Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here even if you think it is obvious.

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 -- wikipedia:inclusion dispute

Older than 7 days

All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at Talk:List of recipes/Delete
Demon pages discussion moved to Talk:Christian demonology/deletion.
Deletion of number pages like one hundred one -> Talk:List of numbers/Deletion

January 8

Anarchism and natural law theory Someone's essay with comments. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Bmills 17:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Not an article at all. DElete - Marshman 17:41, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- Delete. What IS this? moink 06:01, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Moved to User namespace. See User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text. Angela . 07:12, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Consider deleting the redirect, as it discourages the creation of an actual article. If this is to be done, Angela's orphaning of this page should be reverted. --Jia ng 07:18, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 9

Computer services - inaccurate, useless entry Anthony DiPierro 00:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Redir to outsourcing. Anthony: please remember to add the VfD notice on articles you nominate. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 00:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agree w/ Anthony, make redir. Meelar 02:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what we would redirect to. Looking at the list of companies under Computer Services, many of them are not at all involved in outsourcing. For instance, Yahoo is listed under Computer Services. Maybe it's better to just mark this as a stub and clean it up a little. I think a redirect to outsourcing would be worse than what is there now. Anthony DiPierro 03:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- The article basicly says companies can outsource their IT function. But they can also outsource their marketing research function, hiring function, production, etc. We don't need a plethora of articles to show the things that can be outsourced. Delete, and don't redirect to outsourcing. mydogategodshat 02:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- redirect (and merge with appropriate article); otherwise delete. JDR
- Keep. If it's inaccurate fix it. BL 06:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Most empathetic Harry Potter character - the results of a poll by some unknown agency (they don't even have a page!) about which Harry Potter character people empathise with most. Do we really need to list the results of every single worthless, nonfamous poll out there? PMC 01:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Whoa, don't pick on Ipsos-Reid, they're big and credible in Canada. Nevertheless, this should be deleted. moink 04:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Are they really? I live in Canada and I've never heard of them. Guess I must be more out of it than I thought. Either way, I'm not trying to pick on them, just the poll. PMC 05:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - Very well known in Canada (don't know where you've been) - http://www.ipsos-reid.com - delete this garbage BTW -- stewacide 07:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      - So why not create an article describing them? Phil 12:01, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
        Since I was the one who insulted them, I'll write the article. (As for Stewacide: living under a rock.) Edit: Done, but I'd appreciate some more info on them. PMC 00:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agree on delete, but I've definitely heard of Ipsos-Reid, and I'm from the U.S. Meelar 05:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete DJ Clayworth 15:17, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- Keep. We have already decided that polls are appropriate to Wikipedia. - SimonP 20:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Some polls may be appropriate, which doesn't automatically mean all of them. If this is to be mentioned at all, it should be a one sentence "A poll by [blah] found [blah] to be the character people most empathized with" in List of Harry Potter characters or something. --Delirium 05:13, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- merge with relevant HP article. JDR
- Keep. Trivia hasn't hurt anyone. BL 06:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

John Paul Horstmann probably vanity, or a joke, escaped notice for 6 days; also Ron Whitman, linked only from Horstmann. Adam Bishop 04:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- While some facts are correct [1] this seems like a joke about nonfamous person. Delete. Fuzheado 06:44, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I've rewritten it. It's true that he's not famous, but Wiki is not paper, so that shouldn't matter. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- Delete. RickK is voting keep for everything today, even garbage articles that were already deleted. --Jiang 04:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Please provide a reason as well as a vote... -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- delete - not sufficently important -- mkrohn 02:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Turbo Prolog Very poor stub, could be included in Prolog article. Not sure if it should be on VfD or Cleanup. Flockmeal 04:47, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- delete or merge -- mkrohn 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- If a full article is not possible, why not merge with Prolog? -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Merge n' redirect JDR

Lay Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Wiktionary. silsor 05:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Bet dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maximus Rex 04:58, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Wiktionary. silsor 05:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect to gambling. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- merge with gambling or "prediction" article. JDR
- Delete. Already in Wiktionary. Anthony DiPierro 06:12, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Paratroopers Brigade interesting, but definitely not intended to be an encyclopedia article. Evil saltine 20:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The content probably has to go, but the declaration and the unit itself deserves an article. Edit and Keep. The Fellowship of the Troll 20:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- Delete or rewrite. Not an article -- mkrohn 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not an article, and not a start of one either. An article on this topic should be written, but until it is, a red link is better. --Delirium 01:25, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, a red link is worse. BL 06:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

