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 Anjouli (talk | contribs) at 12:50, 28 November 2003 (Almost missed the point! (Stupid Anjouli)). 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 -- redirects

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


Boilerplate

Please add the following to the top of any page you list here:

This page has been listed as a candidate for deletion. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to the Votes for Deletion page to discuss whether this page should be deleted. If you have questions about why this page was listed, you can also ask User Foogrumble

using this raw text:

''This page has been listed as [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|a candidate for deletion]]. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Votes for Deletion]] page to discuss whether this page should be deleted. If you have questions about why this page was listed, you can also ask ~~~.''

This will 1) alert readers who come across the article about the listing and 2) highlight the fact in people's watch lists. Thank you.

November 16

November 21

November 22

November 23


  • Sanacja (1999), a political party of 39 members which has yet to achieve significant popular support or awareness. Too soon to be here. Jamesday 04:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree, and therefore beg to Delete. Lord Emsworth 04:51, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, currently immensely insignificant. Hell, I could probably start a party with 39 members. Maximus Rex 05:01, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 03:30, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Their website is gone now, too, possibly because they were rumbled. Delete. Morwen 09:50, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Back now (at Geocities). Andy Mabbett 11:47, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Quick Reference Handbook - ambiguous; Google search shows this could mean a lot of things [1] (this listing is from CLEANUP) --Minesweeper 06:24, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd say delete; I think this is unlikely to contain any particularly useful information: a Quick Reference Handbook is a handbook used for quick reference in some situation, by the mere definition of the words in the phrase. The fact that there are thousands of such handbooks doesn't seem worth an article. --Delirium 07:00, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • Diary of an Ordinary Woman - was on Cleanup for 6 weeks. little to no progress has been made. it should be deleted. Kingturtle 10:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've copyedited a little and this is currently about as large an article as is merited. Jamesday 01:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is no longer hashed-up Nipponglish. Wiwaxia 03:26, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Who wrote it? When was it published? Kingturtle 20:56, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hurlante Nova - moved from Cleanup. non-famous - can't verify. Kingturtle 11:26, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. See this machine translated French Wikipedia entry [2]. (you'll need to copy and paste the whole URL between the brackets - the wiki parser can't handle embeded https.) Jamesday 01:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. From Talk:Hurlante Nova, User:Hashar says "This article have been deleted on the french wikipedia as it is not a known artist. ". Maximus Rex 01:41, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Hashar told me in talk a few minutes ago that a French sysop undeleted it and they are now discussing it. I've asked Hashar to let us know the final result (looks like deletion so far). It seems that it might be a fake entry with the name of a poem, based on Google results. Jamesday 02:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Still being discussed. Going to be deleted soon. I will inform you there. Hashar 10:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Towelie - TV series episode plot -- JeLuF 22:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There are other episodes of various TV shows that have their own plots; I think it was decided some time recently that there was no need to delete them because "wikipedia is not paper." (I happen not to agree with that, but there is precedent for them to be kept...) Adam Bishop 23:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 23:18, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The article says it's an episode of South Park. Huge TV show, cult following. An episode deserves an article. It's an even better known show than Timon and Pumbaa (whose I Think I Canada article met none of the criteria for deletion). Wiwaxia 03:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Six best Waka poet. POV title. Best according to whom? If the article is worth keeping, maybe move it to List of Waka poets, but the resulting redirect should still be deleted as inappropriate. Angela 22:58, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. I've copied the content, as NPoV, to Waka, which is itself very brief. Andy Mabbett 23:13, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it is a grammatical error, should be "Six best Waka poets". However, It is not POV, it is just their title. There are also "Four most beautiful Chinese woman". -wshun 23:26, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote against deletion though it should be moved to "Six best Waka poets". Best according to Ki no Tsurayuki, who compiled the anthology of poems Kokin Wakashu by imperial order. "Six best Waka poets" (Rokkasen) is a historically established term and is NOT POV. --Nanshu 01:10, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Could you find time to add that information to the article? Onebyone 10:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as Nanshu stated. -- Taku 02:24, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Is "Six Best" an established name, like "Gang of Four" or "Chicago Seven"? If this is a standard name for the group like "Greatest Generation" for the G.I. Generation, then keep. If it's just what the author thinks are the six best, then delete. Wiwaxia 03:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 24

