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 Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 15:11, 3 January 2004 (vote on How to adjust brakes). 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

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{SUBST:vfd}} at the top of the page adds one automatically.)

Subpages

copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories -- redirects -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

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

December 20

  • Verisimilitude. Dictionary definition. Maybe move to Wiktionary? -- Vardion 07:30, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Not the sort of word one could write an article about. Tualha 14:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Verisimilitude was previously linked to from The Alamo and Timeline of fictional events. It is explained in the Theater terms article. Redirect it there? Angela. 02:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If the links in The Alamo and similar are pointed to the entry in theater terms, it might be okay, but the word "verisimilitude" can be used outside drama, and so I'd be hesitant create a redirect to theater terms for the word itself. But it does seem that "verisimilitude" is used mostly in drama (or at least, in drama and literature), so it might be okay. -- Vardion 06:10, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not really worthy of being an article. Don't redirect it to Theater terms unless that is the only common context in which this is used. - Mark 06:47, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 21

  • Accordion pleat. I can't see this ever being an article. Angela. 11:20, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. No opposition to delete nor keep. Wiktionary maybe? if it is a general term it can be moved there. Optim 12:06, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete provided transferred to wiktionary, but only iff other users agree with the wiktionary addition, otherwise keep for now. Optim
    • Keep for now. Hard to say whether the topic deserves an article. I put it on cleanup, let's see if someone can fill it out. Tualha 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • move to wiktionary and Delete. Davodd 07:24, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is as self-explanatory as original studio album above. It is a pleat that is like an accordion. It's not worthy of an article unless it holds more significance than is in the article now. - Mark 06:58, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • move to wiktionary and delete. --Jiang
    • move to wiktionary and delete. Anjouli 05:07, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • History of computers. It is currently a redirect to History of computing hardware. I couldn't move the 2nd article to the 1st, so I removed the redirect text in the 1st article, but I still couldn't do the move. "History of computing hardware" is a cumbersome attempt by a mathematician to distinguish the history of computers from the History of computing (the article's former title), which encompasses not only computers but pen and paper as well. His point is valid, but the new title he chose for the article is unnecessarily awkward. --Sewing 17:14, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am thinking whether History of computation is a better title than History of computing. btw There is a Timeline of computing, too. Optim 17:47, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree History of computing is not ideal. But isn't History of computation also awkward? Anyhow, it goes back to Michael Hardy's argument that "computing" (and "computation") is not just about computers but about mathematical techniques that precede computers. I think History of computers is the best option: it is simple and unambiguous. --Sewing 18:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • History of computation still seems nice and more correct to me. Optim 19:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think the term computation is more often (academically) used for the theoretical side of things (algorithms, complexity,etc.), computers seems better for the practical side to me. --Imran 22:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That's right. We can have a Computation article for the academic theoretical history and a Computers article for practical-business computing. how do u think? Optim 00:49, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, who wouldn't be interested in the history of computers? Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Move to History of computers. Mathematics is as much a part of the history of computers as it is the history of their hardware. - Mark 06:58, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 24

  • Lipan Apache: 2 or 3 speakers, (1981 R.W. Young). Whether or not this article deserves to be kept, it certainly doesn't deserve to be kept under this title. RickK 03:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added VfD tag. (Title suggests this may also be copyvio.) Anjouli 04:24, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not sure how this poorly written statement could be copyrighted; but the title is wrong. Move to Lipan Apache to discuss its merits there. Is it a "real" language? - Marshman 04:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rectitude. Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:14, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 04:19, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (Added VfD tag to article)
  • Mount Sinai (disambiguation) - Currently a redirect page to Mount Sinai, Egypt. Nothing links to it. To quote someone or other, "Delete in the name of good housekeeping." -Anthropos 17:30, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it can be deleted if it is unused. Question: what is the problem with unused redirect pages? I need to know. Optim 18:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. To answer Optim, commonly, redirect pages won't have anything link to them. That's because they're there for the search engine (and potentially for links in from outside pages), not for linking within the wiki. WP has an explicit policy about this; see Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect?. We should IMO avoid going on a Jihad to delete redirects unless there's real evidence that they're never used. As the saying goes, "It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -mhr 18:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much for the immediate reply. I tend to create some redirects for my articles, so I was afraid whether I was doing something wrong! For example for AKS primality test I create redirects such as AKS algorithm, or for Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis I create AMORC or AAORRAC (alternative names). I often try to eliminate links to redirects by changing them to link to the real article, I think this is also good for WP. I hope I do the right thing. Optim 19:10, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • the problem I see is that this page states it's a disambiguation page in the title, when it really is a redirect. There should be a Mount Sinai disambig page, as I can think of more than one, i.e. the mountain on the Sinai penunsulia, a prominent hospital in the U.S. Gentgeen 19:15, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Now it's a small disambig page with three articles it points to. Gentgeen 06:51, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Useless page -- Redir to Mount Sinai Davodd 07:36, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...and thus we come full circle! :-}
I don't have any emotional attachment to deleting (or keeping) the page -- I'll quickly bow to the prevailing thinking. However, shouldn't this type of disambiguation page be used for "primary topic" disambiguation, and thus, should it not be linked from the primary topic? See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types_of_disambiguation. I don't see the point of having this page if we're also going to have disambiguation done at the Mount Sinai page (which is currently a disambiguation page). -Anthropos 08:03, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Get off my phone Somewhat approximating a dictionary definition, tiny, and not going to get any bigger. moink 18:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. Who can verify this info? Optim 19:07, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Seems legit but apparently not used outside of Glenn Beck's radio show. TMC1221 19:23, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary and delete. I have worked in broadcasting for years - it is real [1] -- but this is a dictionary definition of regional industry lingo at best - not worthy of an entry here. Davodd 19:24, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Davodd, Wikitionary and delete. PMC 19:49, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete after move to Wiktionary - Marshman 01:21, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Optim 07:02, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ray Gardener was created by an ip with a history of vandalism. --Jiang 22:52, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Seems to be an advert Archivist 22:58, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 01:17, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 27

