited Brighton) of someone who is non-famous. The latter is a movement they seem to have created. I've not listed several other articles because they seem to be of genuine interest. Morwen 23:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree that the entries are probably not up to the usual standards, but I really want to avoid biting this new user. Let us be gentle. -- Cyan 00:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hi - I am the user who added the new entries. Yes I am from Brighton and am documenting things that I find interesting in Brighton (and around) but I suppose that maybe McCallion isn't important enough to have an entry. Sorry if it seems trivial to you but just really like using this system and adding stuff. Will stick to the bigger fish if that's what you prefer.. ;-) -- FT 02:24, 16 Nov 2003 (GMT)
    • Seems like there should at least be an explanation of significance. As these articles stand now, they seem like ramblings. If this is just POV, then that generally would not be acceptable here. The impression I get is: you became graphic artists; the only work available is in advertising; life should offer more. Get real. Everyone in every profession has to decide: should I do work that is worth paying me for or should I just have fun and do what I like. The choice is yours, but don't make it sound like society is to blame - Marshman 04:18, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep reflexive typography. The two should be seperated as one is obviously autobiographical and the other is descriptive of a graphic design form. FT
    • Delete both. Marcus McCallion is non-famous. Reflexive typography is idiosyncratic (1 Google hit). Angela 15:03, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If verifiable, keep; otherwise don't... -- Oliver P. 06:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • First things first 1964 Manifesto consists only of the text of the manifesto. -- Khym Chanur 02:36, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, source text. -- Mattworld 03:26, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Part of the same entries as above. Just straight POV. - Marshman 04:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • You are a bit quick to be so judgemental. Can you not give me time to add the explanatory text. This manifesto has been very influencial in graphic design and the repecussions are still being felt. It takes a while to get this down... You might think it just a point of view but unless you are in G.D I doubt you would have heard of it - I thought that that was the point of an encycleapedia to be explanatory!!?! - FT 18:31, 16 Nov 2003 (GMT)
    • It looks like this one should be kept, although obviously the source text should not be there. I guess it's just being seen by others as guilty-by-associatoin. Morwen 18:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Give FT time to shace it up. orthogonal 19:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 16

  • KiAi - this is a dictionary definition. Kingturtle 04:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • - Move to Wiktionary - Marshman 04:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • mv to appropriate martial arts article; Copy to Wiktionary; then delete JDR
    • With some fleshing out, this could make a good article. Do most martial artists in fact say kiai? Why that particular yell? How does yelling help them "focus?" Some references to kiai in motion pictures, cartoons? (Why the odd capitalization in the title? Is this an old CamelCase article?) -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If the content is moved to another article, keep as redirect to that article to preserve the history. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • My instructor always used "Kai" in writing... is there one correct transliteration? -- Pakaran 01:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Arnold.jpg (warning: nudity). I don't think this is very appropriate (dare I say unencylopedic?). It's also probably copyvio, but even if it's not it doesn't belong. -- VV 05:45, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't see how we could use it even if it wasn't a copyvio. --mav 10:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Shocking... but probably unneccessary as well. Delete.Kosebamse 11:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • not PD; delete JDR
    • Pretty stupid uploading an image that can not (and anyone with an understanding of Wikipedia should know) be used in an article. The point is...? Delete - Marshman 23:36, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Will never be used. Delete. - Arthur George Carrick
    • Looks faked to me. Delete anyway. DJ Clayworth 16:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Internet child pornography
    • An article with a troubled history, this has previously been listed on Vfd for seven days with no consensus to delete, but the fact that it had been outside the article space during the discussion period may well have prevented people from realising that its status as an article was being seriously debated. Now that I've moved it back into the article space, perhaps we should start all over again. (Please could people not, in future, move articles out of the article space before their status has been decided. It does nothing but cause confusion. Thanks.) -- Oliver P. 08:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Get rid of it. It reads like a 'how-to' to an audience of pedophiles. --mav 10:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but remove "how to " material (including removal from history). Andy Mabbett 11:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The question of "delete versus disinfect" has been extensively debated before, but attempts at removing the "how-to" character of the whole thing have not gone very far. It it is not radically rewritten it can not stay. Kosebamse 11:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If the comments and questions in bold inside the articles were followed, it wouldn't be a bad article. At18 12:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I would propose keeping this article. It still needs editing, but there's much valid content here, and we don't delete articles just because they need work. Martin 13:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have a whole page of How-tos. If we have them in principle, we might as well have this; making an exception on the basis of the subject would be POV. --Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • How-to content of this nature could well be illegal in many countries, free countries, that Wikipedia has a strong user base in. Don't kid yourself that we can't treat this case differently if we want to. Pete 17:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • copyedit and keep; otherwise delete JDR
    • It needs editing to make it no longer a "how-to", as do all the other "how-to" articles. (No exceptions!) But that means it is a page needing attention, not deletion. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move any salvageable content to child pornography, and redirect from this article to there - may be a way to remove the how-to nature. A problem with this article is that few people seem to want to edit it as they don't want their name associated with the topic.
