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 Reddi (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 24 January 2004 (vote). 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. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here or vote on even if you think it is obvious. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls for polls on current deletion issues.

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{msg: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 -- Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls

Votes in progress

Older than 7 days

January 17

  • One thousand one Unless someone wants to do one to nine hundred ninety nine, I don't see a need for this article at present. RedWolf 04:11, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 07:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But only if it is expanded a bit. 1001 is a special number often used to mean, well, a lot. 1001 Arabian Nights, 1001 the detergent. 1001 ways to.... 1001 uses for ... Certainly a more famous number than many. (Mathematically speaking, more interesting than almost all of them if we go up to infinity.) And let's not forget 1001 Dalmations. (Thsi film was 101, the book was 1001.)SpellBott 13:08, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Special significance in Arabic culture. Alf layla wa layla - a thousand nights and a night. Alf sukran wa shukran - a thousand thank-yous and a thank-you. And some stuff about fleas I will not mention :) Anjouli 17:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • This needs to be added to the article, then, to make it merit survival. At that point it would indeed be a keeper, but right now it's not. Tempshill 18:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Add the good stuff, then it's a keeper. - UtherSRG 18:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Thoroughly useless.Robartin 18:09, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yep, delete. PMC 21:11, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, since its a keeper since the good stuff CAN be added even if neither you nor I want to do it right now. BL 05:32, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not a sufficiently interesting number AFAIK, and the criterion should be, does the article justify the claim that it is? Even a good stub should do this, but this doesn't at present. If someone familiar with arabic culture likes to add the above claims in a suitable form, then reassess. Andrewa 21:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep if copyedited ... otherwise too amorphous IMO, JDR
    • move discussion to Talk:List of numbers/Deletion Anthony DiPierro 14:05, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I have expanded this a bit. Would people care to revote on the new version? Anjouli 05:01, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Also, given the updates to the article, some prior "delete" votes should no longer be considered valid unless they are affirmed.Peak 05:12, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • X86-int - do we really need encyclopedia articles on assembly language commands? silsor 08:22, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We definitely do not need separate articles for each instruction of a processor. If the author wants to use one article to list the instructions perhaps that might be okay. Anyone doing any x86 programming is going to want to find a book anyways. RedWolf 09:42, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; I agree with all of what Redwolf said. Tempshill 18:35, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 18:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Also delete X86-jmp. X86-mov is a redirect; I guess that's OK. X86 assembly language has a list of all the instructions, with the text "Click on them to read more about them" -- may want to discourage that. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:34, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We definitely do need separate articles for each instruction of a processor. WP is a reference right? Therefore we need instruction references. And I expanded the page too. BL 05:39, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not necessary to delete. Redirect back to parent page if too little can be said for an independent article (and change parent article). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - with qualifications. I think we do need a separate page for each instruction, otherwise the main page is going to get far too big. But I think they should be sub-pages of the main article, not stand-alone pages. If we are not going to keep accurate and non-obscure IT information in an online encyclopedia, what are we going to keep? Good grief. Anjouli 05:07, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. merge/create software interrupts article. merge there [till splliting is needed]. JDR

January 19

  • Svend-Allan Sørensen - apparently a person of little importance --Smack 04:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 04:32, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This guy exists and is a practicing artist. Not for us to decide if he's the next Picasso. I'm listing on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Bmills 12:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There is no indication that the individual has done anything notable. Maximus Rex 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: unimportant. I don't see a need for the practice of giving everybody a write up in case they happen to become famous. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 01:40, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If he's a practicing artist of any reputation, then he's worth noting.Marcus Faulstone22/1/04
    • Delete, nonfamous --Jiang
    • Delete as non-famous. Anjouli 05:09, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oberschule am Elsengrund - I have asked the author(s) to actually write some text on that school. Only if they do not should this article be deleted.
    • Please sign your name.... - UtherSRG 17:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've looked at the article in German wikipedia and at the school web site. Its a school in east Berlin. I have added to the article but found nothing special. I will put the vfd tag on the page as you didn't. Secretlondon 17:20, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • UtherSRG and Secretlondon, please don't be so strict with me. For the school in question: As far as I'm concerned, adding trivial information on a particular school does not make the article any more encyclopaedic. Encyclopaedias traditionally draw the line at university level: An institution of higher learning deserves its own article, a school does not unless
(1) the building that houses the school is of architectural value;
(2) lots of famous people were educated there, preferably by equally famous teachers;
(3) it features prominently in a book or, even better, a movie;
(4) it was the scene of a bombing, school massacre, etc.
<KF> 20:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Did the policy on schools ever get finalized? KEEP, Wiki is not paper. Gentgeen 08:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Pray, what policy on schools? <KF> 14:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Current practice and I think policy is to delete such entries, much discussed, sorry I can't provide a link, but I don't think it's a very well thought out policy. Andrewa 16:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. No harm. silsor 07:19, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