January 11

Vegard Aukrust - unknown person, does not belong in an encyclopedia. The article seems to be written by himself. -- Wolfram 00:40, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
- delete -- mkrohn 03:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete James F. (talk) 09:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. SpellBott 11:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Morissettian Irony
- Continued at Talk:Morissettian irony/Delete

Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia
- Continued at Talk:Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia

Camp Muriel Flagg a Girl Scout camp in northern Massachusetts that used to operate from the mid 1960s into the late 1970s. Not famous, no known campers of any note. Gentgeen 08:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Anthony DiPierro 09:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. What's the harm? Meelar 09:32, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, wiki is not paper. Deletionism is out of hand, I think I may vote for VfD to be deleted.... Jack 09:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it is also not a catch-all. Fuzheado 14:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- delete -- agreeing with Fuzheado (less than 20 google hits - not important enough for an encyclopedia) -- mkrohn 03:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. More than ten Google hits. —Ashley Y 03:19, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Doe sno harm. SpellBott 11:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Class envy
- continued at Talk:Class envy

MediaWiki:Risk, MediaWiki:Legal and MediaWiki:Medical. No longer used as there are disclaimer links on every page. Have been blanked for the last week without objection. Angela. 11:53, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
- delete -- virtually nothing links to these pages anymore -- mkrohn 03:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- If it doesn't hurt to let them blanked and nearly-orphaned, we can keep them as historical pages. if you feel it doesn't matter, delete. Optim 05:05, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any historical purposes to them. They only existed a few weeks and may confuse people who come across them. Their existence may also encourage people to keep using these messages when they are not meant to. Angela. 05:18, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  - Delete. Agreed that users may get confused and continue using these messages. Optim 06:40, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Angela. The pages have no purpose anymore. Flockmeal 05:22, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete James F. (talk) 09:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- delete.SpellBott 11:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete (better speed-wise, I'm given to understand). Martin

Brianism
- Continued at Talk:Brianism
  - Posted some new evidence we may have missed. Please review. SpellBott 07:31, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 12

KX-T2365E - some kind of how to for setting the time on a phone. Wiki is not an instruction manual! PMC 03:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Wikibooks if it is useful; and delete from here. It is about the Panasonic KX-T2365E phone (source: User:Grape). The page is orphaned and unupdated since January 2003. # Optim 04:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) #
  - I'm hideously ignorant. How does one make a transfer to WikiBooks? (Just refer me to a help page if you like) PMC 04:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - Go to http://wikibooks.org create a username if you wish and copy-paste the info on your userpage. Then, ask the other Wikibooks partitioners whether this info is useful and in which Wikibook it should be added. If you locate a wikibook suitable for this info, just move it there. Optim 04:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      - Muchas gracias :) PMC 05:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        This is surely thank you, but in which language? Spanish? Optim 05:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        Yes, Spanish it is. It's about the only phrase I can remember in that language... PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete from here, don't move to wikibooks unless major improvement. Flockmeal 05:16, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  - I've put it on my user page on WikiBooks, so we can see if they want it there or not. (My guess is not, but you never know) PMC 05:21, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - Good job! Optim 05:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Transfer to Wiki books. SpellBott 13:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Shadowsnake Films - publicity stunt (see below)
John Coulthart - publicity stunt (see below)
The Mindscape of Alan Moore - an interconnected publicity stunt with previous two. All three were created by an IP with a history of inserting bogus information (see Wikipedia:Cleanup) - User talk:Unkamunka|.]] 04:14, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete all three. Wikipedia is not a launching pad for promoting movies and film companies. Flockmeal 05:16, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. Bmills 09:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Have verified what unkamunka says. SpellBott 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- delete -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jeffrey Pratt - an undergraduate student who's not (afaik) particularly well-known. User's other contributions are very good though, so I've left a note on his talk page. --Delirium 08:46, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete low-key vanity page. Bmills 09:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. SpellBott 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- delete -- not worth an article in an encyclopedia -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Meaning and pronunciation potterns in English - bad misspelling. Cannot keep all permutations of bad spelling in Wikipedia. Fuzheado 09:14, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If it even redirected to an article on Meaning and pronunciation patterns in English it might make some sense. Bmills 09:46, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) What I mean is that it is a possible (or not) mis-spelling of a page that is itself a redirect that I am not entirely convinced is appropriate. There's a lot more to Meaning and pronunciation patterns in English then Initial-stress-derived nouns. Bmills 11:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Necropedophilia - Dictionary definition. 33 Google hits. 9 Yahoo web hits. No Yahoo directory hits under category Sexuality. No dmoz.org hits. May be some Death Metal album or term. Discussed on some vampire-gothic-etc and Metal music BBSes. Disgusting. Created by a new user. .'. Optim 16:10, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
- It doesn't exist, new user probably got off on it. Delete. Mrdice 18:00, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
- delete -- checked number of google hits -- mkrohn 00:26, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Creepy, delete. (note by Optim: This was user PMC)