Demon pages discussion moved to Talk:Christian demonology/deletion.

  • Lourdes Leon Ciccone -- this person has done nothing of note -- Tarquin 13:25, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (non vote) can we come to a consensus on whether or not to keep articles if they're for nothing more than children of famous people? It would save time rather than listing them here individually. Francs2000 17:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Good idea. -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This should at least be a redirect to where the person (who is famous, even if not for actually doing anything) is talked about, so keep. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • New Age Ancient Near East Chronology -- The body of the article is unrelated to the title and the rest is demeaning in Kenneth Kitchen-ite style thus neither is is NPOV. Any useful relevant info can be moved to relevant pagest such as Sea Peoples and Phoenicians while the rest is already said in a much more objective & detailed manner on the David Rohl page. Zestauferov 08:29, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Etrécissements This appears to be yet another in a long line of previously posted (and subsequently deleted) painting techniques known only to a couple of obscure painters. Anjouli 19:20, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • If you would bother to read the article you would see it is a collage technique, not a painting technique. Furthermore, it was used by Marien before Genovese. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:39, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I wasn't around for the previous argument, but I say keep. Not much yet but I think it could grow. moink 20:08, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Only three Google hits. Two from Genovese personal page on Freewebs and one clone of a Wiki article. I don't think the term exists. Anjouli 20:23, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This seems to be an idiosyncratic term. Maximus Rex 22:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Jackboot This looks like a dictionary entry. 66.44.102.237 19:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary, delete. moink 20:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Iraqi Information Minister - not an article, doubt if it'll ever become one. --Jiang 20:29, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Someone could find info on what the job description is, etc. Questions of whether the minister dealt in "information" or "propaganda" could also be explained. moink 20:37, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, that belongs in Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. --Jiang 20:44, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I disagree. A job description and its evolution is different from a particular person who did the job at one point. moink 22:12, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to cleanup. Potentially an interesting article, but certainly not one now. If cleanup fails, then deletion is appropriate. -- Finlay McWalter 20:40, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Actually, listing on vfd and threatening to delete it is more effective than listing it on cleanup. We'll see how this goes after a couple days.
    • Keep. Optim 01:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but convert to a redirect. Anjouli 17:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm sure this will start an argument, but I've moved this from Dec 26 to Dec 27 since the article only got a VfD tag on that day. It's not fair to count days when the author may have been unaware the article was listed here. Anjouli 19:57, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • no argument here. moink 20:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You did the right thing. I've been sorely tempted to remove from VfD listings which don't have the boilerplate. -- Finlay McWalter 20:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • People would complain - but it might wake them up to the importance of VfD tags. Anjouli 20:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The plan is to move all the recipes to the Wikibook cookbook. I already moved the Vegan recipes and pruned the list here considerably. The problem is that we can't move the page histories yet. Still, I vote to move them to Wikibooks and delete here. Danny 21:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • And on that topic how do we feel about the majority of the articles on the howto page? Isn't there a wikibook for these kinds of things? Is this encyclopedic? moink 20:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (no vote) might I suggest deferring them until the recipe monster (and the numbers monster) is slain?
    • IMO, some definitely are encyclopedic and some maybe are not (and some I have not yet looked at). I vote to deal with them case by case rather than attempting to decide on them as a class. Rossami 22:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep unless every recipe in the Wikipedia is removed, which I don't think should be done. They're needed for the Cuisine of Albania article. Dori | Talk 00:59, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
      • The idea is not to delete the recipes but to move them to Wikibooks. The article on Albanian cuisine can link to there. All the other recipes will also be moved. Danny 01:02, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I don't see any of the other recipes being listed for deletion. Unless they're all deleted, I see this as discriminatory and not as policy. I think a vote on all the recipes is needed, and they all need to be listed for deletion together. Dori | Talk 01:09, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
          • I pruned the list of recipes a few days ago, taking out all the empty links. If you look at December 23, you will see that I began moving recipes as well. I started at the bottom with the Vegan recipes. Someone else started at the top with the Albanian recipes. Eventually, they will all be moved. We are just doing it a bit at a time. Danny 01:12, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Good idea. I moved a bunch over to Wikibooks before Xmas from previous listings here (soups, sauces) - Marshman 20:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Deletion of number pages like one hundred one -> Talk:List of numbers/Deletion