January 20

  • Telophase - dictionary definition. silsor 03:42, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Expand if possible, redirect to mitosis if not. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I made it a redirect to mitosis. The mitosis article would have to get a _lot_ more detailed before we would need to farm out each phase into an article by itself. -- Finlay McWalter 03:54, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It could conceivably get a lot more detailed... Alfred E. Mirsky's "The Cell, Biochemistry, Physiology, Morphology, Volume III: Meiosis and Mitosis" runs to 440 pages. Of course I don't know the book, for all I know it could be 435 pages on meiosis and 5 on mitotis.  :-) Dpbsmith 18:11, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect. Anybody who wants to expand into an article can easily do so. Anjouli 05:16, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
  • Formalism (art) - dictionary definition. silsor 03:42, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - UtherSRG 14:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • This is in fact a copyvio from Merriam-Webster online. I have listed it as such. Bmills 14:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Treat as copy vio. Anjouli 05:14, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
  • Windex - only advertisement, I don't expect this to become more then a stub ever andy 14:12, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - UtherSRG 14:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • If there were an article on glass cleaners, it could be a redirect there, but since no such article exists, delete. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, its a major brandname product that I'm sure has a history, composition, and uses that could fill an artilce. - SimonP 15:59, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. I'd be willing to work on it. --zandperl 16:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. silsor 00:10, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everybody loves Windex! jengod 01:05, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The current ad is an advert. The article should be deleted until someone wants to write a new article on the fascinating history, composition, and uses of Windex. Tempshill 19:06, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Lee Silvan nothing seems notable about this individual. Gets very few google hits 10. Maximus Rex 17:08, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Fewer than that. One is about Silvan Michelle Lee, two are lists of names in which Lee is the last name of one person and Silvan the first of the next. Hey, I get ten Google hits! Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Incidentally, page was created from Philadelphia. silsor 00:10, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Anthony DiPierro 21:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not notable. Tempshill 19:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiki's not paper, but we don't need 6 billion entries on everyone in the world either. Everyone's done something or held a post of some note. Let's draw a line of celebrity here. LadyPuffball 03:55, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Suave If it is a kind of shampoo it might fit in the WP. If it is a brand, then out with it! Pfortuny 20:24, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) (See below).
    • Really worthless. As it is, not even worth merging with anything. Delete! ike9898 23:18, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Kill it with fire. silsor 23:44, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Urm... pur it down the drain! - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think I fixed it and gave it relevance. But still needs more work. Davodd 08:56, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, it looks like a reasonable article now. — No-One Jones (talk) 10:55, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Change of mind due to new version. As it in now it is OK, I did not know it could be like this. Good job. Keep Pfortuny 12:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's just a brand. DJ Clayworth 15:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 21:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Currently short but w/ good content. --zandperl 13:37, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Metropolitan State Hospital. Does nothing but to say that there are two hospitals by that name in the US. --Smack 01:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Then surely it's a disambiguation page, and should be kept for future use? Keep. -- Graham  :) 00:08, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. silsor 07:22, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Megaesophagus. Contains a two-word definition and two related topics. --Smack 01:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but check to make sure definition is included on pages linked to it (or it links to, as appropriate). - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. Only one such page exists. --Smack 18:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • List on Cleanup. silsor 07:22, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Moisture. Definition. --Smack 01:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Put in Wiktionary, then delete. - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Already exists there. --Smack 18:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 07:22, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

