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 Filiocht (talk | contribs) at 09:25, 6 January 2004 (Keep Nelson (figuratively)). 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 -- maintaining this page

All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at Talk:List of recipes/Delete

December 24

December 27

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


  • 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)
    • Delete in the absence of any verifiable attribution to Marien. I've seen some of his collages and they were constructed in the normal way. Bmills 13:46, 5 Jan 2004 (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

December 30

December 31

  • 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)
    • Keep. But remove all material which is not sourced. [Fred Bauder]
      • None of it is sourced. Maximus Rex 15:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There is usefull information in this article. Let's see what is not sourced. User:Anthere
      • Why do we need someone's old speculations on what 'might happen', when instead all we should report is what has happened? Maximus Rex 01:08, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Because it *might* inform the one (reading this article) who supported the invasion on the reasons why *others* did not support it. And this is *not* in our current articles on the topic. And *this* is information :-) Don't you think that understanding why some people disagreed with the war *before* it occurred is valid and meaningfull information in itself ? Are you suggesting all what is on Wikipedia is only what *really* occured ? and never what people think or believe or dream of ? Really Maximus ? :-) PomPom
      • We have several pages on Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is about the deletion of an article that made predictions (without sources) before the war occurred. Maximus Rex
        • Precisely. The articles we currently have on the topic are: Popular opposition to war on Iraq. It claims to explain why many people were opposed to the war. Practicaly, it starts by explaining that Some have speculated that western European countries were against a war because of widespread European "anti-American" sentiment.. Which is indeed one argument. Perhaps a bit americano-centred ? Actually, reading the full article leaves a certain feeling of bias reading, and to my opinion, the opinion that a good bunch of the arguments I heard a year ago, are not listed...Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq only list the for and the against. That is not very informative about why there were against and why they are for...Global protests against war on Iraq is about the protests, not the reasons about the protests...plus a special article about the christian church position, Catholic Church against war on Iraq, which I suppose required a unique article...And that is about it. Perhaps 2 small paragraphs is a not very visible article. In any case, a rather ridiculous article, compared to the main argument given by the Bush administration at that time. You will find it at Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (on which I spent quite a while :-)). I suggest that we try to provide a minimum of balance on this encyclopedia between the arguments of the pro and the ones of the anti. Removing the arguments against, heard then, while keeping the arguments for the war, heard then, (was any weapon of mass destruction used during the war ? is not a good idea....Second, you answered to Fred, that no argument listed was sourced. True. As no argument given in Popular opposition to war on Iraq is sourced either. Still, they are widely accepted as correct. I think many of the arguments given here are so obvious that they do not need sources either. I agree this may not be the case for all arguments. Why do you not list those you really think need source, as you doubt a reasonable number of people used these arguments to oppose the invasion ?
      • If the information is useful in determining why people opposed this, then shouldn't this be merged with an article on opposition? --Jiang 01:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I am unsure. the article lists both arguments for and arguments against. The ones for are at the top. The ones against below. It was meant for balance. And it is a rather long article.
    • Delete. This article presents a list of unattributed opinions and predictions. As much as I try to read it, I see it as a rant. Kingturtle 06:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree. The fact that the article contains this line: "More effects are predicted by opponents of the plan than those favoring it" — as if the number of predictions the "author" could come up with was some sort of valid metric — puts it into the "rant" category in my opinion. Delete - Marshman 04:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Since the whole article is presented as a list of unattributed opinions, and that most people here thinks sources should be provided to support keeping the article as unformative as *source* of information about *why* some people feared the war and opposed to it, I have quickly made a few searches on google to find some sources. It may be that some are not receivable, but I think a bunch of them are. I also think a certain number of these predicted effects do not even need sources (such as the fact some people opposed to the war, because they thought there would be humanitarian consequences). I also think that some have arguments and sources in wikipedia itself (such as the british letter). Anyway, these are some sources I found. I tried to limit myself to english references. I apologies in advance if some of the sources are wrong :-)

ant


January 1

  • 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)
  • Understanding Comics/summary - a summary of a book. this is not the place for it. Kingturtle 07:53, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete. PMC 00:04, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikisource? Zack 21:01, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably not, move to wikibooks and delete. --Jiang 23:28, 5 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)
    • Should the page history be rescued?--Jiang