  • Deckchair.com – an article about the office layout of a .com company. As it stands the article needs a major rewrite. However I don't think this company is significant enough to warrant an article, so it ahould be deleted. -- Popsracer 23:21, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep; but needs much work. It used to be Bob Geldof's company [3].Andy Mabbett 01:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Worthless as is. --mav 06:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:18, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not interesting. Fuzheado 05:06, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • How to perform in a play substub, nonencyclopaedic and wrong! DJ Clayworth 03:27, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I thought the same thing when I first saw it. I did my best to salvage some sort of information and rewrite the thing, but if it is to go, I won't be shedding any tears. Nullproductions
    • Delete. WP is not a How To manual. (Perhaps the seed of a new Wiki there?) Anjouli 08:16, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of how tos on wikipedia. However we now have a better wiki at http//:wikibooks.org wikibooks theresa knott 16:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, but some of the content (it's not all wrong) could usefully be added to Theatre technique, which is currently a bit narrow in focus. Bmills 14:13, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • My apologies. This has improved since I wrote 'wrong'. (originally the main advice was to 'watch the movie of the play on video'). Still not sure its encyclopaedic. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Mount Taranaki legend about a mountain God. Needs work or deletion. Original writer wrote it as factual info. Antonio Devilish Kid Martin
    • It is factual. It is an accurate report of a Maori legend, but does not claim the legend is true. The heading is "Mount Taranaki legend" and the article clearly states "according to legend" and "there are those who say". I recently contributed an article called Pania. If you delete this one, then please delete Pania as well, and to be consistent you will need to delete Robin Hood and King Arthur too. Moriori 07:42, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • It may need a bit of wikifying but it's worth keeping, I might try to do a bit on it now. Lisiate 08:01, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Onebyone 10:59, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Article on a god being listed for deletion? Sounds like more Nommophobia to me. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As written the article is essentially correct. It describes adequately one theory about the siting and formation of Mt Taranaki. Perhaps the article would be enhanced by adding the alternative theory about its formation; that it is a semi-active volcano. I have known educated people who by choice, would never spend the night between Taranaki and Tongariro, just in case their battle was resumed, quirky maybe but still a current NZ issue. ping 07:46, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
    • I think my main issue here was with how the original writer seemed to be asserting that Mount Taranaki is, in fact, a God, in which case the article would be POV. Even in God page itself, wikipedia leaves it to debate whether there is a God or not (I firmly believe myself in the Christian faith). I added according to legend in the Mount Taranaki page. If the page leaves the subject open for debate about whether thats a god or not, then it should be kept. Antonio Loco Licker Martin
    • Keep, interesting article. RossA 11:29, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, the geological origins of the mountain should be covered in the Taranaki article. I think this is a reasonable presentation of a legend. Dramatic 06:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ned - inappropriate for an encyclopedia: slang definition about tracksuit wearers... Dysprosia 09:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Alligator (fan-film). I feel bad for suggesting this but it's about someone's school project. Filming starting dec 2003 - release 2005. Secretlondon 13:49, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • The least that can be said is that an article on a film should not be made until after the film is finished. All article on uncompleted films should be deleted, unless there is something very significant about it as screenplay. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:01, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Might make an exception for, say Harry Potter III. But in this case definitely not. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • from Talk:Alligator (fan-film): "Secretlondon, please don't delete my page. I really want people to know about my movie. It's not even started yet, and I have a lot of information to add to my Wiki page!" I've tried to post a not-too-discouraging reply there. - IMSoP 14:05, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • My heart bleeds as I think all independent film-makers should be encouraged - but this is an encyclopedia and not the place for this. Sorry. Delete. But hope you succeed with the film. Anjouli 12:32, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • List of quasi-scientific speculative ideas - this "list" has only one entry, and even that is not even remotely scientific. --Wik 14:16, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia would be happier without this kind of, erm, knowledge, however there should be some way to handle the stuff that all the 211.28.xxx.xxx anons keep adding - just reverting will not work, Wik. I created that page as a sort of dumping ground for total bogus. better ideas welcome. Kosebamse 14:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree with the above. Keep it just to please all the anons. --Raul654 15:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The information currently contained in this article is duplicated in Gene Ray (and if there's any difference the info can be moved). We have enough lists as it is, without introducing new ones with fewer than two entries. Use Gene Ray to placate this alleged rampaging horde of anons. Onebyone 15:56, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is an exuse not to take the Gen Ray (see next article down) page down by having it be linked to by something other than 'crank'. -Litefantastic 8:39, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
    • Redirected to List of speculative or fringe theories. If that keeps, will move to redirects for deletion. Martin 20:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Brunswick - to make it possible to move Brunswick, Germany there. - Sandman 16:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - very full disambiguation page. Andy Mabbett 22:00, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We need disambiguation instead for other Brunswicks, like New Brunswick, Canada, perhaps, or New Brunswick and East Brunswick, New Jersey. Or Brunswick, Australia. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I support moving Brunswick, Germany into Brunswick, rather than redirecting Brunswick to a disambiguation page. Brunswick, when used alone, almost always refers to the city in Germany so I see no problem in doing this. Maximus Rex 11:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Brunswick, Germany, should be at Braunschweig. The English name has fallen out of use for the present city (compare Google results for "Brunswick Germany" vs "Braunschweig Germany"). --Wik 18:30, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with Wik: keep redirection page, consider using Braunschweig for the German place since I personally believe the Brunswick anglicisation is rarely used anymore --Morven 02:10, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That's not true. Google results limited to English: ~1,900,000 for Brunswick Germany and only ~330,000 for Braunschweig Germany), so it's clearly the dominant form in English. --Delirium 08:38, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • You have to include the quotes, otherwise you get a lot of pages relating to the historic duchy, or to one of the U.S. Brunswicks, or New Brunswick. With quotes you restrict the search to the present city: "Brunswick Germany" - 2,430; "Braunschweig Germany" - 135,000. --Wik 12:54, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Add to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and give me some time to clean them up. (I should be able to get to in next week.) By the way, I strongly recommend that the correct location for the "Brunswick, Germany" content is under "Braunschweig". I can find no recent reference to "Brunswick, Germany". Rossami 03:14, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Always looking for lebensraum, aren't they? orthogonal 14:08, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Onus - dictionary definition -- JeLuF 20:21, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move out. Is it not clear to people that there is a Wiktionary? -- Marshman 02:01, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Setting Default Profiles -- badly written, out-of-context how-to; only linked from Mozilla, along with another, as yet unwritten article (if it goes, so should these links) IMSoP 21:39, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as if any comment was necessary. Fuzheado 05:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 02:03, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 25