Literal - dictionary definition, move contents to wiktionary I guess. Dori | Talk 22:04, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- mkrohn 00:43, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- replace by Literal (disambiguation), with one disambig link to Literal string and another one (yet to be written) to Literal (mathematics). (According to back-links) Mikkalai 00:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- delete as per Marco - UtherSRG 01:15, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Glittering generality another dictionary entry. Dori | Talk 22:27, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- delete -- duplication of information. note that this definition is exactly given within the propaganda article. -- mkrohn 00:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- convert to redirect page, since the phrase is in circulation. Mikkalai 00:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 13

Demonize - move to wikitionary/delete and or/ redirect to demon. --Jiang 01:19, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Wikitionary, and make redirect to demon. Possibly make note at demon about what demonizing is? PMC 03:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Wiktionary. Optim 04:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Wiktionary. silsor 23:16, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Wiktionary. SpellBott 07:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(from cleanup) Anigraphical music - idiosyncratic? For an internet term it gets no google hits - best guess-invented term. google shows anigraphic as abbr. for animated graphic, no more. - delete immediately?
- Delete. --Jia ng 01:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Confusing, no context, stub...yep, delete. PMC 04:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Smells like another aleatoric art technique known only on Wikipedia. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wiki communities by topic and Wiki_communities_by_type (especially the first) are poorly written and contain no useful content. --Jiang 01:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Junk, delete, especially the first one. PMC 03:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Trash, delete both. Flockmeal 04:07, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Best Page in the Universe - irrelevant website. Why can't such obvious violations of established guidelines be deleted on sight? --Wik 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete (but after the 5-day wait, not on sight). Just some guy's blog, not really mentioned anywhere except on other people's blogs. --Delirium 05:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not that well known to deserve its own article. Dori | Talk 05:12, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- The Alexa ranking is 4,069 is you use the http://maddox.xmission.com address. Angela . 05:15, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, Maddox gloats about how he has a higher Alexa rating than several fast food websites on one of his articles. WhisperToMe 05:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- While the 4,069 Alexa rating is for the entire domain, this states that 88% of traffic going on Alexa end up at Maddox.xmission.com -- http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=maddox.xmission.com WhisperToMe 05:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Unless it's particularly prominent in some way, move to List of blogs if we have, or want one; else delete. Salsa Shark 05:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Salsa Shark, a "List of Blogs" is right here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weblog#Example_Weblogs
- Delete SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Irrelevant. PMC 07:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, wiki is not paper, and this article isn't vandalism Jack 07:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's actually pretty popular. Don't listen to me, he gives the statistics himself. Personally, I love it - Maddox is hilarious. →Raul654 07:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It ain't pretty, but it is popular. This "blog" combines x-rated language, parody and humour to draw a sizeable audience. He gets more hits than McDonalds, which he pans mercilessly. Has been around since 1997 and has several imitators - "The Second Best..." "The Worst..." etc. Sunray 10:32, 2004 Jan 13 (UTC)
  - Here's a sample [1]
- Keep, but needs serious rewrite. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: meritless. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not a dumpster either. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The article could use some help in the writing area, but definitely keep. - Marshman 18:25, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - deletionism is running rampant around here - I have an idea for reform that I will put on m:deletion management redesign and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion.The Fellowship of the Troll 19:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- keep -- the page seems to be more important than I initially anticipated judging from the article alone, but rewrite is needed -- mkrohn 20:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - more information: about 1000 times linked, about 1000 mentioned in usenet