    • Remove the how-to stuff: currently reads like a POV article encouraging illegal activities. Bmills 10:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Could use some editing, especially along the lines others above have suggested; but appears to be a serious attempt to prodiuce an article on a real subject, so keep - Marshman 23:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It is a serious subject so we need an article on the subject, but the 'how to' stuff needs to be deleted permanently, it gives me the creeps. This is not a subject matter we need maintain NPOV upon.
      • Yes it is. Anyone can be neutral on the easy stuff. The test of our neutrality is in using a neutral point of view even where it is difficult. Martin 23:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • First things first 2000 Manifesto - contains mostly primary text --Minesweeper 13:18, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • I jumped on this too (in Talk), but the poster is new, let's give him a bit of time to make it an article before jumping in with both feet, maybe? orthogonal 13:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looking at the edit history of this IP, there's lots of interesting material. Some newbie issues but this looks as though it'll be fine after the lerning hurdles have been dealt with. JamesDay 14:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Still looks like this is going nowhere, but if FT can actually make something of this, then hold off deleting. I see nothing new in the "Manifesto" other than the age old premise that artists should either do something (in their mind) relevant and starve, or do what society is willing to pay them for. Although couched here as an "ethical" dilema, it is actually just a political one. I too hate cigarettes, but they are legal. It is therefore a political decision not to do cigarette ads, not an ethical one - Marshman 17:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Marshman you do not have a clue what you are talking about. What exactly is the difference between the ethical and the political? You read texts like you have a privileged position on the world and can see an 'objective' stance. Your argument pretends that it is that of 'reason' and 'common-sense' but in reality it conceals a political stance of the methodological individualist - right-wing and capitalist. So if you have a political position then why cannot others? What gives you the right to declare Truth with a capital T? I vote to keep it and have some balance against this pseudo objective stance which conceals a conservative, individualist and highly political agenda.
      • Ease up anonymous dude. I know what I'm talking about, but clearly you would not be receptive. And what the hell is a "methodological individualist"? Should I be insulted? Hurt? Proud? I'm definitey NOT rightwing by the way, and far from a capitalist (although I don't regard that as necessarily bad). Shows how good your politcal radar is. Here is a difference for you: if you are a graphical artist and take a job doing a cigarette ad, but do a crapy job because you are opposed to smoking, then that is a breach of ethics. If you refuse to do the work, that could be because of your personal ethics (you regard the perveyors of tobacco to be evil), but the entire question of smoking is really a societal/political one, not a moral issue. I find your POV to be at odds with general liberal thinking; not everyone has an "agenda" and I did not vote to delete, so what is your gripe? - Marshman I might add, I went and read the original 1964 Manifesto (on the web), and would have no problem with signing on to it myself. In my life, I've always been a critic of the advertising industry and consumerism. The problem is the strident presentations we are getting at Wikipedia on this subject: try this: lose the jargon, write like you are trying to teach something (stop preaching), and watch the POV. The subject is a valuable one, but so far you are a poor presenter. Around here, you are going to run into problems until you learn to get it across without POV. - Marshman 22:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • A Methodological Individualist is a person who believes in the sovereignty of the individual. The point is you cannot write in an objective style - it is a fiction. I suggest you read Gadamer, Foucault, Derrida et al. Anyway reading these debates I don't quite undestand the reasoning for deletions. It is far from democratic to allow a random collection of people to vote who are insiders and moreso have no idea about the subject matter... some real tricky questions about how you decide to manage this project if you ask me. I think a democratic pool with a real fair and equal voting system should be instigated - this is far from transparent, fair and free... just my 2 cents... User:ABC
      • Hmmm. Sounds good (sovereignty of the individual), but if that means "no responsibility to society," then anonymous dude is definitely way off base. Anyway, your criticism of the process is probably quite valid (discussed many times around here), but the idea there should (or even could) be such a pool is probably not realistic. Either everyone has an equal opportunity to voice their opinion (system in place now), or a select few are "elected" to make decisions for us. The latter is more likely to upset valued contributors than the former (which tends mostly to upset newbies and questionable contributors; no intention here to chasracterize anyone, just process). And all that is being said here is that an encyclopedia is no place for strong POVs. I think the problem that anonymous dude has with this tenent of Wikipedia is very clear in his response to criticism of his articles. Go read some of the articles. They are packed with jargon and source text. They need to be toned down and written so the average non-flamming liberal can even understand what he is saying. If I mis-interpreted the point of the articles (a distinct possibility) it might just be that the article is at fault (in its presentation of concepts) and not me. - Marshman 17:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. By the way, who made the vote above? Morwen 18:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Must be the graphics guy that is writing the POV articles? - Marshman
  • The following are talk pages archiving discussions of the AKFD article: Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/redirect, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/existence, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge. Also related, but discussing seperate content, is Talk:Anti-gay slogan.