  • Semper Fi (book) - orphan. advert?
    • I dunno... Can we get a marine in here or something to add to this. I mean, there's NOTHING THERE. --Litefantastic
    • Stubby, but a book like this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia entry. Keep. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Like people, books listed in WP shold be famous or important. We are not big enough to list everything/everybody. Anjouli 05:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless explanation is added as to why this management book is notable above and beyond any of a thousand others. "Something to do with the marines" doesn't do that for me. Onebyone 03:08, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Yu-Gi Cards what is this? Alexandros 00:35, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ditto Seto Kaiba's Cards. The article leaves the reader utterly bewildered. I vote to delete. Lord Emsworth 01:27, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh, dear god, that's hilarious. Delete. orthogonal 01:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Does that have something to do with the anime series Yu-Gi-Oh? A lot of these anime shows seem to revolve around the use of cards, so I wouldn't be surprised . . . Wiwaxia 06:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes. If you look, they're linked to from the Yu-Gi-Oh page. -Litefantastic
    • Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh. And for -ods sake, kill the incoming links. Martin 22:44, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The page Pegasus' Cards is equally perplexing. Lord Emsworth 00:41, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • (Hope I'm doing this right!) I have now re-writen the page, so at least the point of it makes sense. Feel free to re-decide if you think it should be removed. 18:26, Mov 26, 2003 (GMT)
  • French alphabet and English alphabet - seems to be wrongly named disambiguation pages for French and English. No content about alphabets, though. Rmhermen 00:58, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • An individual has taken the trouble of redoing the English alphabet page. Still, the page is redundant, there already existing a page on Latin alphabet, which, incidentally, seems the more appropriate term. I beg that either the pages be rendered as redirects, or be Deleted. Lord Emsworth 01:29, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • French alphabet should be kept, unconditionally. Most of the the English-specific stuff from Latin alphabet should be moved to Latin alphabet, and Latin alphabet used for, well, the alphabet used for Latin? (A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z), with a list of adaptions, and perhaps notes on common ones. Morwen 07:22, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Note the "Latin alphabet" doesn't just mean the alphabet used in Latin, it also refers to modern alphabets derived from Latin. Onebyone 11:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the best solution would be to retain the Latin alphabet page as is and have a page of Alphabets derived from the Latin which would show the actual alphabets for French, English and other vernacular languages? Bmills 11:56, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The English alphabet doesn't come entirely from the Roman one: The current letter Y, was, in Shakespeare's time, a slightly diffent symbol with a phonetic pronunciation equal to the Greek 'theta'- a Th sound. That's why, for a while, the word 'You' was spelled 'Thou', and 'The' and 'Ye' (as in Ye Olde Shoppe) meant the same thing. In the modern words, sometimes the sound won and sometimes the spelling won. Keep. -Litefantastic
        • Not totally relevant, but this isn't quite right. Y was a letter in its own right. The thorn was used at times in writing English, but the Europe-imported printing press lacked it, and so the similar-looking y was used. You and thou were, however, always different words (though they did rhyme, unlike today's renditions). (Bigger digression: Greek theta used to be a t-, not a th- sound, though the latter is in Modern Greek.) -- VV 04:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Which is why I think a page showing how modern language alphabets vary from the Latin would be a good way to organise this material. Bmills 13:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what I did: Alphabets derived from the Latin. BTW, what that (UTC) thing stand for? -Litefantatsic 8:24, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep in light of -Litefantatsic's work (no pun intended). Bmills 13:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Tails from Lardfork - for a webcomic, you'd think the author would get more than one google-hit. And that only google hit is for the website of the External link. Unless the author is ALSO the "Daniel Worthing" who allegedly stole confidential fiberglass. Delete, please. Kingturtle 01:30, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an ad! With a web site! And lots of exclamation points! And it's POV! Delete it now! orthogonal 01:57, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advertisement. Maximus Rex 06:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete Secretlondon 12:07, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete ad. Bmills 13:04, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Apologies. I created this page rather heedlessly since i expect the content to be revised, if not replaced, by the author of the comic (who has no relation to the PPG Industries scam). I didn't intend to create an ad page and have removed the offending phrases. What remains is an objective description of the comic. Sorry, i won't do it again. Va1damar 02:21, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Arts and Entertainment - Found this via old pages. Seems sorta crazy and useless.