- I rewrote it, please review it and make corrections if needed. Apart from Alexa and the statistics published at the original website, How can I check how popular this website is and compare it with other sites? If it is popular then Keep, otherwise Delete. Optim 20:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an incredibly popular site, we need an entry on it. punishinglemur 00:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, it's popular but not popular enough (top 1000) to warrant an entry IMHO. Imran 00:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- See http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com/c.cgi?u=owned on why the "Top 1000" is too much of a restraint :[ WhisperToMe 01:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Maddox's site has grown to be a part of the internet sub-culture, and if wikipedia's goal is to provide an encyclopeida online containing all manner of information, there is no reason as to why this should be deleted. It is a very popular and well known site. It's like trying to move Slashdot to "list of news/tech sites". Don't delete. Nuada, Jan 14 2004
- Keep. It's pretty popular and has been part of the internet sub-culture landscape for what seems an eternity. --MikeCapone 05:57, Jan 14 (UTC)
- Contentless self-promotion. Nothing encyclopedic or even fresh. We spend too much time deleting stuff like this. Wetman 06:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Anthony DiPierro 07:44, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Fredrik 08:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Self-indulgent nonsense. Move to "list of blogs" or delete. Puffy jacket 23:57, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Otherwise, where do we draw the line on vanity pages? A link to it may belong in other articles, but a description of the content of another web page doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This page is not remarkable enough to justify an article of its own IMO, and I think we should be conservative (deletionist if you like) on this point. Andrewa 14:05, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nursing skills - poorly written, full of errors, doesn't seem encyclopedic. Alex.tan 17:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Poorly written? Rewrite. Full of errors? Correct them. Very encyclopedic imo. These are entries of importance to nursing students and others. - Texture 20:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- move content to Wikibooks -- text is a howto, not an article _about_ "nursing skills", therefore it is not encyclopedic. -- mkrohn 20:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic. I understand the desire to maintain a reasonable standard for good English writing and usage, but we're throwing out too many content babies with the English-usage bathwater. I don't know how accurate the information is or how uniform state certification requirements are. Until someone qualified to pass judgement comments, I think we should keep it. The writing can be fixed. Although I admit to being totally exhausted after trying to revise the first three paragraphs. Dpbsmith 02:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - I am a doctor. There's just too many errors. If someone wants to fix it, among the things that need to be done are internationalizing (not every state/country has the same requirements), clean up the errors, fill in the missing pieces, add some organization that makes sense... it's just a huge job. Sometimes v2 should be done by getting rid of v1. I don't think anybody can or will fix this adequately anytime soon, so it's going to stay here as an example of bad english and poor information until someone rewrites it. Alex.tan 11:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but title needs to be changed to something about Nursing Assistants (cuz this is way below what Nurses do), and add history of Nursing assistants, changing roles, advanced nursing assistants (LPN, med LPN), income range, training (this current art. fits on the training part). I think this is sort of an article in incubation. For those with a passion, try to recruit someone in a Nursing assistant program to contribute. Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 04:23, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. But needs fixing. I know some nurses I can ask. SpellBott 07:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a how-to article. It should only be kept if it can be made into enyclopedic style. moink 21:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. On Kd4ttc's advice, I moved the page to Nurse assistant skills, after consulting with writer. Craigbutz 23:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Cyp/Will this eventually appear on Special:Wantedpages? - It did, but it's not number 1 on that page yet... Κσυπ Cyp 18:22, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Are you maybe looking for Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted instead? Angela. 21:17, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure... Technically it's a subpage, but it affects Special:Wantedpages, so it's existence doesn't just affect me... Theoretically I could just delete it myself, too... Why isn't there any page called Wikipedia:Rules for deletion of personal subpages that appear on Special:Wantedpages? I suppose in any case, there's no reason to delete it until there are 47 or so links there, anyway. $\ _{\ _{\mathrm {K} \sigma \upsilon \pi -{\sqrt {C^{2}+y^{2}+p^{2}}}}}$ 23:05, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seagulling - orphan, idiosyncratic sexual slang; other than UrbanDictionary.com entry, top google hits for this word have bird rather than sexual context. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. silsor 23:16, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No ocnfirmation after searching several times on google. No evidence it even belongs in a dictinary failing to be present anywhere. Kd4ttc 04:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Idiosyncratic nonsense. Delete —MIRV (talk) 21:31, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Erect position - dictionary def. Imran 00:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. Comment: Moved to Upright position. Reason: 138 Google hits for "+"upright position" +multiplexer" but only 25 for "+"erect position" +multiplexer". ^{.·.^.·..·.} Optim 14:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) ^{.·.^.·..·.}