January 2

  • 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)
      • If deletion isn't the answer, then let's insert a dictionary definition and stub notice and insertion on Cleanup. Tempshill 07:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I redirected to Reparation. --Jiang 01:31, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I redirected it to War reparations and wrote a decent stub that can grow. See Talk:War reparations for my explanation of the name change. Kingturtle 07:11, 5 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)
    • Delete, this hardly merits an article. Poemgate seems to have been manufactured on a blog entry. Maximus Rex 13:10, 5 Jan 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)
        • That's incorrect; in the English language "anti-Semitic" does specifically mean racism against Jews, and does not properly refer to racism against other Semitic peoples. Its etymology is from "racism against Semites", but its meaning is "racism against Jews": it was coined specifically to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment, and the term was picked because at the time it was coined, Jews were the only Semites who were in Europe in significant numbers. There are numerous other English words which are not true to their etymologies, so this isn't exactly unusual. --Delirium 02:48, Jan 5, 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)
      • Note, this is "NPOV" from Saudi Arabia, the world's expert on anti-Semitism. Humus sapiens 10:05, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I am an American citizen of Jewish origin and I happen to be in Saudi Arabia because my husband is a diplomat who is posted here. Even if I were a Saudi, would that mean any comment I made was without merit? That point of view is called racial stereotyping. To be fair, the article is moving towards NPOV and I am close to changing my vote. Anjouli 13:22, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Racial stereotyping would be putting one's ethnic origin (which must be irrelevant anyway, and if renounced - doubly so) in front of their vote, thereby suggesting that all the Jews supposedly have the same opinion or some kind of conspiracy. A Jew can be an Antisemite, just as an American can be an Anti-American. Good example of Psychological projection. Humus sapiens 07:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote change. Delete for inalienable POV reasons Davodd 10:59, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC). Neutral. Davodd 03:36, Jan 6, 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.
    • Keep it. "Anti-semitism," a term coined in Europe to mean "hatred of Jews" is still a very real problem today, there's no disputing that as a matter of POV. It's important to have such a comprehensive resource like this one so that we can understand this problem.151.197.44.128 23:44, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)151.197.44.128 23:42, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding POV: the history is full of cruel and uncomfortable events. Objectively stating well-documented facts, even if inconvenient for some, is not POV. Denying or rewriting them - clearly is. Some contributors have suggested in the past that the A-S has begun in the 19th century and happily ended in 1945. Isn't the encyclopedia's job to clear up such confusions? In the interests of objectivity, I am adding relevant reversals of A-S policies, such as by Charlemagne, St. Bernard, Barbarossa... Some are already there. OTOH, [[User:213.231.204.211 should be banned from continuously vandalizing this page pushing his agenda. According to his latest deletion, A-S has ended in 1969. Great news! Humus sapiens 11:36, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • 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