    • It should be remade into an article on the television channel A&E. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Disagree. This could have merit as a link hub if someone would flush it out and add a few more links to round out the selection. Keep, but edit heavily. -Litefantastic 8:53, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
  • Direction. Sub-stub, a definition that should go to Wiktionary. RickK 04:01, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Direction can have a lot about the cardinal directions east, west, north and south. Wiwaxia 06:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 16:20, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Transiaxartesia is poorly written, and the only place I can find references to Transiaxartesia is two other Wikipedia articles. -- Khym Chanur 05:26, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • The place has a valid mention in the Khwarezmia article. Why shouldn't we branch off the Transiaxartesia reference into a different article then? Maybe that's misspelled, but we don't want to lose the article if it takes more than seven days to find the correct spelling. Wiwaxia 06:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • This will be hard. It seems to be the historic name of an area occupied by the Huns in North Asia. I can find no references elsewhere to this place being called anything online - I guess the internet is still too US/Euro-centric for this sort of information to be available. Secretlondon 13:35, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks a bit suspect to me. Anybody noticed the article says this area extends to Hyperborea (a fictional country)? Still looking, but nothing found yet. Anjouli 14:41, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think if it is not PURE BS, it is so poorly written as to lend an air of it - Marshman 01:56, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • After several hours of research off and on-line, I conclude that Transiaxartesia is almost certainly pure invention. Anjouli 09:31, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Captain Submarine and Frank and Gino's adverts for restaurants. Maximus Rex 10:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete both. Ditto. Viajero 13:00, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Why? We have plenty of fast-food restaurant articles. Keep. - Hephaestos 16:57, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If you think these are likely to ever become more than stubs (i.e. they are famous in some way) then fine. At present, they are worthless, and were possibly added as adverts. Plus, they can always be re-added with some real content later. Delete. - IMSoP 18:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Nobody bothered to ask me directly if I was directly affiliated with these restaurants and just advertising them here. Your fault. I'm not affiliated with them. I simply added them for the same reason I added every other page aboue Canadian companies (and every other Canada-related article) SD6-Agent 22:51, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You created every Canada-related article? That might be news to Montrealais, Torontonian, and several others I can name.
      • I don't want to say as a blanket rule all such entries should go, but be reasonable. Is it really your feeling (SD6-Agent) that each of us could go through a list of restaurants (or dry cleaners, or markets, or hardware stores) in our respective towns and cities and create one or two line entries for every one of them? Maybe the big mistake of Wikipedia is to suggest it is a compendium of ALL knowledge? This makes having an article on every school in the world pale by comparison. RULE: If you can look it up in the Yellow Pages, it is likely NOT encyclopedic - Marshman 01:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If that's the case then I would recomment deleting all restaurants here (as I suggested earlier) becaus they can all be found in the yellow pages. Right? SD6-Agent 04:00, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • In general that is exactly what is done (they are deleted after listing at VfD) - Marshman 17:23, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Surely the point is not that the restaurant could be found in the Yellow Pages, but that the entire article could - there is probably less information here than in a small ad there. Hence my earlier comment, that if it's likely to turn into anything more (soon), keep; otherwise, what is it gaining us? - IMSoP 13:02, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as such not interesting or significant. Fuzheado 00:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we're going to keep every elementary school in the world, why not keep every other thing that anybody has a hairbrained scheme to write? RickK 04:15, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Advert. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • And now there's Trenton Ray. RickK 02:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • 2156 - orphan, factual content differnt than only page that could possibly link to it. Anthropos 19:54, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Technocapitalism - advertising. The word has been 'coined' variously with various meanings is seems, mostly non-serious. User has also added links to it from various places. Morwen 20:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know if this meets the advertising criterion. The web page seems fairly scholarly and his list of published articles sure beats mine. The only commercial aspect to the site is the ability to purchase copies of some of the journal articles. If this is advertising, it is academic promotion rather than commercial advertising. Should we be concerned with this? Is this just a vanity page disguised behind academia? Do we want academics to use Wikipedia to promote their favourite subjects? My initial response is to keep the article, but I'm not sure. mydogategodshat 16:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advert. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or rewrite. So far as I can tell, from both the webage linked to and the article, Technocapitalism is just a new spiffy name for effects that have been happening since the start of the industrial revolution. The idea seems to have little that is new or interesting, and the author of the linked website, Luis Suarez-Villa, uses excessive amounts of annoying verbage and overly long words for the sake of sounding smart and original. On the other hand, in my opinion, even stupid ideas should sometimes be in wikipedia, if only to be shot down. If someone is willing to rewrite it to not be a biased advertisement for some academics work (and possibly even explain what is truely new about the idea), then I think it should be in wikipedia. Otherwise, it should be ruthlessly deleted for the worthless piece of junk that it currently is. Jrincayc 21:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, on the issue of the quality of the article, the author seems to be setting up a false dichotomy between industrial capitalism (the cost of production theory of value) and technocapitalism (an innovation theory of value). Needs a major re-write and a name change. mydogategodshat 04:00, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Brad Garton - not famous. Secretlondon 20:35, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, famous enough, given the other things we've kept here. Fuzheado 00:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • WTC Temporary Memorial Design Number One, World Trade Center Temporary Memorial
    • Delete - "This Wiki page is an electronic drawing board for a temporary memorial to the September 11th attacks." No, wikipedia is not a drawing board. "We are setting up this Wiki as a collaborative drawing board where people can share their ideas and refinements to this idea." - same as above. This is not what Wikipedia is for. -- JeLuF 20:59, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I've moved the content to sep11. Delete or keep as redirect - doesn't bother me. Martin 22:40, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Period Mot useful as a Redirect -- Marshman 01:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete first, keep second. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Human-Truth Paradox nonsense. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Cosmic, duuude. Delete. orthogonal 23:06, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, zero Google hits. Fuzheado 00:56, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- twice. At least one kid in every highschool (or college freshman) philosophy class comes to the conclusion that there is no reality or something similar to this - Marshman 01:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The author concludes: "I will now leave you to ponder this thought." I have pondered, and conclude myself it's not encyclopedic. Delete. Kosebamse 03:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - We already have a very good article on epistemology. mydogategodshat 16:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • There just has to be a bit more work. Could be put this on "hold" for now and if the projection in a week is not friendly for Wikipedia, then delete to your will. Paradox2 20:38, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Paradox2, your article will not be deleted for seven days from the time it is listed here. I hope you can improve it enough that people want to keep it. Good Luck. mydogategodshat 04:10, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You must be kidding. The incomplete subheadings are there to fool you, not to suggest there might actually be something forthcoming - Marshman.
  • 2525 -- Pointless. No real content. Anthropos 21:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I normally redirect these to 26th century, etc - similarly for really old dates in the past. There's been some discussion of this in wikipedia: space, but I can't remember where. Martin 21:59, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Ummm... some future years are more famous than others.:) See the 50,000 google search for 'in the year' 2525 and the range of works which have flowed from those Zager & Evans song lyrics. Those familiar with the music of the 60s will probably very quickly recognise the tune in this midi music file . Jamesday 22:31, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless there's some genuine content by the time the voting period is up. The song isn't enough IMO - that might justify an article In the Year 2525 about the song, but not 2525. By analogy, consider how irrelevant the song Summer of '69 is to the year 1969 compared with the actual events which occurred in that year. Onebyone 16:30, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 26