Republican communism - dictionary definition, untouched since July. Little possibility of real content. silsor 00:06, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- keep -- "Republican communist" returns >500 hits on google, e.g. [2] -- mkrohn 00:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Because there are google hits for it, redirect it to communism. What is "republican communism" anyway? Would seem from the definition on the page to be a tenent of any form of communism, individual sacrifice for community good. Flockmeal 00:23, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, or redirect. I find it hard to believe that the term "Republican communist" is in common use, or any particular reason to imagine that it means what this article says it means. john 02:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- This seems highly improbable. Probably made up. Delete. Mrdice 02:48, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
- It may seem improbable, but it looks to be legitimate in some sense. Read this article from the Weekly Worker, specifically the third paragraph. This article might have a wrong meaning, but it should be an article, albeit a rewritten one. Meelar 05:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- This is a real term and is used by some groups to describe themselves. I will rewrite if necessary. Secretlondon 23:05, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Only references I can find for this are groups who think the US Republican party are a bunch of left-wing extremists. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia
- Discussion moved to Talk:Wikipedia/votes for deletion

January 14

List of jokes about statistics - The Wiki isn't a repository for jokes. Besides, there are only two jokes on this supposed "list", and it's an orphan. PMC 06:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Maybe soembody shoudl start a Wiki for jokes?SpellBott 07:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Anjouli 15:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, agree a joke project might be good. Fuzheado 23:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete reluctantly. Breath of fresh air. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but keep the info somewhere (out of the wiki or at your hard disks) so that we can add it when we will start the joke project. Support joke project. Optim 04:12, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Extremism The author has used a dictionary definition as an occasion for a POV attack against fundamentalists. Pollinator 09:15, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems pretty accurate and 99% NPOV to me. How else would you word an article on extremism? Anjouli 15:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, although it needs a lot of work. Request for deletion seems more POV than the article does. Bmills 15:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The article really doesn't say anything. It suffers from being a straw man attack- there are no examples of any of the extreemisms listed or support that they were reviled. It is interesting to consider that extreemism is worth an article. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" is a quote from Goldwater. Nazi's were extremists. McCarthyism was a form of extremism as well. What is interesting is the history of the changes that followed. That would be worth an article. A google search on extremism shows a number of links much more interesting than the one here. Seems the author did zip research on this. Kd4ttc 16:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - So improve it. Bmills 16:46, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - People seem to be at work on just that. Think it's ready for Pages Needing Attention yet? - David Gerard 19:45, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    - Hey, I'm just a medical doctor. I don't know squat about poli-sci. I figure if some is gonna fix it they should have at least a little interest. My role in saying delete is to put it at risk. Pollinator was the first to complain. It already has some improved content, so it looks hopeful. It did get me to look at a Google Search on Extremism, some interesting stuff, but I'm new here and am not ready to negotiate in the POV/NPOV jungle. Steve Kd4ttc 23:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep--a worthy topic for an article. I added the Goldwater quote and tried to make it more balanced, but this is a two-minute fix. Pages Needing Attention would be perfect. Meelar 20:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Agree totally. Keep. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep. But needs a bti more work. Certainly not delete though! SpellBott 08:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Keep, edit, thats what were here for right? Not just to delete stuff and argue? ;) JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Winter-een-mas - orphan. 32 hits on google. -- Infrogmation 12:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- If this is worth mentioning at all, perhaps merge with Leet? -- Infrogmation
- Delete and merge content with Leet. Bmills 12:35, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Bmills. Anjouli 15:18, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Seems to be from webcomic Ctrl-Alt-Del: http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/ RadicalBender 15:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - This is, in fact, from Ctrl+Alt+Del, and as such is only important to fans of the comic and posibly friends of theirs in on the joke. While the comic is quite popular, there really aren't enough people who actually celebrate Winter-Een-Mas to justify an article about it. Do not merge into Leet, because it's more of a Ctrl+Alt+Del concept than a "leet" one. Besides, there's already a note about it in the Ctrl+Alt+Del article proper, where it belongs until it actually becomes a wide-spread holiday. PMC 00:39, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Rewritten and expanded into a more proper, if rather obscure, entry. Kizor 18:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. SpellBott 08:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