    • Delete (see below) -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A long-running discussion that is important as a precedent and as an example of the issues involved. Since this whole dreary debate keeps recurring, it is important to keep a record of what we decided. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree the discussion should be kept. One solution might be to change the titles of the talk pages to remove the actual slogan from them, such as Talk:Slogan AKFD/title rather than Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title. That does cause problems with broken links though. Angela
      • That would do much to solve the problem. One page stuck in meta on "Offensive slogans" could replace the vast network of pages and talk pages and subpages that we've built up by constantly fragmenting the discussion. -- Someone else 19:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela's solution would be fine by me, provided someone was willing to get fix all the links. However, merging all the pages together (on meta or elsewhere) would be a mistake - the discussion is fragmented because it is discussing seperate things. Martin 19:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To remove the slogan from the titles would obscure what the discussion is actually about. Why anyone should consider this a good thing is beyond me. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It would be good because it would produce a better encyclopedia. It's not all about process, some consideration should be given to the result. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's only removing the title from the talk pages, not the article itself. The point is to have fewer pages with this in the title to prevent it showing up so many times in the search. There is no reason at all that it should obscure what the discussion is about. If necessary, a line could be added to each to talk page stating the page is discussing the article with the title "Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" if it isn't already clear. Angela 02:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Memorializing the talk page is fine. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • All remaining talk pages with "AIDS kills fags dead" in the title. I posit that there is no value in any of the talk pages discussing the issue. Deleting them is the most merciful thing we can do to protect the next 7 generations of Wikipedians. Shoot this radioactive waste into the Moon, no, the Sun, no, just get rid of it all. I considered merging/redirecting, followed by a request to delete, but they're all indexed by Google and other search engines and unless we get rid of them all, we're going to be hit results 1-50 for this discussion until the end of time. And yes, I find it offensive that we've added legitimacy to this rarely used expression. It's covered more than adequately in one article now anti-gay slogan. Daniel Quinlan 11:16, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • agreed - I've only ever heard this expression in wikipedia. Secretlondon 14:19, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, please delete these -- I completely agree with Daniel. I will point out that there is a photograph somewhere of someone at a protest with a sign that said this -- but that's the only instance of it existing outside of Wikipedia that I know of. -- BCorr ¤ #1041;райен 14:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For info: [4] offers evidence that the slogan has been seen on a bumper sticker. Andy Mabbett 12:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I also completely agree with Daniel. Bmills 14:34, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Could not agree more. Delete and bury. As long as I have been here (since August) this issue has been a constant at VfD. Does not deserve this much of our valuable time - Marshman 17:20, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I could not agree more with Daniel. Delete the whole bloody lot. There is no justification whatsoever for their continued existence. FearÉIREANN 20:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Eh? I still vote to keep, as indicated above. Why are we voting multiple times on the same issue? Don't answer that. Martin 22:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
    • Delete. Such of it as is informative, should reside at homophobic hate speech. Also, see below. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • what do you want to do with the article information itself? Delete it, or factor it into another article? orthogonal 17:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. If you want to merge and redirect it, you don't need VfD for that, though please read past discussion at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge before doing anything drastic. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You certainly need VfD if you want to delete the redirect, don't you? 10 pages with AKFD in their titles pointing somewhere is still gonna rack up the google hits. -- Someone else 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Sure, but first see if you can get agreement for merging the content, at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge, then merge the content, and then see about deleting the resultant redirect, if you still feel that's necessary. IMO. Note that redirects don't "rack up the google hits" - google is smart enough to only give one hit, no matter how many redirects we create. Martin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Is this junk still on? This POV rubbish has had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. Please delete it and all its unnecessary redirect pages. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Martin. Discussing whether or not the article should be deleted as a redirect is academic, because it isn't a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Discussing why we need (exact count hard to determine...15?) pages of discussion seems not so academic.--Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~