  • Fat Little Bastard --Alexandros 02:55, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Amazing. The mp3.com page only has 223 views (well, 224 now) and music is at least as annoying as advertised. Funny, but anyway, the entry is obviously self-promotion for a very small act. -- Tlotoxl 04:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advert. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • From Cleanup: Pakistani literature, Post-colonialism in literature, Postcolonial literature, Postcolonial theory
    • Delete. Literature lists only, no text, nobody working on the subject any more. -- JeLuF 05:50, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Is "nobody working on it" a valid reason for deleting a stub? Just asking. No opinion either way. Anjouli 09:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I would have thought that lists of non-western literature belong in an encyclopedia. Someone will come along to work on them soon, I'm sure. Secretlondon 11:01, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Let's keep it. Anjouli 12:36, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep all. I've expanded the Postcolonial theory page and removed the stub note. Bmills 15:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • In fact, why not move all these to Pages needing attention? Bmills 15:17, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, some cleanup stuff is so bad it should be deleted, but usually that just means the articles should have been listed on VfD long before. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Earl Washburn
    • Has a 'this page is on VfD' notice (or at least had such before being blanked), but is not on VfD. Apart from that looks like bollocks. Andre Engels 12:47, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • it's a smartbee one - it history has 'del' in it for early october but it was blanked rather than deleted. Secretlondon 15:10, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse and Who ate all the pies are short notes on British soccer chants. At best merge into a single Soccer chants page. Bmills 15:42, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. First is offensive and should not be a title of an article, but it can be in a soccer chants article (no redirect). The latter could also be merged, I also slightly favor no redirect as well since articles on every chant/slogan will make searches for material including words more difficult. Navigating from Soccer to Soccer chants or whatever is easy. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • The former I redirected to Victoria Beckham, and listed on wikipedia:redirects for deletion (bearing Daniel's comments in mind). No opinion on latter. Martin 21:21, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • First is offensive as a title. A page on chants linked to and from soccer makes sense. I've tried to improve it a bit now with a few links. Keep the chants page now. seglea 22:41, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, put slogan into appropriate article. Delete the redirects too. Fuzheado 09:04, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • These chants are part of football culture and therefore valid. Although potentially offensive as a title in its own right, I think the article itself shows that it is a serious piece of work. Given that wikipedia has all sorts of articles you could class as offensive, I can't see why these ones have been singled out.(comment written by article author Astrotrain)
      • How can an article simply about the chant ever become substantial? Surely it would be better to write about it in the context of the long and varied story of David and Victoria Beckham - otherwise it just seems a tiny article on a childish chant that got sung at Man U games from about two seasons. (I write this because I notice you undid the redirect that Martin put in). Pete 17:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the title, I cannot see how it is encyclopedic to cover them individually. A single chants page would make a better and more useful article. Plus, I believe the VfD notification should remain until a consensus is achieved. Bmills 16:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Incorporate both in one soccer chant page to rule them all, delete the redirects. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse - redirect page. Delete this pointless, unencylopædic redirect. If someone wants to find it it will show up as a link to an internal text elsewhere. It is grossly irresponsible to use an offensive, utterly unencyclopædic chant as a page title, even with a redirect. It is shades of the sick Aids kills fags dead rubbish. Do we want wikipedia to be the net's main source on nasty stupid moronic redirect pages? Delete. FearÉIREANN 01:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. And remove the information from the Victoria Beckham page unless it really is the most notable thing in her book. Onebyone 02:48, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. See above. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Bee mine
    • It's an explanation (not a very good one) of the slogan on bad Valentine's cards. It's also a humorous discussion of why you couldn't actually mine bees, seeing as they are animal, not mineral. I can't decide whether there's a decent article that could exist at this name. Jwrosenzweig 16:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original research and essays. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Tao of rock