January 3, Part 1

  • 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)
    • Delete. Ensiform


  • 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)
    • moved it to wikisource. --snoyes 16:26, 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 [1], 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)
    • Delete. Any useful information can be merged with unitary authority. Francs2000 02:21, 4 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) Rabbi Steinsaltz says Christians would do best to avoid these texts because there is nothing politically or theologically significant to them in Jewish tradition. Delete. Dbabbitt 15:39, 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)
  • Given Danny's recent rewriting of most of the text, keep it. --Zero 10:20, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I also change my vote to keep, since I can deal with it now. Danny 14:15, 4 Jan 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 [2] have similar information. What is fake about it? Maximus Rex 13:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oheka Castle here (already added to the article by Maximus Rex), books confirmed by LoC Catalog; seems good to me. Keep. --rbrwr 16:07, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The wikipedian who wrote it (User:KF) has an excellent wikipedia pedigree. Such fakes are universally (?) the preserve of the noob. -- Finlay McWalter 02:58, 5 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)
    • These wackos folks have been around at least since the mid 1990s. They seem more in the category of strange fringe groups which pop up on the internet than a political party of any influence, but as wikipedia is not paper, I make a weak vote to keep. IMO article should be trimmed to a short description and link to their site. I note Wikipedia has had an article on them since March of 2002. -- Infrogmation 19:33, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • The point of Wikipedia is to provide information isn't it? This seems to be information to me: for (e.g.) a student studying politics or extremism (as I am doing for my International Baccalaureate Diploma) this is a useful resource. I intend to make use of it at a later date for an essay on modern fringe politics. Just because something is a joke or offends you doesn't mean that it should be deleted. I move to keep it. Simon Stallworthy
    • Keep. I have been aware of this organization since the early 90's, as mentioned above. go to http://nazi.org/ and study up on them, or heck, contact them and add yourself to their mailing list if you have any questions or concerns, but its not a joke. Jack 03:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reading through the article some of their viewpoints are a bit on the extreme side, and I don't agree with them, but they seem to be a valid political party nonetheless. -- Francs2000 06:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 3, Part 2