  • 'Celt'. Merge with Celt? Anjouli 21:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, merge and delete. PMC 22:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge content; making into redirect would be okay. -- Infrogmation 18:44, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect. See the deletion policy. "Merge and delete" is not an option, because using other people's work and then deleting its attribution to them is an infringement of their copyright. Even if it weren't illegal, it would still be bad practice. Merging and redirecting preserves all information, is undoable by any other Wikipedian if necessary, and - best of all - does not require discussion on this page. :) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Page histories could easily be merged - delete, move to deleted, and restore. --Jiang
  • Zone (japanese group) - can't find any evidence of their existence or encyclopedic worth. Tuf-Kat 02:48, Dec 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • There's an external link on the page which proves their existence (unless Sony music are lying to us all). Delete, no indication in the article of encyclopedic worth... Onebyone 04:01, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 30

  • USA for Africa. Very bad prose. Either needs massive copy-editing, or deletion. -- Khym Chanur 03:53, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a copy vio [2]. But leave it for a few minutes and I'll work on it. Anjouli
    • How does it look now? I've turned it into a stub. (Should USA for Africa have a credit/link under Live Aid? Not sure if that was under the USAforA banner or not, and have no time to look it up at the moment. Anjouli 04:39, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks good now; keep. -- Khym Chanur 08:01, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Danish nation. Other than a couple of political rant home pages, I can find no trace of this concept or terminology anywhere - except on Wiki clone pages. Elsewhere, "Danish nation" is simply used to mean "Denmark". Anjouli
    • Agree. Delete - Marshman 20:04, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete before a pastry liberation front forms. Davodd 13:08, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Solar thermal energy should be merged with Solar heating, then deleted. -- Khym Chanur 05:35, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge them and make Solar thermal energy a redirect --Raul654 05:37, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Are we sure these are the same thing? Solar heating says it's a building method, while Solar thermal energy seems more general. Perhaps someone knowledgeable can tell us if they're different concepts. moink 05:20, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As written, I'd say they are exactly the same thing. Merge to Solar heating - Marshman 20:06, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep both pages, and keep them separate. "Solar thermal energy" is indeed a generic term, used mostly in engineering literature, to distinguish from photovoltaics (i.e., electrical energy). "Solar heating" is a more informal term , often used in an architectural context, to distinguish from heating by oil, gas, or whatever. Disclaimer: I studied these topics as a graduate student. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • M.R.M. Parrott - personal promo -- Tarquin 20:56, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • not a valid reason, even if true (all authors entries are promos)
    • a valid reason: a page about an (mostly unkown) author by the author isn'ät exactly an encyclopedic entry. Should be deleted or reduced to a more NPOV page till we *) 21:52, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
      • don't see that reason in the guidelines.
      • maybe you could offer some NPOV suggestions or just edit it yourself? while you're at it, you could dial back the insults on the Talk:M.R.M._Parrott page.
    • delete - not encyclopedic -- mkrohn 03:57, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, as long as that Barnes and Nobles part is deleted, cause THAT does look like he wants people to go buy his books at my favorite, by the way, book store! Antonio Sleeping Beauty Martin
      • done, thanks for the suggestion. didn't see it that way before...
    • Delete. Self-promotion (and it doesn't even have to be promotion) itself is frowned upon in the guidelines. —Sverdrup(talk) 04:07, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • didn't see that in the guidelines in so many words, and it is not self-promotion. it is an entry about a writer who exists in the history of ideas - you know, the sort of thing encyclopedias are all about...
    • Keep! Author has 10 published books and seems well-respected. If it had been written by a disinterested third-party rather than the author, would you feel it was POV? Well, perhaps it is slightly POV. I would say this article was a candidate for reworking rather than deletion. Anjouli 04:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • any suggestions for edits from POV to NPOV?
      • well-respected by whom? According to the talk page, the only material about this guy is written by himself! -- Tarquin 10:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #18 "vehicle for advertising" see Talk:M.R.M. Parrott. This is a clear case of someone using wikipedia for self-promotion. Maximus Rex 09:23, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Self-promotion of insignificant author. --Wik 12:41, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)
    • NOTE: please view again. page has been reduced to stubish NPOV style, much like many other unknown author entries on wikipedia...
    • Why is everybody so keen to delete an article on a known philosopher with 10 legitimately published books to his credit? Granted, he has a big head and I don't agree with many of his ideas, but this is ridiculous. Is this the same WP that tolerates all these articles on demons, Star Trek and soap-opera? Anjouli 16:51, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, and I strongly agree w Anjouli, I see an amazing amount of (IMO) garbage on the wiki that nobody thinks to delete, and yet self promotion seems to be a area of extrordinarilly excessive concern. I could make a List of worthless wikipedia articles at least a hundred strong, with none of them surpassing this article in value. Why can't I as a reader look up the author of my book? Personally, I would sooner have space "wasted" on the wiki w self promotion, than with List of fictional dogs or other such foolishness. Jack 17:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You all do realize that it appears most if not all of those books and critiques are self-published? If someone can come up with anything significant to say about this author that was not written by Mr. Parrott, then there should be consideration to keeping the article. Otherwise, it is all self-promotional garbage that any one of us (lacking humility) could put together for ourself about ourself - Marshman 20:01, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • typical academic - you think the only valuable language comes from the official channels. who are you, by the way, and why does your opinion matter?? where have you been published??
        • Do I detect a sock-puppet ? - Marshman
        • Steady on, this isn't part of the conflict between you and "the man". It's a perfectly reasonable request that the encyclopedia article about you, if there is one, should be written by someone other than you, and based on information sources including some which are not you. If nothing else, there is otherwise no way for a reader to get an independent confirmation of judgements like "his work isn't in the tradition of Southern literature". And for reference, the reason Marshman's opinion matters is that he's a regular contributor to Wikipedia. If you create a user account and sign your posts, you'll be one step along the (quite short) route to the same place. Onebyone 04:32, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, it looks fine now. ugen64 03:18, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • There is a large body of work which M.R.M. Parrott has published which is available online. A NPOV article could be written using that material should anyone take the time to do so. Certainly he erred by writing his own article, but someone who has self-published 10 books, some of which have generated independent interest merits an article. I should point out that if he is worth me making an effort to steal him away for Internet-Encyclopedia, he is also worth being polite to and making a reasonable accomodation with here. Although this is NOT the place for creative philosophical work which seems to be what he does. See Wikipedia:No original research Fred Bauder 13:39, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Autobiography of a nobody. Delete. Salsa Shark 04:07, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Needs some peer review before the product could be called anything more than self-promotion. BTW Ethos of Modernity is hardly a "monograph on Foucault." Sunray 09:33, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)
      • Wow, another original thinker (not). And FYI, a monograph is "a written account or description of a single thing, or class of things; a special treatise on a particular subject of limited range" (Webster's RUD)
        • Right, well (trying to ignore the Ad Hominem) using the above definition, one wonders whether Parrott believes that Foucault is that “subject of limited range.” I would have thought that this was more an essay on an aspect of Foucault’s thought—in the writer’s own words, “Foucauldian enlightenment.” IMO the autobiographical article on M.R.M. Parrott and his subsequent comments on this page illustrate the problems of self-promotion in Wikipedia. Sunray 19:14, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)
          • You are right ONLY about one thing: It is your opinion.
    • Delete: No original research; No advertising; No articles which can not attain neutrality because no third-person material is available about the subject of the article; Note by Jimbo on mailing list that people should not create articles on themselves. --snoyes 16:12, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