    • Nearly contentless with vanity links to a couple of blogs. No pertinent google hits. Jgm 16:31, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Title alone is stupid, content is worse. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Seems to be a modernized version of a "believe in yourself" (self-actualization) pep rally - Marshman 17:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • "Believe in deleting it". orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Wit - dictionary definition -- JeLuF 20:50, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 06:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Against deletion. the article has the potential for further expansion and elaboration. For example you would'nt find a list of witty people in a dictionary. There are other things that could be added such as examples of witty quotations etc. --Steeev 17:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep if expanded. There is already a Humour article. In the right hands, this page could be used to explain the differences between wit and humour. Bmills 17:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We could redirect to humour, for example, rather than deleting. Oppose deletion. Martin 00:41, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Light Upon Light - From Cleanup Andre Engels 00:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Cleanup commentaries:
      • what is it? DJ Clayworth
      • the author was the same person who inserted a link to that site into Islam - advert. silsor 00:54, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We are not Google. Anjouli 04:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, sub-stub since it doesn't explain why the phrase is notable other than being in the Qur'an. Onebyone 16:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Darrick Patrick - self-promotion? Only 5 google hits for this new director of importance. Kingturtle 03:32, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought today was Thanksgiving, but it looks like it's Easter again. Delete. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Retarded MCs - self-agrandizement? Only 4 or 5 google hits for this important group. Kingturtle 03:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Steeev 17:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I see bunny rabbits with eggs, and I see a Delete. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Church of Jesus Christ Elvis. The article itself says it's only one website. And the article's wording is pretty unclear about its subject matter. RickK 06:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:12, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I recall seeing a documentary (unfortunately cannot remember where and when) about how some Elvis fans do regard Elvis as a messianic figure. I have also met a person who claimed to have been a bishop of the "church of Elvis". How serious the would-be "worshippers" are, may be of course hard to discern. Maybe this could be added to the Elvis article - Skysmith 10:29, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Possibly worth an article in (apparently) tongue-in-cheek beliefs, as, for example, (early) Brianism? orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Herbs in Polish mythology. Would Wikipedia be liable if someone tried one of these herbal treatments based on what they read here, and suffered either no cure, or a poisoning? RickK 06:47, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Greetings Rick - I have removed the "offending" information. Although, that the herbs page was not supposed to be for any kind of home remedies, but merely a cite of old Polish folklore. ~Margi B.
      • I've reverted your blanking Margiand added a link to risk disclaimer. I'm firmly against censureship, even self censureship. theresa knott 08:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I appreciate the help. If nobody minds, I'll go head and replace the link to the front page. ~Margi
    • (See also Disclaimer) Anjouli
    • Keep. And I think the disclaimer is a bit OTT - we don't have similar disclaimers on analgesic or organ transplant in case a reader is stupid enough to use that informaion as if Wikipedia were a qualified medical practioner. Onebyone 00:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Oh, thanks, now you tell me. After I went to all the trouble to get that human kidney. And just what am I supposed to do with it now? orthogonal 03:56, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We might use a more succinct disclaimer, like the one on legal matters. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Floro Dery. Self-promotion? RickK 06:49, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:12, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If the claim in the article about Transformers_(television_series), is true, then he's at least slightly notable. Article is currently a bit fannish, though. Onebyone 02:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Search "Floro Dery" + "transformers", it seems to check out. Onebyone 03:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ensorcerum supposedly a "Troll Metal" band with 1 member, 0 relevent Google hits. Maximus Rex 06:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 08:14, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it under a bridge, and hope it doesn't regenereate. orthogonal 04:04, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Herald E. L. Prins. I would have said it's self-promotion, except that the article's title misspells the gentleman's first name. Is Professor Prins famous enough to warrant an article. RickK 07:05, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, only 4 Google hits that aren't wikipedia. Maximus Rex 07:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That Google count is if you put in his misspelled name. If you put it in spelled right, you get about 80 hits. But they are nearly all listings of his book, in Amazon & other bookshop sites, or entries in bibliographies. You'd get the same for any academic (heck, you get more than that for me). I doubt it makes him (or me) count as famous. Do we really want to list every moderately active researcher in the world? If we do that, we'll never have room for all this Polish mythology. The key question is how crucial his work on the Mi'kmaq is, and we need an anthropologist to tell us that. Though I suppose if he was really famous, nonanthropologists would have heard of him. At least I've heard of the Mi'kmaq. seglea 08:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 27