  • 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)
        • Yes, it is not in the imdb and I didn't say it is (does imdb cover documents?). Finlander 15:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • You might like to review the changes I made to the page and also, as you so allege that I'm advertising a small time document for my own benefit and not because it seems to be recognized and also I personally found it very enjoyable and informative, check out the "Reviews and Comments" page on the document's homepage and you will see that it has been recognized by several institutions, economic magazines and publishers and whatnot. Finlander 15:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge with another article (but I can't suggest any atm). I see no reason to delete this article. It seems encyclopedic to me and the production named "Money Masters" and the concept it discusses are well-known among people who study similar topics. It is possible that somebody may search wikipedia for this thing, so we should list it, as long as it does not cause any harm to Wikipedia and its readers (and as it is now, it doesn't). However, I have no problem to merge the contents with another page if you think this is better, but certainly do not delete. Optim 17:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Three issues here - Is it advertising? Is it NPOV? Is it important enough for a Wikipedia article? The link is to a Web site that has a page that advertises the product, but this is not serious enough for deletion IMO. The article is a bit NPOV but this could be fixed easily enough. Is this documentary more important than hundred of other documentaries that can be seen on the History channel, PBS, BBC, etc.? Probably not. So how high do we set the bar when decideing whether an article is warranted? We have articles on Star Trek episodes, episodes of childrens show, chapters of books, verses of the Bible. If this is where we set the bar then the documentary should stay. - Keep, unless we are prepared to consistently implement a tighter inclusion policy. mydogategodshat 03:06, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Propaganda model - looks like someone posted his SOC 101 class assignment there. --Jiang 14:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • A useful article could be written here, but this is not it. moink 21:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Thomas Jackson doesn't seem famous. The article smells like self-promotion and should instead redirect to Gen. Thomas J. Jackson. --Jiang 14:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Googling yields nothing, even after quite a bit of tweaking, author search the same, inserted by anonymous user who needs to come forward with some information. Fred Bauder 18:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The only Google hit for "homem alto com monocle" is to this article. Delete.
    • Delete. Nothing comes up about this guy. Sunray 03:34, 2004 Jan 5 (UTC)
    • Make it a disambig page. There are 2 wikipedia-worthy people with the name Thomas Jackson - Thomas Penfield Jackson was the judge in the Microsoft case, and Thomas J. Jackson was the civil war general. --Raul654 23:37, 5 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)
    • Wiktionary Optim 17:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Optim PMC 21:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Those 4 basic needs just don't Google anywhere but here. Fred Bauder 23:15, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Joseph Buford Cox vanity page "provided by his former step son, Gary Poole" --Jiang 14:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This guy is not of encyclopedic importance. moink 21:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep A minor but significant inventor of a product used worldwide by many people.I have done a bit of work on the aricle. Fred Bauder 23:54, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This one is right on the edge, but I tend to agree with Fred. There are several sources that mention Cox and credit him with the invention. Sunray 03:34, 2004 Jan 5 (UTC)
    • Keep. He founded a company, improved a famous tool--and it doesn't really cost anything to have him here. Meelar 20:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Behavior change consists of two quotations on the word behavior. --Jiang 14:43, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • As someone said above, this could be an interesting article, but this isn't it. If someone hasn't altered it before a week's up, then delete. -- Francs2000 06:35, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • JumpTheCroc is a personal attack. -- Seth Ilys 15:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is stupid. Delete. Mention the baby-dangling incident on the page on Steve Irwin, certainly, but it doesn't need its own (extremely POV) page. Ensiform
    • Crap. delete. --rbrwr 16:07, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Optim 17:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, or redirect to Steve Irwin. -- Infrogmation 19:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, do not redirect. The term is something the poster made up. RickK 20:04, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Short note at Steve Irwin and delete. moink 21:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, no redirect, it's a POV personal attack. Make note on Steve Irwin for sure, but don't keep this. PMC 21:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a variation of Jump the shark -- which is a real term used in television production... [3] ... has an interesting history (Happy Days, Fonzie and a shark tank) and deserves an article.You can redir there. Davodd 01:54, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete (without redirect). Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. -- Finlay McWalter 02:27, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Florentin Smarandache is a vanity page. If not delete, can't there be some disclaimer along the lines of "the information in this article is unverifiable" at the very least? but I'd like to see all vanity pages deleted. Especially since there such things as home pages and, here on Wiki, talk pages. Ensiform 15:50, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • He seems to have published quite a few books, or so the article says. Were they published by a vanity press, or are they recognized? At the least the article needs some serious NPOV editing. moink 20:59, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Quite a bit to this guy, see http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/view_profile.php?user_id=91&lang=en Fred Bauder 21:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I might be wrong on this. The link above only leads to links on the guy's own home page for "support" of the claims; however, Amazon does have a lot of books by others on his work. My point (plaint?) about vanity pages, however, still stands. 68.90.10.4 23:49, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like a vanity page, quacks like a vanity page... Coren 00:41, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • The big problem with the page is its unverifiability. It seems from User:Smarandache fan and this old mailing list post that one person was adding lots of stuff about this guy (everywhere) back in June. This page should probably be deleted since it cannot be verified, or at least cut back to a minimal stub if reliable information is found. Maximus Rex 01:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • We've been through all this before. Florentin Smarandache is annoying in his self-promotion, but annoyingly well known. A number of researchers have taken up his idea of three-valued logic, and have put it to useful application. A number of people have studied the sequences he introduced. Check the talk page for the archived text of the first VFD listing. -- Tim Starling 10:07, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • From Florentin SmarandacheThank you for your e-mail.The article on Wikipedia is not a vanity page; many people have added,

deleted, edited a text put by one of my former literary agents - without telling it to me in the beginning. As a prove to the fact that many people have worked in my mathematical and literary ideas, people who also contributed to Wikipedia, you can see the books that are selling in Amazon.com, or the books in many libraries - for example at the Library of Congress, Washington DC. Those people who contributed to some pages of my work were stigmatized by wikipedians who could not believe so many people have written about my work. I am not interested in Wikipedia because they are not fear, they look to be in some way against my work; I don't care what they do with that page. Dr. Florentin Smarandache Associate Professor of Mathematics University of New Mexico 200 College Road Gallup, NM 87301, USA (Response in e-mail Fred Bauder 18:56, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC))