    • Delete. I don't think it is encyclopedic. The term is not all that common and it originated here as trolling, article has taken on a life of its own, deleting it will improve Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. JDR
    • My vote for article is to delete. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can anyone find ANY page ANYWHERE on the Internet that has the phrase "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" in its title? Other than in the Wikipedia, that is, which seems to have a great many of them. Do we have them all? And if so, can't we limit ourselves to having all 2 of them (an article and ONE talk page? -- Someone else 07:10, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I take it that that's a vote to keep this article, now a redirect, since you seem happy for us to have AN article? We have five(?) talk pages because people on Wikipedia have spent so much time talking about this article. If you dislike that, you're welcome to stop talking about it. And yes, I can find pages with "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" in the title - google groups has bunches of them. Martin 22:53, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • General comments on AKFD articles above:
    • Searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" on the web now gets wikipedia-derived hits in 8 of the first 11 spots. We're not simply reporting anymore: we're actively promoting this lovely sentiment. Time to shove this toothpaste back into the tube. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Promoting the sentiment? Does having an article on Nazism promote Nazism? Having lots of hits for Wikipedia articles does promote Wikipedia, I suppose, but I think that's a good thing. :) -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Having redirects from every marginal variation does suggest that we want to call special attention to it, yes. An encyclopedia with more entries in its index pointing to AKFD than it does to, oh, say, Nazi, does suggest that the encyclopedia is especially fond of the former, and has little rational planning or forethought about emphasizing important rather than unimportant concepts. The fact that you have to scroll down the bage to get to non-Wikipedia-related hits also suggests we might be inflating the importance of this particular phrase. And not all publicity is good publicity. -- Someone else 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • And that's exactly what we deserve. If we had left that informative and harmless article alone after it had been written and posted by, I think, Axel Boldt, there wouldn't be anything to complain about now. (Due to all those redirects it's now also difficult to find the original text.) Reading the above comments shows me that right now people aren't even sure what they want deleted -- the article itself or just the numerous redirects. Two more things (again): (1) Writing about a particular subject does not imply advocating it, just as it does not imply opposing it. Please see the use-mention distinction. (2) Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached and the matter is dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Wikipedia? (I can hear voices telling me this doesn't belong here, so I may post my second question again at a more appropriate place.) --KF 09:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To respond to Someone Else's comment about google hits, I think on balance I'm not too depressed if it takes longer for some Nazi punk to find a hate site because they keep getting hits from a respectable encyclopedia with a policy of writing from a neutral point of view. In any case, most of the Wikipedia-related hits are not being listed for deletion, being mailing list posts, user talk pages, meta pages, and other encyclopedic articles like Fred Phelps, Raid bug spray, Matthew Shepard, etc. Martin 19:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. As SomeoneElse said, once we start "making the news" and bring up the majority of mentions/hits of the term, we are the ones determining the general popularity of the phrase. This is problematic. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia doesn't make up the majority of hits on the google-indexed web: it's about 2/3rds, most of which are at out mirrors, or in places that nobody's proposed for deletion. It doesn't make up any of the 494 hits on google groups. I doubt it makes up a significant minority of mentions in the real world - last I checked, folks who waved anti-gay banners tend not to do so in the context of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Now are we making the news - neither of the two references to "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" on google news at the time of writing had anything to do with Wikipedia. On a side note, you haven't said what you want to delete, which would seem to be relevant. Martin 22:59, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Boyerism. Unnecessary redirect. (now the article has moved to Patrick Boyer). Angela 19:25, 16 Nov 2003 (23:05, 16 Nov 2003)
    • Delete, dictionary definition anyway. Morwen 19:28, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I am fleshing out. Already listed on Cleanup. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - only nine google hits, #1 of which is us. Thanks for listing, though. Martin 19:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Google's #1 vote is "Delete"... [[5]] Other sites seem to give a different definition... Κσυπ Cyp 21:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Since the article was mostly about Patrick Boyer, I have moved it to Patrick Boyer in the hope that it will turn into a nice biographical article. Boyerism is now a redirect with no history. I don't see any harm in keeping it as a redirect to Patrick Boyer. -- Oliver P. 23:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • See below. Andy Mabbett 07:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Term is not used in this context. POV title of redirect also. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