January 21

  • Technagenesis - idiosyncratic mumbling. Salsa Shark 04:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI:> 3180 God hits for: technogenesis. Optim 05:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) (?)
    • Delete, it seems to be a non-subject created by joining two unrelated terms. ping 06:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Seems to be a misspelling of technogenesis. (note by Optim: That was User:Spellbot, [1])
    • dictionary.com also does not have this word. DELETE. Optim 14:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Sportsman - dictionary definition. Unless people think there are things to be written about this subject that go beyond a mere definition, move to Wiktionary. -- Vardion 04:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Sportsmanlike? Sportsmanship? All should be in Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 04:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Sport (that way it won't be recreated). Maximus Rex 08:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. SpellBott 13:45, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Tri-Cities (Tennessee) - author blanked it, someone say something if they want it kept. Dori | Talk 06:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • No particular desire to keep. But open to discussion. SpellBott 13:45, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The author has the ethical right to ask us to delete the article if this is his/her desire. Delete. Optim 05:04, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Concepts and Goals of Constitution - it was blanked for being POV. Dori | Talk 06:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It looks like something that is being worked over. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for above reason. SpellBott 13:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The title is very ill-named (way too general) and ill-formatted; the content does not conform to Wikipedia format (by a large extent) and is non-encyclopedic, orphaned, written by an (apparent) non-expert and POV -- it appears to be one person's uncontrolled rant for a contemporary issue. Enough reason for deletion. The creator also created Council of Europe voting weights; I tried to rescue these 2 pages but it is so utterly horrible and useless that I gave up. I will list the latter for deletion as well. --Kaihsu Tai 20:46, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wrong title, and the article is like a jotted list of notes someone took from a lecture. Tempshill 19:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Paintballing - POV student ramble. Davodd 09:17, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but needs a major rewrite by someone who has played the game. Bmills 12:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect. Good call. SpellBott 13:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Celebration - POV student ramble. Davodd 09:21, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. So poorly written it set my teeth on edge, so I blanked. Bmills 12:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 13:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Eyebrow makeovers - HUH? Davodd 09:23, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. How-to. Bmills 12:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Why is how-to a reason for deletion when it is listed as a category scheme on the main page? Adding info on history or cultural significance might make it worthwhile. 198.234.210.2 15:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks? Secretlondon 13:27, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete for above reasons. SpellBott 13:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh please delete! Tompagenet 18:14, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Columnist - dictionary def. Lupo 12:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Journalist. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect. SpellBott 13:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • A columnist is qualitatively different from a journalist. Even a stub is better than this redirect, which is downright confusing, esp. since journalist doesn't even mention the word columnist.
    • Keep as its own article -- I made a new stub. Some columnists have had huge impacts on society. Davodd 00:05, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Giaour - text of Byron's epic poem. Move to Wikibooks? Lupo 12:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikibooks. - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Moved. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Javier Ortega - not famous? Secretlondon 13:01, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • probably not famous. 4000 Google hits for "Javier Ortega" but not for the newswriter. 0 Google hits for "+"Javier Ortega", +newswriter". Few for "+"Javier Ortega", +Spain". can't find him/her. Optim 13:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - UtherSRG 13:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • He's not english speaking, so he's not called a "newswriter." Try Corresponsal and you'll get at least 109 hits. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 22:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: not famous. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Timon and Pumbaa's Virtual Safari - seems to be a transcript from a DVD. Secretlondon 14:31, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Please. Spare us. [Sorry, getting carried away] IMSoP 15:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • a definite one to axe Tompagenet 17:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Hello! I don't know how to make a regular webpage! this is the only place I can put my text! By the way, me and my friends like it! wait! put it on my user page! there! resolved! Jack Zhang, Editor