December 31

  • Donald A. Peterson
    • Undeleted by me because it wasn't properly listed the first time round. (See here.) No reason for deletion that I can see. -- Oliver P. 06:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There was a general consensus on this page that Sept 11th victims without otherwise encyclopedic lives should be moved to the Sept 11th wiki and deleted. For fairness we should do it to all of them. Delete both this and the next two listed. And I think from now on they should be candidates for immediate moving and deletion. moink 06:30, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonfamous --Jiang
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Alfio 14:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, belongs on sep11, not here. Onebyone 17:17, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reason: person not famous. It was moved to the sep11 wiki by someone [4]. Maximus Rex 04:42, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • John J. Wenckus
    • Undeleted by me because it wasn't properly listed the first time round. (See here.) No reason for deletion that I can see. -- Oliver P. 06:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonfamous. --Jiang
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Alfio 14:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, belongs on sep11, not here. Onebyone 17:17, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reason: person not famous. It was moved to the sep11 wiki by someone [[5]]. Maximus Rex 04:42, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jean Hoadley Peterson
    • Deleted without Vfd notice having been added, suggesting that it may not have been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion at all. (I never saw it there.) No reason for deletion that I can see. -- Oliver P. 06:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Alfio 14:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, belongs on sep11, not here. Onebyone 17:17, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The only page this links to is Donald A. Peterson which has been moved to the Sep11 wiki. It therefore makes sense to move both of them. I don't see why these keep being listed on VfD separately. This particular page has been listed on the list of pages to be moved to the Sep11 wiki for over 9 months without objection! I suggest people edit that list if they object rather than wasting VfD space with listings of these every week. Just get on with moving them rather than discussing it. If any of those people really are worthy of an article here, someone will, at some point, write an article about them. Keeping a memorial page here about them isn't the most useful start for a real article anyway, and someone wanting to see such a page is more likely to look for it at the Sep11 wiki than in what is supposed to be an encyclopædia. Angela. 01:42, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reason: person not famous. It was moved to the sep11 wiki by someone [[6] ]. Maximus Rex 04:42, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Predicted effects of invading Iran. Attempting to 'predict' the effects of something is "primary research" (see What Wikipedia is not #10). (The page was also written by a user that has subsequently been banned.) Maximus Rex 11:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article is simply reporting what proponents and detractors are saying. That's not research. The article writer is unimportant. Same for the next article. Alfio 14:42, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the claims can be specifically sourced. "I heard a rumour that someone might have said X" is not good enough for an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Onebyone 16:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Who invaded Iran? Rather silly IMHO - Marshman 19:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. What are the predicted effects of not invading Iran? (which as far as I know is more likely to happen for the next year at least). What are the unpredicted effects, by the way? Pfortuny 22:15, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete --Jiang
    • Delete. Encylopedias should not have articles about the future. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Predicted effects of invading Iraq Attempting to 'predict' the effects of something is "primary research" (see What Wikipedia is not #10). (The page was also written by a user that has subsequently been banned.) Since Iraq has been invaded this page is now pointless. Maximus Rex 11:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the claims can be specifically sourced. "I heard a rumour that someone might have said X" is not good enough for an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Onebyone 16:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Presdumably there will be a history article on this, and therefore musings on "predictions" is political POV. Not for Wikipedia - Marshman 19:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, see my comment above. Pfortuny 22:15, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, potentially useful with attributions.—Eloquence
    • Delete, moot --Jiang
    • Delete. Encylopedias should not have articles about the future. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Alleged effects of invading Iraq. - This article lists only the actual (but, for neutrality called alleged) effects of invading Iraq. Currently has very little content. Neither title nor current contents encourage responsible additions. I say give it up as a dead loss. Even if an independent article is needed on the effects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, this isn't that article. Onebyone 16:47, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The term "alleged" does not gicve it neutrality in POV but encourges POV - Marshman 19:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Uninformed drivel. Delete.—Eloquence
    • Delete --Jiang
    • Delete. POV rubbish. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Raspberry (disambiguation) - after removal of non-disambiguating content (a slang definition and a link to some award which now has its own page), only a self-link remains.—Eloquence
    • Delete - Marshman 19:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - This type of disambiguation page is only useful if linked to from a "primary topic" page. Otherwise, move (to eliminate the "(disambiguation)" part of the name) and redirect. -Anthropos 16:06, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Just delete for now. - Marshman 22:45, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 1