  • Statistical probability -- not a phrase used in the statistical or probabilistic literature. My basis for that assessment: having read some dozens of articles and books on probability and statistics topics; also, a Google search for "statistical probability" yields Wikipedia and Wikipedia copies among the top links, a number of accidental conjunctions of "statistical" and "probability", and nothing that could be called a basic source. The Wikipedia article itself doesn't bother to define "statistical probability" but rather only contains a collection of links to other articles. As such the article is unneeded, uninformative, and redundant. See also my comments on the talk page. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:00, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Mac OS XI - Total Speculation, Mac OS XI doesn't exist, and no plans to release anything called Mac OS XI have been made by the Apple Computer Company that made the operating system Mac OS X. --Flockmeal 19:23, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete it. I try to follow the Mac news and nothing like this has surfaced. I just checked the MacRumors website; nothing there. In other words, not only does Mac OS XI not exist, I do not as yet see any evidence that such a rumor exists. Dpbsmith 21:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unlikely to be announced before Duke Nukem Forever hits the shelves.  :-) Coren 00:41, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Otherwise we may as well create an article for Mac OS Y too. :-) -mhr 05:53, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Communist government - oxymoronic. Communism means the absence of government, thus a communist government is an oxymoron. You can have a socialist government (like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). You can have a communist party, or a communist society. But you can not have a communist government, it is an oxymoron. This page should be deleted, or at the very least moved to socialist government or communist society. If there is a detractor, can you please explain to me what a "communist government" is? This is the most inherently POV page I've seen yet from the title alone. It's kind of like saying Christians are people waiting for Jesus to return, and that he has returned, and he has renounced Christianity, and that all of this is a fact. -- Lancemurdoch 20:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Name has been changed to Marxist-Leninist dictatorship to deal with any ambiguity about ideals of pure communism.Fred Bauder 03:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think we have to go with common parlance on this one and keep. -- stewacide 21:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Regardless of what one or another group of people think "communist" ought to mean, a meaning which it actually has is "the parties of government in certain countries including the USSR, China and Cuba", and that is the meaning used here. Hence there is no contradiction. Onebyone 01:41, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. You can have a Communist government (capital c) as in government run by the Communist Party. Now located at Marxist-Leninist government. Do explain more clearly how this term is not accepted by communists. --Jiang 02:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 4