    • OK, that was a good move. But the redirect shoud still be deleted. DJ Clayworth 20:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • FX Network - advertisement. Lupo 16:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. It's famous. It belongs here. →Raul654 16:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • The pages as it currently stands is just an advert. It should be deleted so someone who in the future does want to create a page on it will see that it currently doesn't exist and start a fresh article Tompagenet 17:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Too late. Keep. I think I fixed it for now, couldn't wait. Davodd 19:24, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • Agreed - I was wrong, keep new version Tompagenet 15:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Improved version is valid - Texture 20:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • GammaForce This is silly. -- user:zanimum
    • Delete. Vanity page. Rdash 21:28, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does not show how this organization is noteworthy. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Viturally content free, vaintiy page Syntax 02:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Hegoalde This isn't even for Wikitonary, it's just a translation. -- uset:zanimum
    • You did list it approx 1 minute after submission. I've turned it into a stub now, which you could have done by doing "what links here". Secretlondon 19:06, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is definitely a place on the map where a lot of people lives Josep1c 19:39, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and fair go. This listing was a waste of everyone's time IMO. Andrewa 22:27, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Paul_Mockapetris_(journalist) Have never heard about this guy in Spain. In my opinion this is a joke. -- Josep1c 19:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I added the vfd tag to the article. Nothing on google about this guy (I searched for Paul Mockapetris -dns +spain). Secretlondon 19:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • (not voting) Not to be confused with DNS pioneer Paul Mockapetris (engineer). -- Finlay McWalter 19:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 01:13, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This guy may really be noteworthy (chief journalist for a newspaper, for instance, whom User:Josep1c happens to not know about), but if he is, future contributors won't be helped by this prankish text. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Exchanged trash - I don't think this chinese neologism is saveable. Secretlondon 20:00, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Stub as is - I'd like to see this interesting bit of modern chinese culture salvaged. - Texture 20:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not Chinese culture, it is idiosyncratic opinion and false information, as long as it doesn't say who is using or coined this neologism (it seems to me like a political debate between Maoists and modern Reformers). My friend was Chinese, and at my university I know several Chinese students; they certainly don't look like "exchanged trash"! :) I found the article inaccurate. Most Google hits come from sites using WP as their source. This article is offensive to Chinese who study in other countries and it is not NPOV. We don't save any "culture" by keeping this article. Optim 00:47, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Junk. silsor 01:13, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wisp Unification Theory - idiosyncratic, website plug. Salsa Shark 22:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original research. — No-One Jones (talk) 23:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No theory should go unmentioned. Keep. - Arthur George Carrick 00:25, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Creator may be wrong but at least he's not a crackhead. No vote. I will NPOV. silsor 01:13, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: self-promotional crankery. Luminiferous ether, "Einstein was wrong", etc., on the webpage. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • He can put whatever he wants on his own web site. As long as the article is NPOV, it's perfectly alright for us to explain this man's theory. Would someone care to download it that we might explain it in detail? We are allowed to use brief quotes and ideas belong to no one. - Arthur George Carrick 03:25, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep another week, to see what silsor et. al. do with it. I couldn't find any references to the theory from reliable sources, so I'd tend to say delete, but one extra week can't hurt. Anthony DiPierro 14:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 22