  • Grunge Baby - nonfamous band -- JeLuF 02:00, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Non-famous bands can still have a page, but probably should be confined to a "list of" pages and not referenced as being in the "notable" or otherwise, sections of the genre articles. We already have plenty of non-famous bands articles, there's a grey area between "alternative/independent" and non-famous, almost by definition many "indie" bands are non-famous, I see no harm in keeping the article. --Lexor 05:34, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Have you looked at the article? The band formed a couple of months ago and has done nothing. If there are articles on bands of a similar calibre, please list on vfd so they can be deleted too. Maximus Rex 05:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, you have a point. The acts I was referring to have released CDs and aren't well known but generally have been around a couple of years at least. This is possibly a case of self-promotion. I still maintain it's a slippery slope, but if there majority vote goes to delete, I won't object. --Lexor 05:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. According to the only online reference to this band, [7] they have no songs and no CDs. Maximus Rex 05:39, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonfamous. RickK 23:04, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unable to find a single produced work from them. Coren 23:12, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for reasons everyone else has already stated. PMC 23:56, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Andy Engman - biography of a non-famous family member. Does not meet Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. silsor 04:00, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep! User:Hephaestos made it encyclopedic, and I added some additional info. As the criteria for inclusion of biographies page says: This is a proposed guideline - it doesn't necessarily have wide support. Feel free to ignore it. :) Optim 07:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think he's famous enough for an article, now that the cruft has been removed from it. - Hephaestos 23:09, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Gore Personal and Political Controversies. Besides an ill-advised title, hopelessly POV. RickK 04:18, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Content was moved from Al Gore. Delete, but do not move all this POV crap back, salvage whatver is relevant for a biographical article, not some anti-Gore political rant. --Jiang 04:53, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Any NPOV content on the subject belongs in the Al Gore article itself, not swept under the carpet like this. Salsa Shark 20:12, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Removing controversy to a seperate article is not acceptable. Given the user's edits, calling this an attempt to "sweep under the carpet" seems plausible. Information about Gore should stay in the Al Gore page. Maximus Rex 05:59, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I learned quite a bit from this article and found it NPOV. Content is good, does it belong on the Al Gore page? Or was it moved from there because Al Gore was getting too big? No vote on the page, but I vote to keep the content. moink 19:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the information! I strongly agree with Moink that this is an informative, useful, even necessary addition to an accurate and full article on Gore. While some may have an agenda and prefer one type of (flattering) information, if you sincerely find the tone rather than the content POV, please edit the article. If you are looking to remove facts which you dislike, find a new subject, your POV has gotten out of hand here. Jack 21:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Appears NPOV and informative. Or perhaps move contents back to the full article. Coren 21:10, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete. Davodd 00:13, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think it would be fine to return this to the original article, but without removing any of the content. Jack 00:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into main Gore article. Interesting and overwhelmingly NPOV. -- stewacide 11:17, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it located at snopes.com. In writing an encyclopedic biography, it is not in our interests to dispell rumors, only to state the hard and basic facts. Just because it's factual doesn't mean it should stay. --Jiang 12:56, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A very good article. I went presuming a heap of nonsense based on comments made here. But it is well sourced, well written, and unambiguously NPOV and encyclopædic. Rumours and conspiracies are part and parcel of politics and a credible encyclopædia should have no problem explaining what are the claims, who makes them and what the factual evidence is. We do it about JFK, Bush and others. Gore warrants the same. FearÉIREANN 03:02, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the content. -- Cyan 06:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, as it stands now. This article has potential, but it is currently a mess. If I were grading this as a paper, I'd give it a D. It is formatted poorly and organized weakly. It quotes items second and third hand without citing references. Parts were paraphrased from other sites. Its title is sloppy. It should really be named Personal and political controversies of Al Gore. In order to save this article, someone has to do some heavy overhauls. Kingturtle 06:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Serial polygamy - redirect to Serial monogamy Vacuum 19:47, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. That redirect seems spurious to me. Coren 23:12, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, strange for an redirect to point to something that doesn't mention anything about the subject of the redirect. PMC 00:04, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 00:13, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • South Orange Grove Boulevard (Pasadena, California). NOn-important street. RickK 23:04, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, keep it. Or merge it into the currently-rather-thin article on Pasadena, California. It's quite a decent little morsel of information. I frequently run across references to streets in novels that carry an implication that the reader will understand something about the social significance or ambience of the street, and it's reasonable to have some way of looking them up. Every city has its millionaire's row or something similar, but they are worth documenting. Maybe this paragraph shouldn't be an entry in itself; people looking for South Orange Grove Boulevard probably would know it's in Pasadena or could find it easily enough via global search—when and if that feature is re-enabled. Dpbsmith 23:27, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into Pasadena, California and delete. Seems worth a mention, but not quite important enough for its very own page. PMC 23:59, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Merged. Dpbsmith 01:37, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Good. Leave the redirect. -- Infrogmation 16:41, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 2