      • No, no... Below is for discussion of the article. This is for discussion of the redirect. Actually, no-one seems to want the article deleted, so I'll remove the entry. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Um, I was talking about the redirect, it is both used in the wrong context and POV. Note that I voted to keep the article. Daniel Quinlan 09:14, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
          • Oops, I put that in the wrong place. It was meant as a reply to Andy Mabbett, who just said "See below", presumably referring to the discussion of the article. -- Oliver P. 09:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The article now contains no mention of the word Boyerism so such a redirect would be confusing nd should, therefore, be deleted. Angela 08:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • As one of the resident Canadian politics dudes, and the guy who removed the Boyerism reference from the redirected Patrick Boyer article, my reasoning was as follows: Patrick Boyer is a real figure in Canadian politics, and is worth keeping. As for "Boyerism", from the context I have it would appear that Daniel C. Boyer latched onto a single, isolated coinage of the word in reference to Patrick Boyer to buttress his side of the "Boyerism" debate. Trust me, I know my Canadian politics -- the word is close to meaningless in that context. There is no such phenomenon large enough to be worth an encyclopedia entry. Bearcat 08:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Okay, okay... Kill the redirect! -- Oliver P. 09:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 17

  • Ben & Mo's. Deletion notice was added on 12 November but it wasn't listed here. Angela
    • "Somewhat shizophrenic dining establishment?" What's that supposed to mean? - Arthur George Carrick
      • It means that the author doesn't know very much about shizophrenia :-( Delete. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 18

  • Fukue,Keita - the story does not check out. seems like agrandized self-promotion. I say delete. (Also, the article name probably has to be fixed) Kingturtle 02:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it does check out (much to my shock). I found a Japanese site for a book about the album and the contest he supposedly won here. It does seem a bit premature to have an article on the musician and the article needs a lot of work, but I don't think it should be deleted. -- Tlotoxl 03:02, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, it actually turns out that Adorunta, the band that Fukue Keita is supposedly the lead singer and guitarist for, is a one-man-band lead by a 53 year old guy from Hiroshima who calls himself Adorunta. I rewrote the page, removing almost everything, and moved it to Adorunta. -- Tlotoxl 19:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sydney Boys and Sydney Boys High School. I don't care where the school is, we don't need an article on every school in the world. RickK 02:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a valid article. Keep. Vancouverguy 02:48, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No, it's not a valid article. We have already deleted other high schools that don't belong here, why does this one deserve to stay? RickK 03:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I merged across the reasons from the other article (Sydney Boys). It is a bit significant, but anyway... Dysprosia 05:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Not any more significant than any other school in Sydney. I'm uncertain why, with such a strong web site, someone would want to add all this stuff to a Wikipedia article (interesting grading curve, by the way). Should be severely cut back, then merged into Sidney or Schools in Sydney where every school can place a blurb - Marshman 23:21, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 03:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. According to the article, "[t]he school was founded in 1883, making it the oldest state school in Sydney." Does that make it more worth keeping? I mean, I'd say Boston Latin has a place in Wikipedia. orthogonal 06:30, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are many articles on secondary schools already in Wikipedia. SBHS is just a significant as them. The article as it stands could do with some work but it should be delted outright. Sydney Boys High is significant enough to warrant its own article. -- Popsracer 22:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too general, with no specifics. Too many upper case characters in the title, anyway. RickK 05:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep ... I'll copy edit it ... JDR