72 Hours: True Crime fan rant. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Rewrote the article into a stub--better than nothing. Keep the article. Meelar 00:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Good stub. Keep. SpellBott
- Keep JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Three million six hundred twenty-eight thousand eight hundred - and the point was? - David Gerard 21:59, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. More interesting than The Best Page in the Universe. --Wik 22:17, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
  - Three million six hundred twenty-eight thousand eight hundred literally just says the number is 10-factorial and that it's not a prime number and lists the factors. If you can think of any conceivable way to make that into a reasonable encyclopedia article, I'm all for keeping it. Otherwise, not. - David Gerard 22:32, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete! Useless page. silsor 22:40, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, and we should probably think more about what to do about "number" pages in general. Fuzheado 23:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We can have articles with all the numbers in them (List of numbers, List of factors, List of prime numbers...). We dont need articles for individual numbers. .·. Optim 23:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
- Delete. This article is inaccurate and incomplete anyway, there are many properties of the number not investigated, and even the list of factors is incomplete. The number is AFAIK too obscure for the article to be worth fixing at this stage. But in principle, articles on significant numbers are OK IMO. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Oh, and delete the redirect from 3628800 as well, as otherwise we will have a needless problem in three and a bit million years. Andrewa 12:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Move the discussion to Talk:List of numbers/Deletion. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep the info. Delete the page. - Hephaestos 05:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - how can you possibly know whether this is useful to someone else or not (besides, there may be more to add, you'll never know if you delete it). It's factual, and to the point, which is more than can be said about many articles. The hot wolf plots hellfire 06:24, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Firstly, FoT, it's not very helpful (or very effective) to hide your ID in a signature, and secondly, the onus is on someone to show why this number is interesting, not on anyone to show why it's not. I'm interested if anyone can. The latest update is a start but not there yet. And as the original author(s) of this article couldn't even calculate the factors of a factorial accurately, and my grade 6 primary school class can, I doubt they know enough mathematics to write such articles, or to decide which numbers are worth writing about. Sadly. Still delete. Andrewa 12:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. SpellBott 08:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: can never be found. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Easter Bradford -- apparently originally a vanity page, and now Jimbo has forwarded an email from him to the mailing list in which Bradford is demanding that it be deleted. Apparently this is entry has been controversial for a long time because of the unimportance of the topic, so if we add that the topic himself no longer wants the page... Katahon 22:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Apparently the guy was trying to start a career in the music business and it didn't work. According to his blog[3] he now works as a temp, and has given up singing. According to some websites[4], and some people who have posted on the talk page, Bradford has ripped people off (I have no idea if this is true or not). Please, just get rid of it. It is unverifiable, and in fact people have directly questioned the accuracy of it. A google search on "Easter Bradford" turns up about 200 hits [5], however half of those are directly related to wikipedia [6]. Maximus Re x 22:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- See Talk:Easter Bradford, Talk:Easter Bradford/delete. Martin 23:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I suggested we start a list of probably not famous people to discourage this sort of thing, but the idea didn't grab anyone else. So just delete, finally. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If the staff of Wikimedia decide there are legal problems, they can remove it [preferably not the entire page - AD]. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  - Why do you think it should be kept? This is not a discussion about the takedown notice. The page genuinely shouldn't be here as it is an unverifiable vanity creation. Maximus Rex 05:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - I think all pages on people should be kept. Anthony DiPierro 05:55, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    - Thant would be nice, but I doubt there is room. Delete. SpellBott 08:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, finally. Even though this means I'll have to change my userpage. Bmills 11:54, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- As the sysop who implemented the decision to keep Easter Bradford after the "last before this" vfd-round, and deleted the whole bunch of "related" pages created by the same source; let me now go on record as my own view that the decision should have gone the other way--that is to delete Bradford, but some of the ancillary pages I thought, at the time, had more merit. But as much as it was an algism in my rectum, vox populi and all that... Delete, finally. (but somebody else implement the decision, whichever way it goes :-| -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 13:31, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
- This should not be deleted because of these legal threats. But if the material cannot be verified, then that's another matter. If it should have been deleted before the legal threats (because unverifiable), then it should still be deleted now. But we shouldn't think that there is more reason to delete after this legal notice. -- Toby Bartels 16:39, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tom Bradley promotion for a self published author [7]. He reviewed his own books [8] favorably at amazon.com. Maximus Rex 23:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Don't delete. Tom Bradley's novel ACTING ALONE is not self-published-- http://www.browntrout.com/books/results.asp?MGID=204 The amazon.com page referred to does not contain "self-reviews," but just basic descriptions of the books, which amazon.com encourages. The five stars appear because of an amazon.com glitch, which are frequent. User:202.223.166.2
- Keep, don't delete. Tom Bradley is a major literary presence. See-- http://literati.net/Bradley/BradleyMedia.htm Any good reference work needs to have a listing for this writer. User:202.223.166.2
- Delete. Poorly written for an article; just a POV promotion of the author, which should not be the basis of a Wikipedia article - Marshman 04:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite. Seems a legit author, but article is POV. SpellBott 08:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, and I'd like to see a policy change where it is specified that any published author merits an article. Wiki is not paper JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, move to Tom Bradley (author) and post on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The fact that an article is poorly written or POV is not reason enough to post it here. Bmills 12:08, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- All comments above this one refer to a longer, POVier version of the article than the one I just wrote to replace it. Keep stub. (Also no need to do preemptive disambigiation in this case, Bmills, IMO) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:08, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 15