  • One-Eyed Jacks. Looks to be an advertisement. There. That's much better. Denelson83 07:46, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Certainly unencyclopedic if nothing else. Delete. Change vote to keep, now that it's been updated. -- Francs2000 20:53, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a well-known movie directed by Marlon Brando. Why would you want to delete (rather than rework) it? Is Deletionism back in fashion for 2004? Anjouli 10:05, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think I have turned it into a relevant stub. Davodd 10:07, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's been rehabilitated; thanks, Davodd. Salsa Shark 10:10, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • No prob - I love bad movies. Davodd 10:20, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well fixed. Coren 06:24, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • War reparation - too specific --Jiang 11:18, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not an analytical article, title is wrong, content belongs in WW2 and is already present. Tempshill 05:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. 13 articles link to it. It sounds to me like we need the article. True, this is not the article we need, but deletion is not the answer. I'm also a bit disturbed that the VFD notice was added to the page 17 minutes after the anon. user made their last change. We really need to be more patient, especially for what may be a new user. -Anthropos 06:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Poemgate - bad poem supposedly by George W. Bush. Hardly merits article even if genuine; move to wikiquote if thought to merit such. -- Infrogmation 17:07, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too POV. May be worthy of a 1-2 sentence ref in GWBush article; not an entry. Def. not this entry. Davodd 20:56, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Either delete entirely or move 1-2 sentences to Laura Bush and then delete. And please please please stop appending 'gate' to every mildly questionable behaviour of a politician. moink 22:54, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If genuine and attribution can be verified, might be wikibookifiable. Coren 05:14, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Adam Wade - only content is a musing confusing him with 1960s Batman tv actor Adam West -- Infrogmation 17:18, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The only link is from 1937 in music which I think is referring to the Adam Wade described at http://www.oldies.com/artist/view.cfm/id/5.html moink 22:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or rewrite entirely if Adam Wade is more famous than appears from a google search. Adam West != Adam Wade.
    • Delete. Wouldn't this be a candidate for instant deletion since the text is wholly unrelated to the title, in addition to being poorly written? Maximus Rex 06:20, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Timeline of Anti-Semitism -- This article is used to push an agenda and cannot possibly be NPOV without providing context (which a timeline can't do of course). Another disingenuous propaganda attempt if you ask me. --213.231.204.211 19:52, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agenda? What kind of agenda? The "Do not murder Jews agenda?" Yeah, that's a pretty awful agenda... RK 14:20, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename. (Added vfd tag) The info is useful - but has an inaccurate, misleading and probably POV article name. It limits itself to anti-Jewish history and specifically doesn't acknowledge other Semitic people - including Eritrean, Ethiopean, Maltese, Arabic, Syrian, Somalian, and Mali peoples. Ex: Arab-on-Isreali violence or vice-versa by definition cannot be anti-Semitic; it is intra-Semitic. Davodd 20:31, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • A common mistake, but "anti-Semitic" does mean specifically racism against Jews as well as (and less commonly) against all Semites. Onebyone 00:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't feed the trolls. Certain trolls, for years, have tried to erase all Wikipedia articles on anti-Semitism by playing this card. They know full well it isn't true, and they are not trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are trying to censor data they disapprove of. RK
    • I suggested on the talk page to move content into history of anti-Semitism. The anon user above is right -- timelines can't provide enough historical context for a subject like this. Tuf-Kat 22:35, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Most of this looks fine to me, it just goes a bit wrong at the end when it fails to explain why specific actions against Israel may or may not, depending on your POV, be regarded as "racism against Jews". Having said that, I have no particular attachment to the current title, "History of anti-Semitism" would be fine by me. Onebyone 01:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Of course. There are many people angry at Jews, who refuse to accept that there are things Jews view as anti-Semitic that some other people may not. For instance, the vast majority of the American, European and Jewish communities, both religious and secular, view the PLO and its attacks as anti-Semitic, while many Europeans and American leftists do not. But it is NPOV to say that these groups and actions are viewed as anti-Semitism by Jews. RK
    • Keep. The confusion and uncomfortableness around this topic demonstrate that the article is necessary as a useful resource. 1. The term is a common misnomer, but that's what dictionaries are for (e.g. [www.dictionary.com]). Not going into deep etymology here, any human language is full of them: tanks don't carry water, free trade is not free, Democrat & Republican mean the same thing (in Greek and Latin respectively), etc. To those who wants to change it, best of luck. 2. The contents. Note, it is an addendum to main article Anti-Semitism where the etymology, semantics, roots, reasons, excuses and tendencies are (or should be) explained in detail. No doubts, the chronology of world's longest hatred is not an easy reading. The article is still recovering from being continuously vandalized (that includes attempts by User:213.231.204.211). Every time an entry has been challenged, it was either removed or rephrased to show the relevance and keep as close to facts as possible. Constructive contributions & suggestions are more than welcome. I already have changed the ending. Humus sapiens 04:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Almost by definition, any list of racism-against-foo is POV. The data might be salvaged in a putative "history of the Jewish people" if judgment calls are removed, but as is this is simply an agenda posing as encyclopedic. To call any particular action "racism", one needs considerable historical context. (Say, an attack against nation X might be ethnically motivated, or it might be territory expansion, or a thousand other things. Coren 05:14, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this POV article. (And I was born Jewish!). Anjouli 05:32, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote change. Delete for inalienable POV reasons. Davodd 10:59, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • How come it is Ok to discuss bigotry against homosexuals, blacks and hispanics (of Which Wikipedia does plenty), but it is suddenly POV and forbidden to discuss bigotry against Jews? We must not make new rules for discussing Jews, while applying different standards to every other group. Keep the article.
  • Wiki Theory of Qualia - was linked on Qualia with the words: (on going since 2004) by thousands of Wikipedian researchers, Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not a place to develop scientific theories - so far this theory is 2 days old and has one (not thousand) people working on it. Maybe move it to a user subpage? andy 22:47, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or move. As stated above, there should not be a Wikipedia theory of anything much because Wikipedia is not for creating theories. Onebyone 01:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense. Anjouli 05:35, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; nonsense. Tempshill 05:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. K00kery. Salsa Shark 05:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Pretty complex: Everything = Everything I know + everything else. Delete - Marshman 09:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 3