    • Move and delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Check the original contribution.... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:26, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Bugging devices in EU headquarters a news story that somehow became an article, can't stand alone as an article. It has already been listed on cleanup for 9 days. Maximus Rex 07:34, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 10:24, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This was Iraq-related - could it be redirected and merged with an appropriate Iraq war article? Martin 23:04, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and work on - an ex-GCHQ worker has now been charged with leaking stuff related to US bugging of UN delegations. Secretlondon 10:06, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • AcuMox & acumox - Perhaps acceptable after name change from AcuMox to acumox but (1) probably intended as an ad for a book of that name (2) altho the practice is well established the term may be made up by fronts for the book. 3050 Google hits, of which nearly all are "entries very similar to the 64 already displayed"; the ones using the embedded capital are, i think, all associated with the price of the book. Continuing to edit it, so consider looking at original via "Page history". --Jerzy 15:36, 2003 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Chip Row. Now has no content or page history, as per guideline 10 of the DGfA. Angela 16:10, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (and thanks for listing the first one) Martin 23:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • John Cena. Too Little Information as by number 4 on the canidates for speedy deletion on the DGfA Jack Zhang @ 10:31, 18 Nov 2003 (PDST)
    • That's enough to be kept as a stub. Angela 20:32, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

November 19


  • Cassi Holder, Christopher Cochran, Scott Simpson, Don Gibbs, Calvin Nokes, Charlotte Hendrix, and Don Mullins are all members of the deleted "Far From Kansas" improv (now defunct [6]) that was part of the many vanity pages about (and written by) Easter Bradford/User:Easterbradford. Maximus Rex 01:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually, each of these is not a vanity page (I guess because they were put in by a friend or coworker). I'd tend to want to keep them, but lose the link to the stage show. Altogether, it is a clear advertisement, but separately, hard to justify removing all of these people. - Marshman
      • OK. I change my vote to delete -- Marshman 17:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For instance "Cassi Holder" gets 4 Google hits. How is this an encyclopedia topic? Should I write articles about all of my friends? Maximus Rex 02:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Go ahead! We already have articles about unimportant people, and I'm not referring to Joe Ahmed. - Arthur George Carrick 03:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all, does not pass Google test, not even close. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Not encyclopedic. Tempshill 03:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. They're vanity pages whether created by the individuals or by a friend of the individuals. RickK 04:06, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all; the group did amateur improv, it's now defunct. Re Cassi Holder's Google hits: two are from posts by her on www.gephardtgrassroots.com, one is her listing on the staff page of her employer ("Development Coordinator"), and one is on a Wikipedia screen-scraper site. (For comparison, Googling on my real first + last name gets six hits that are me, and two others that are not me. Googling on my full name gets 25, all of which are really me, for a total = 25 + 6 = 31. And no, I do not deserve a Wikipedia page. Also for comparision, Googling for "Easter Bradford" -wikipedia gets 35 results, some of which indirectly result from Wikipedia links.) The FarFromKansas web site consists in its entirety of a photo, a caption, a line of text, and a link: "Read our entry at the Wikipedia." All of this is just appropriation of Wikipedia for do-it-yourself PR and Google farming. Maybe we can make a good Google-farming article out of it. orthogonal 06:17, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Not encyclopedic. —Frecklefoot 17:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Nasalized language on cleanup for a long time, from User:SmartBee, only 1 Google hit not related to wikipedia makes this suspicious (or perhaps its under the wrong name?). Maximus Rex 02:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unverified (actually, just plain bad) information and title. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Those actually are real, but my recollection of what kind of information should be included in such an article is extremely sketchy. I do have linguistics notes somewhere that would be useful :) I'll see if I can find them, and I vote to keep in the meantime. Adam Bishop 04:12, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • But, is it a useful classification? Is it encyclopedic. We could have an article named K language. Any language with the sound 'K'. Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. It's not a real linguistic term. All hits are from wiki. Nasal language does seem to be used but even then <50 hits. I'm going to do some work on how we categorise languages (it's haphazard at the moment). Secretlondon 10:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Philosophy for Non-Philosophers as an attempt at humor it fails. As a introduction to philosophy it doesn't even try. I don't see why we would want an encycolpedia artical on this topic. --bluGill 03:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-factual article with nonsense title. Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Funny. But non-encyclopaedic. Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Sadly, delete. I enjoyed it. Bmills 15:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Red Brick Ltd An obscure group dedicated to "restoring" an obscure game. RickK 05:21, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If we try to maintain an article on every obscure group of a few people with a web site... Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • PEG unencyclopaedic, unclear, can't even work out what PEG means. I think its supposed to be about economics (?) DJ Clayworth 19:04, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1773333"