  • The mo. Nonsense - AFAIK there are no Talpidae in New Zealand, and Mohair does not come from Mo-hair. But it's worth to be preserved as quite creative nonsense. andy 23:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Copied to Wikipedia:Yet more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense for posterity. Delete. --rbrwr 00:05, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, not that it has been preserved for prosterity. Coren 00:41, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No such creature. -- Vardion 01:07, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this -- but there may be room for a list of nonsense objects and animals devrived from brand names and English's pidgin-like evolution. - The Nauga (hide used for furniture), the Mo and the Tuit (in it's highly prized round form) come to mind. Davodd 02:11, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • And let us not forget the blister-treatment Moleskin, widely believed to produced by flaying moles, but actually woven by moles from lint that they painstakingly collect!
    • Quite amusing, but since it's been copied to bad jokes, delete it. PMC 04:07, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't we have a Wiki fictional zoo somewhere? Where did we put the three-eared bat a few months ago?Anjouli 13:09, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Nasheed - inadequate dictionary definition. Onebyone 04:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete PMC 04:07, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Fail - dictionary definition. Onebyone 05:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikitionary and delete.
    • Wikitionary and delete. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Danish and Norwegian alphabet - orphan (hence unnecessary) disambiguation-style page, cannot be made into a sensible redirect. However, does contain edit histories for Danish alphabet and Norwegian alphabet. Onebyone 05:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. A note on each page (DK alpha + N alpha) to say it's similar to the other, definitely, but this one isn't even a disambig page. -- Francs2000 06:40, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Pr0n - orphan, jargon definition. No possibility of ever being made into a real article. PMC 06:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- this definition is already covered under leet. --MIRV 06:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to pornography, and add it as an alternate spelling at the top of the pornography article. --Raul654 11:15, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I made the article. It is not meant as a jargon definition, but rather as a redirect to both pornography and leet. While I admit it will not become a full article, I think it is quite functional as a 2-way redirect. If this idea is totally at odds with the wikipedia guidelines then I think it should be folded into pornography as Raul654 suggested. Thue 13:10, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Definitely NOT a purpose at Wikipedia to become a "Leet" dictionary. Move into Leet, then "deleet" - Marshman 18:16, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Useage is becoming increasingly mainstream; the redirect is not unwarranted. Coren 08:25, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • All_You_Zombies_(song) - orphan. The band that performed it doesn't even have a page, so obviously they're not important enough that this song warrants its own article. PMC 06:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The band has actually released six albums to date [4]. I don't know if they're any good but just because the band doesn't have an article on wikipedia, doesn't mean it's not good or worthy of an article. Likewise the song sounds interesting, though the article in its current form isn't a good one. -- Francs2000 06:49, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless fixed within time limit. Onebyone 14:09, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Have updated the page a bit, and it's no longer an orphan either. Also The Hooters page has come a long way. Vote to keep. Graham  :) 23:16, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote keep, thanks to Graham's changes. Derrick Coetzee 23:24, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. -mhr 22:06, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Field trip is a dictionary definition. --Jiang 07:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary and delete. -- Francs2000 07:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary and del. +Optim 09:45, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikitionary and delete. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Age of cattle features a quote from a book that "may not be accurate", and nothing else. -- Francs2000 08:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is probably a copyright violation. Compare with Original Article and read the terms and copyright. They say: "5. Use on Other Web Sites. The Contents are licensed only for the personal, household, educational use by a single individual. Reproducing Content on another site or redistributing Content is forbidden. Taking Content from this site and editing it and posting it on another site is also forbidden. Framing of this site is forbidden.". Thanks to User:Chadloder for locating the web source (this was done on 24th January 2003, do we really have a copyvio publication published here for a year???) .Optim 10:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The copyright claim is invalid because the Household Cyclopedia, being published in 1884 is in the public domain. Toph99 12:31, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article should be merged into an article on cattle or cows or bovines. However, I would be a bit wary of "technical" info that is this old. Still, it could be moved with the 1884 tag until someone with knowledge about aging cows comes along to correct - Marshman 18:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Techno-oligarchy: fails the Google test: 83 Google hits, mostly from mirrors of this article. The Anome 10:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Mostly just BS - Marshman 18:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to technocracy. If they are slightly different concepts add a note to technocracy. moink 21:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Fishbait - dictionary definition. Onebyone 16:39, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 18:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Jargon def might be suitable for wiktionary, but delete from here. moink 21:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikitionary and delete. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Supporting character - definition? Needs putting out of its misery. Onebyone 16:58, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not very well written - Marshman 18:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition. moink 21:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Soylent Greens -- recently created out of green anarchism, but I doubt (and google doubts that, too), that there really exist a relevant political tendency that calls itself Soylent Greens -- till we *) 20:25, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing like this in the Green Party, in any country that I am aware of. Preposterous nonsense. Scooter 23:38, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 5