  • I think that all of the orphaned links here should be deleted. Nothing links to them, they all redirect to a non-existent page. The synopsis of Chapters 1-5 of Atlas Shrugged has been moved to WikiBooks. These pages make this synopsis page a "most wanted" page, unnecessarily, since it has simply been moved to Wikibooks, not deleted.--Nelson 01:06, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • OK to delete. -- Infrogmation 04:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and deleted these; generally, redirects to a deleted article should be deleted at the same time as the article, so these should've been axed a while ago. --Delirium 11:09, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch - silly Monty Python-related article; linked to only by Monty Python and Worms (game); I think it unlikely to ever be linked to from any other article. --Smack 05:17, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. While trivial and silly, the HHGoA is well known (though maybe not by that initialization). After all, Monty Python's Holy Grail is also silly, but it certainly worth an article. -Anthropos 05:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Having accepted that the film is worth an article of its own, can't the HHGoA be covered within that article? Do we really need a separate article for it? (Or, for that matter, Castle Anthrax, the Knights who say Ni, or the Black Knight?) —Paul A 05:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a fairly well-written, popular article with several different contributors over a period of two years. I think this sort of listing is the main reason many people refuse to take VfD seriously. - Hephaestos 05:29, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please no more VfD's like this. Optim 05:47, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Depends on to what extent you think fictional things should be covered here. We have literally hundreds of Tolkien-world articles (Minas Ithil, Rohan, Aragorn, Gondor, hobbit, Gandalf, Battle of Pelenor Fields, Sauron, Valar, Gollum, etc., etc.), so I don't see why a few dozen Monty Python ones should be different. --Delirium 06:09, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Agree with User:Paul A, who was actually an important contributor to this article. The film is a subcultural icon and needs a substantial article, but it's best to keep individual scenes from the film within that article. Some of the Tolkien articles (some of which I created or helped to write) should also be consolidated (such as Chronology of Middle-earth instead of articles for each of the Ages); however, there is much more to be known about Tolkien than about Monty Python. I'd say it's impossible to write more on the Grenade than that article currently has without delving into extreme arcana such as the creators' inspiration, etc, while the Tolkien universe is open to veritable labyrinths of meaningful interpretation. Come to think of it, I should take it upon myself to reduce the Middle-earth madness on the wiki. --Smack 06:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Remember, deletion of an article does not (or should not) mean removal from the Wikipedia! Little articles like this should, IMHO, be grouped in single articles or article sections such as 'Scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail' or 'Characters from the Simpsons' (cf also debate elsewhere) if they are too unweildy to fit on the page itself. Fragmentation of articles is quite uncomfortable. Also, don't forget that you can link to sections of an article as well as the top with [[article#section]].
    • Keep. Ni! Davodd 08:31, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Nr Jones. Keep but merge. Bmills 10:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This's good information that definitely does have its place in geek culture. --zandperl 13:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Its use is widespread enough that it is deserving of a brief article. We have room. Wikipedia is not paper. Jwrosenzweig 23:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Totally not a page unto itself. Consolidate all references to the movie into 1 page/article. Aurelius One 22/01/04
    • Keep. Good topic, good article. Maybe not the highest priority to add if it weren't there, but it is. Andrewa 07:18, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A good article. I'd like to see you try to merge it. Ni! NI! Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky p'kang! Zroop-boing! - Arthur George Carrick 04:07, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, for above reasons. Anjouli 05:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
  • Acapedia - sub-stub about a former Wikipedia mirror. I can't see this ever becoming longer or more useful than it currently is. PMC 06:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless somebody knows something I don't Anjouli 05:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
  • Shemal - seems to be fake. I get nothing on Google from a search of keywords. Third paragraph seems to be a clue: "In the month of Ab a newborn boy child is cooked." Decumanus 08:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Fried Cheese Curds - looks like a joke that was then blanked. Not worth transwiking to wikibooks. Gentgeen 08:15, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Climate Change. A useless redirect (nothing links there) to UNFCoCC, and gets confused with "Climate change" (small second c) which is a real page. (William M. Connolley 11:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC))
    • Redirected to small-c climate change. Still think it should be deleted?— No-One Jones (talk) 11:55, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... maybe I was trapped by history. That would do, perhaps. See-also my posts on the village pump re case-sensitivity of article names.