  • Dan Savage. This is the article formerly located at Santorum.
    • Since its initial listing it has changed in both content and title. I think it's changed enough to keep, though it may need editing. Martin
    • Keep. The page is now about the author, and not only one of his controvertial works. --zandperl 04:26, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I object strongly to the removal of the link to ths page, from Rick Santorum. Andy Mabbett 11:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, I don't understand why it was listed here. theresa knott 11:33, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anjouli 12:24, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Famous pairs is just an unformatted, un-linked, ALL CAPS list of pairs. -- Khym Chanur 00:30, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • Blatent nonsense. Delete. Vancouverguy 00:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Delete. RickK 00:34, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not mine, but I'm willing to have a go at formatting, linking, and un-caps locking it. It could serve useful for anyone looking for famous pairs. PMC 00:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Even if properly formatted, it's listing for the sake of listing and could never be complete. Onebyone 01:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Most of our lists will never be complete, that itself isn't a reason to delete it. If someone is willing to fix formatting, I suggest they do that and move it to a more appropriate title such as list of famous pairs or list of commonly associated pairs.
      • Whoever made that vote needs to sign it if they want it to be counted. Delete this comment when you've done it. Onebyone 11:08, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I bullet-pointed it so it looks a little better. But overall, I'd still vote for a deletion unless there is a lot of progress made on it. MK 03:39 (EST) 28 November 2003
    • Keep. I've seen stranger things here... But needs serious cleanup and linking. To Oneybone: can you point a wikilist that is complete? :) Muriel Victoria 11:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Very disappointed. I thought it was going to be about breasts. Arguably, Hannah and her Sisters are not a pair. Anjouli 12:27, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Proposed Afghan Constitution - Afghan Constitution Commission was getting huge and unruly. While parsing it down, I cut the Proposed Afghan Constitution out and gave it its own article. However, I am not sure if Wikipedia is a facility for full-texts of Constitutions. It may have to be deleted. What are your thoughts? Kingturtle 07:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it's better to link to the text on an external (and authoritative) site. Onebyone 11:10, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1832356"