Angel Remedies. I request to delete it. .·. Optim 00:19, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
- What was it? What's all the stuff with the dots? SpellBott 09:21, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ATV News Channel -- after reading both this and Asia Television Ltd, I believe that the only ATV channels that are out there are "Home" and "World", and that while there are news broadcasts on those two stations, there is no actual ATV News Channel. Rdash 03:37, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like a promo for their news service. SpellBott 09:19, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dictatress -- The concept of Dictator does not require one to be of any particular gender. Also, there appears to be no female dictators to be found, and while there is mention of one solitary use of the word ever it merits a dictionary article at best. JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ballot design acorned - nearly-incomprehensible original material. Salsa Shark 11:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Someone's essay. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

W. Thomas Smith, Jr. is on cleanup. I think it's worth keeping, but I wanted to make sure before I take the time to wikify. Meelar 19:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I vote for deleteion, he dumps his autobiography and is too lazy and lacking in respect to spend a few minutes formating it for wikipedia, delete the article (and hang the author :).
- Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
- Delete. Looks like self-promotion, and there's nothing to indicate that he's any more important than thousands upon thousands of other authors and journalists. Isomorphic 20:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agree w/ Isomorphic, delete. --Jia ng 00:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- mv memorialWiki. JDR
- Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gaylord Focker - stubby orphan; of any use? -- Infrogmation 13:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- delete -- not worth an article in an encyclopedia (there is IMDb for this kind of information) -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It's the name of "Meet the parents"'s protagonist. Really no point. Delete. Mrdice 18:00, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
- Agree, delete. Without a Meet The Parents article it's not worht including just one character in a seperate article. Flockmeal 20:17, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ben Stiller and move the information there. Anthony DiPierro 06:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Great movie though. Tragic that it has no page. PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

James_Joseph_Ferguson's sole reason for being in wp is that he died on Sep11. Should he be moved the the sep11wp or is he important enough to warrant his own article? In case of the latter, I think there should be a little bit more info apart from how he died. Mrdice 02:45, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
- Move to sep11 wiki and delete. moink 21:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Secretlondon 14:10, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Julian Paul Gregson - vanity page of a web site author? andy 13:25, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)