  • September 11th truth movement - tinfoil hattery. Salsa Shark 02:32, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del - POV title with POV dictionary def'n that leads only to 9/11. --Jerzy 02:35, 2004 Jan 3 (UTC)
    • No google hits for this phrase, not notable, delete. Onebyone 03:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fails google test, hopelessly POV and contains no useful information. Coren 05:14, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Author even went so far as to post a link to an external soapbox after vfd. How tacky.  :-) Coren 06:24, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Misspelled nonsense. Anjouli 05:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Content-free. Tempshill 05:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't delete. Seems NPOV to me Flamingantichimp 06:03, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's obvious that "9/11 Truth Movement" does exist as is described on the page. The fact that it might not go unified by the name "September 11th truth movement" doesn't mean it is not an important add to wikipedia. It's a concept! Don't delete. Finlander 06:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Entirely POV, and hardly includes anything but a whole series of links. Delete. RickK 09:10, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Poorly written nonsense is right. However Finlander does have a point. I don't think this "article" is what is needed, but thought should be given to how to cover the subject (within a 9/11 article I suspect) - Marshman 09:19, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 10:52, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • I gave the other two articles a look and I agree that only the very basic idea of the article is needed. That is to acknowledge that there is a movement, especially on the Internet, that tries to investigate the incident in ways I tried to express on that page. I suggest the notification is added to the main 9/11 page. So keeping that in mind, the article can be removed. The name must have been very insulting as I've never had so many furious people ridiculing my grammar. Also it is better that I don't touch the page as I obviously don't have a clue of what POV means to most of you on matters relating to 9/11. Finlander 11:26, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, obvious POV. --Jiang
    • Delete. This is at very best a nascent movement. The existing article is a POV attempt to publicize and lend credibility to that movement. The movement is far from important enough to warrant an article, or to warrant attempting to balance the article. (Incidentally, the name is probably incorrect; Google search on "9-11 truth movement" in quotes gives 414 hits, "September 11th truth movement" gives none. Apparently Google hasn't indexed the Wikipedia page yet). Dpbsmith 13:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Losing - dictionary definition, already at Wiktionary:lose. Onebyone 03:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Redundant definition. Coren 05:14, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 05:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. RedWolf 07:59, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete! Optim 10:44, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Davodd 10:52, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dada Manifesto - source text? move to wikisource? Secretlondon 09:30, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikisource, but certainly don't delete outright. Jmabel 10:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the main text of Dadaism. Check for copyvio and move to Wikisource. Optim 10:44, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • User:SunirShah/User talk:SunirShah - Sunir Shah claims he has never contributed to en.wikipedia and the account is not registered (no contribs link). Therefore it is pointless and inappropriate for him to have user and user talk pages here. The user page is linked from MetaWiki. Should the user page be deleted outright, or should it be moved to the main namespace and converted into an encyclopedia article, like how one exists at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunir_Shah? Is he famous enough? --Jiang 10:38, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If you look at the history of SunirShah and Talk:SunirShah (note both are redirects), it seems he might have contributed under the old software. Such as the old user page and the old talk page. I don't know why it was recreated, instead of being moved. Maximus Rex 10:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • The move function was not available at the time user pages were created. He indicated to me on IRC that he has never contributed here. Two talk pages had comments signed by [User:SunirShah], but they were done by IPs 64.229.25.227 and 24.43.17.245 (and not through the user acct). --Jiang 10:55, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The page was made by User:Stephen Gilbert. It has no user contributions linked to it. Secretlondon 10:49, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • My suggestion is to delete the User: pages and move the older pages in their places (which would move the history there), since he seems to have been a user at one time, even if he is no longer. Maximus Rex 10:56, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • But he doesn't seem to have been a user at one time. He said so! --Jiang 14:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Berkshire unitary district: This is a coinage of a term. If I google for this term I get only hits from wikipedia or sites using wikipedia source. The term is linked to, but only because the creator of the page made links to it - the subject is perfectly well covered at Unitary authority. Morwen 12:02, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, I was wrong. The term is use by [8], who are a very partisan group. This suggests the term is partisan itself, and the existence of the page violates NPOV. ;) Morwen 12:13, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Idiosyncratic (not necessarily POV) terminology invented by the ABC to cover a minor legislative point. The distinction is made perfectly well on unitary authority in the paragraph ending "This is in practical terms the same thing." Delete. --rbrwr 13:50, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud: Essentially, the article consists of one quotation, which appears in an article in the Jewish press (The Forward) telling Jews not to protest the Mel Gibson film because there are Jewish sources that were not Jesus-friendly. Any context it has was actually written by me in Talk:Talmud to explain why the quote should not be in that article (in other words, I am being misquoted). No information about any other Talmudic quotes appears, though there is a quote from a letter by Maimonides referring to Jesus. Maimonides lived some 600 hundred years after the Talmud was completed. POV and lacks context. Delete. Danny 13:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It certainly doesn't conform to style. Davodd 13:17, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • This content needs to be put somewhere: make it NPOV and add context yourself. And fix the style yourself. Dbabbitt 13:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) Any story sounds good until the other side is told and sets the record straight. The anti-Jesus quotes in the Mel Gibson article must be brought into proper context to tell the other side of the story. Dbabbitt 14:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Another big problem with this article: Most of the censored rabbinic bits about "Jesus" were probably not about Jesus Christ. The name "yeshua" became a stand-in for any and all false Jewish messiahs in early rabbinic Judaism, both real people and legendary. Applying them all to one person is historically unjustifiable. Many of the stories are just totally removed from anything in the New Testament; many scholars are convinced that some of these cannot possibily be about the Christian Jesus. RK 14:25, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)