  • Verdict. Normally I'd say more to Wiktionary, but this sub-stub definition is misleading. There are certainly other verdicts besides the two listed. RickK 00:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Then expand, please. - Patrick 02:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Reversible. Move to Wiktionary? RickK 01:27, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Might be useful, although it's weird to have an adjective as an article title. Move to reversible process. moink 22:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Pro Tools. Advertisement. RickK 01:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Kill it. Onebyone 03:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but needs to be rewritten. Pro Tools is like the Visicalc/Excel for the music world. Fuzheado 03:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; massively popular/famous program. --Delirium 03:41, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, advertising removed, let's see if it's popular enough for anyone to say anything about it... Onebyone 03:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there an article on digital audio recording that this can be merged into? mydogategodshat 05:02, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • BlogApathy - another neologism, this one almost totally unused (16 google hits). Onebyone 02:55, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fuzheado 08:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Rice and meat soup - m:Transwiking to wikibooks. Gentgeen 06:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Recipes to Wikibooks. Fuzheado 08:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Bmills 09:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should have been more specific. I've already transwikied it to wikibooks, this seems like a cantidate for speedy deletion. Gentgeen 01:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Romance (novel) - what is this, exactly? - Hephaestos 06:45, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Something that is either an original work or a copyright violation, either way it should be deleted. Gentgeen 07:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: not an article. Bmills 15:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • St. George's High School - unimportant. Fuzheado 09:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 09:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wikipedia:Wiki is not paper Jack 00:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. A very short article about an unimportant school. Maximus Rex 00:31, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. As Jack said. Length has nothing to do with it. Real facts about a real place; importance in the eye of the beholder. Jgm 02:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. Davodd 05:43, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Jumping in Quake - content moved to Quake. Fuzheado 10:07, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. In fact, the poor prose that was in it barely deserves a (short) paragraph in Quake. Coren 11:42, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep the redirect that is there now. Actually I am told that jumping really is a big deal amongst serious Quake players.. copyediting the "poor prose" now in Quake is not a matter for VfD. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:51, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolute pressure - dictionary entry. Bmills 13:07, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Useful concept in fluid dynamics. Keep (though needs improving). DJ Clayworth 15:36, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm undecided on this one. I agree with DJ Clayworth that it's an important concept, but as long as pressure defines both absolute and relative pressures, there's no need for this. If someone can make it longer than a definition, keep; otherwise delete and redirect to pressure. moink 18:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jason Allen Alexander - content is "Jason Allan Alexander is a brawny, small-town, church going boy, who married his high-school sweetheart, Britney Spears on January 3, 2004, and was annuled two days later" magicker71
    • Okay. Get this-- he did. [5] Watch the news buddy. Even check the article on Ms. Spears here self. I'll get to explaining the situation of the marriage, but this is real and valid. - user:zanimum
    • Keep. Optim 14:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, much as I hate to say it about a nine-day wonder like this. Bmills 15:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's utter trivia, but topical trivia. Secretlondon 19:10, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. Davodd 19:20, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - when no one cares anymore in a couple of days, the article will be just as useless as it would have been when no one had heard of him. Just mention it in the Britney Spears article instead. Adam Bishop 20:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment/Status: All the information about Jason Allen Alexander is now contained in the Britney Spears article under the heading "Marriage with Jason Allen Alexander". His full name gets 59 Google hits. Do we expect him to become more famous? If not, I think Jason Allen Alexander can become a redirect to Britney Spears. Let's wait a few days to see what will happen and whether he will get more publicity... ...Optim 21:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I've turned it into a redirect (which won't work whilst it is on VfD). This hopefully will contain it to the Britney page. Secretlondon 21:38, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with Optim. -mhr 21:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Johnny Wakelin - Can't make heads or tails of it. -- user:zanimum
    • Keep, makes sense now. Onebyone 16:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, onebyone, but only because I deleted all the confusing information after listing it. Who is he? How is he relevant? For all we know, these records and this article worked out of a garage. - user:zanimum
        • Apologies, since I'd heard of Pye Records, to me is was as good as a lot of other musical barely-stubs. I was judging based on the reasons stated for deletion - if you also want to delete it because it's too short to be worthwhile then that's a slightly different issue... Onebyone 00:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Suara Sosialis. Discusses something that doesn't exist. Huh? RickK 16:38, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This was created by an anon yesterday, claiming that that indonesian party doesn't exist. I'm going to attempt to verify that information. If it doesn't exist then of course delete. Secretlondon 18:55, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Confirmed that it no longer exists - and was a translation project not a political party (despite an official web site claiming it was). I've turned it into an orphan.Secretlondon 19:09, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • MediaWiki:Disam. MediaWiki:Disambig already exists and it is used almost exclusively. I think it would be confusing unless we remove the former. See also MediaWiki talk:Disam for a discussion. I have not put the VfD note on purpose as this is a MediaWiki page and the note would show up if someone did use the message somewhere. Dori | Talk 19:16, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nelson's Column, Dublin - completely misnamed article. The monument was called Nelson's Pillar (or more correctly but rarely Nelson Pillar). It was not called Nelson's Column and there is zero chance of anyone ever using it as a redirect, any more than there is the slightest chance of people looking up Nelson's Column in London as Nelson's Pillar. (The only google links available are from this article in wikipedia or copied from wikipedia by other freesource encyclopædias. It is worrying that a completely wrongly named article here has set off a string of wrongly named articles in other 'free' net encyclopædias.) In a google search, the results are
    • 24 for Nelson's Column, Dublin (almost all from wikipedia or taken from wikipedia, one from a notoriously unreliable non-wikipeidia source).
    • 509 for Nelson's Pillar (from among other sources RTÉ, The Irish Times, UCD Press, Dublin Civic Museum, History Ireland magazine, National University College, Cork History Department, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Notre Dame Archives, National Library of Ireland, Dublin City Council, Limerick Leader, Irish Historical Archive, etc.) Clearly keeping this nonsensical reference even as a redirect risks misleading more people into believing that this is a valid name for the monument and not an erronious one. FearÉIREANN 20:53, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Well as I wrote the article, I think I would have used it as a redirect? I thought it was called Nelson's Column officaly, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote the thing. Redirects are useful if even only one person would use it. User:Astrotrain
    • Keep. As someone who stood at the top once, I'd say that the most common name amongst us Dubs was quite simply 'the Pillar', but the official name was Nelson's Column, so this is a perfectly valid redirect. Bmills 09:25, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Alkaline Ace two lines about a brand of battery. DJ Clayworth 22:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This should be covered under the battery type not a "brand". Delete - Marshman 23:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 6

  • Crambo about a cover band from Scotland that used to play in a pub. Apparently made no records and have now broken up. Maximus Rex 00:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete PMC 00:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Alice Is Talking Again - sub-stub about a poetry book, the author of which is so unimportant he doesn't even have his own page. PMC 01:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • International Birthday Google suggests that this doesn't exist outside this wikipedia article [6]. Who are "some organizations"? Maximus Rex 01:59, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Poorly written. Delete even if valid - Marshman 04:31, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If it's important someone will write a real article about it. PMC 04:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Yuukichan's Papa. Does this person not have a name? And who is Yuukichan, anyway? RickK 03:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Stubby and gross anyway, even if the article title had something to do with the content. (Which, as far as I can tell, it really doesn't.) PMC 04:25, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 04:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • nonfamous, del --Jiang
  • List of notable war heroes. How can the use of the words "notable" and "war hero" ever be NPOV? RickK 05:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The first paragraph of the article answers your question. This article may need renaming, but the content is as worthy of Wikipedia as other such lists ;-). -- Cyan 05:36, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, cannot be NPOV. If kept, move to List of war heroes per naming conventions. --Jiang 05:44, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Jack 06:33, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only diffeence between War Heroes and War Criminals is perspective. Perhaps all suicide bombers should be automatically included in the list; or possibly they should be totally ruled out. Or a compromise, include ours and delete their's. Definitely Delete.ping 07:31, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I Think I Canada - episode summary for Timon and Pumbaa, a Disney TV show which is now off the air. The text of the summary is in the main page for the show. I don't see why it should have its own page, it's not a particularly notable episode. PMC 06:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • redirect to Timon and Pumbaa. it doesn't hurt to do so --Jiang
I can see this actually being a useful article, providing someone could re-write to have real information about the team. Lyellin 07:35, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Padiddle first part is a dictionary definition, the other is nonsense --Jiang 06:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Piher advertisement for nonexistent subject (website does not exist) --Jiang 06:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2097246"