  • Otto Hermann Kahn - Looks like a fake biography. Wikikiwi 13:27, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks real to me. Other site such as [9] have similar information. What is fake about it? Maximus Rex 13:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. Seems like a joke website, rather than a political party. Even if they're serious, theres no evidence that they're a genuine political party, do they do anything except produce a website? Their site doesn't seem to indicate that they do. A Google search reveals only their official site and sites that simply talk about their official site. Saul Taylor 13:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The Money Masters—not important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article in itself. I perceive it as an effort to promote this documentary and, indirectly, its point of view. Dpbsmith 13:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree -- Delete. -- The Anome 14:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Who do you think you are to decide this and that movie or documentary is not known-enough for wikipedia? IMDB score? It's source for- and information package for people wandering into fractional-reserve banking. I've made it initially into a stub, but I'm planning to extend it to mention the issues it covers. Would removing the external link make you happy in the mean time or should I remove the quote that I did not include in the first place? Finlander 14:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OK, I looked for it on imdb and couldn't find it at all. Where is it? Closest thing I could find was a 1915 silent movie, a drama called "The Money Master" which is characterized as a "drama" and no description other than "keywords:  ambition, anarchist, based-on-play, industrialist, moral-reformation, new-york-city, nurse, poverty, revenge" Dpbsmith 15:05, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • How to adjust brakes: This is probably useful to someone, but it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia, does it? Is there somewhere where such an article may be more appropriate? There is an article on bicycle brake systems that is appropriate and that covers the subject from an encyclopedic pov. -- Egil 13:56, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Propaganda model - looks like someone posted his SOC 101 class assignment there. --Jiang 14:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • R. Joe Brandon - possible self-promotion; we're his number 1 hit on google. --Jiang 14:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Belonging -sub-stub; the other three basic needs seem to have been already deleted. Move to wiktionary? --Jiang 14:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2075978"