January 23

  • Info-haiku and Wikihaiku - At first I found Info-haiku to be interesting and was looking forward to seeing it filled out. Then it was blanked and moved to Wikihaiku. I foundw zero google hits and suspect that it may be someone's fictitious invention. - Texture 20:33, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete invented forms. I'm about to remove the links created on the Poetry page. Bmills 09:34, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Tarquin 10:27, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • European Council voting weights, Council of Europe voting weights, Council of the European Union voting weights. Only the last entry is correctly named; the first 2 (orphaned blank) should definitely be deleted. The last one is orphaned, and the content appears to be one non-expert's rant about a contemporary issue rather than an encyclopedic entry. It is not useful in an encyclopedia. I tried to rescue it but decided that it was not worth my time. The issues are already presented in a NPOV and much more informative way in the article Council of the European Union --Kaihsu Tai 20:56, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • I deleted it. I felt it fell under a quick delete. In six hours or so, I will remove this entire entry from this page. Kingturtle 23:10, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Only 1 article was deleted; would you please get rid of the other 2 as well? Thanks. --Kaihsu Tai 18:14, 2004 Jan 23 (UTC)


  • ReclaimDemocracy.org -- zanimum
    • Why? Optim 03:19, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. POV stub but that's no reason to delete. Maybe list on cleanup. Andrewa 07:18, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV stub. Tempshill 01:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. If you think it's POV then make it NPOV. Saul Taylor 06:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • INFOrm -- Nearly no content apart from a link to a webpage that also contains no content. Also poses ambiguity issues with Inform. Only reachable if capitalized correctly -- i.e., oddly. 1/23/04, 9:28 AM EST. -- Adam Conover.
    • Keep. If we have a list of newspapers, we can merge it. Optim 00:54, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Agree with Optim. (i.e. keep and merge, not keep this page) Anjouli 05:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
      • The link to the external webpage could easily be merged into the list of newsletters on Libertarian socialism, but I believe that the page itself should still be deleted because of ambiguity with Inform. Adam Conover
    • Delete. Content free. Tempshill 01:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I merged the info in Libertarian socialism. The link now does not point to INFOrm but to the external web site. The info copied-pasted from INFOrm. Ambiguity is not a reason for deletion. Ambiguity is a reason for merge or addition of disambiguation messages. I think the merge I performed was right action, but if somebody has objections feel free to revert and explain us why this needs to be a separate article when the info fits very well in Libertarian socialism. Optim 11:13, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • In case you agree INFOrm does not need to be a separate article, it should be kept as a redirect pointing to Libertarian socialism. Of course if this journal is important and somebody adds more info we can turn it into a separate article again. Optim 11:18, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Sidney Morgenbesser - looks to be a personal page? A few returns on Google, but the article itself is of no value. RadicalBender 15:46, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like avanity page. Bmills 15:57, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete. vanity page bursting with its own importance LadyPuffball 04:05, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete for above reasons. Anjouli 05:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
  • Elias Howe - I don't know whether what is claimed about this person is true, but in the present form this should be deleted. --snoyes 17:56, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 24

  • Wikipedia:Lists for deletion currently has only one item (was moved from vfd). It is underused (we just don't have many lists to use) and the cost of checking another page versus the benefit of having one less item on this page is just not worth it. Few people ever check and vote at any other the subpages and the items listed there don't get much input. I don't see the point of keeping this. --Jiang 01:11, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Agree. --Tempshill
    • Delete. Just another place nobody looks at. Anjouli 05:23, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
  • Theory of the Unconscious Guardian smells like personal promotion. The title has no google hits in English and only two (from the same members.fortunecity site) in spanish. --Jiang 02:32, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think we should keep Wilfredo G. Santa in WP, but the number of articles relating to him should be kept in proportion to his importance. This material could go on his main page. Anjouli 05:32, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • I think a merge with Wilfredo G. Santa is OK. How do you think? Optim 10:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • merged. look below. Optim 10:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The Protective Unconcious Theory - yet more Santa spam. Salsa Shark 10:40, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I took the initiative to move the information of Theory of the Unconscious Guardian and [The Protective Unconcious Theory]] into Wilfredo G. Santa. The "theories" pages became redirects but they still have the vfd notice (the redirect will not work until the vfd is removed). Please dont remove the vfd until 7 days pass or we have a consencus on whether to delete them or keep them as redirect or whatever. If somebody has objections to the merge, you can revert and tell us why the theories need separate articles when even the main Santa article is disputed for inclusion. The "theories" articles are included in the Santa article under their own sections. Now we can continue the discussion on whether we should delete the theories completely or keep them in the Santa article or keep them in their own articles or whether all the Santa story should be deleted. Optim 10:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Gaebler Children is probably too obscure. --Jiang
    • No vote. There is a fairly famous (at least in mental-health circles) hospital called Gaebler Children's Center. If the article had that title and some substance to it, I would vote to keep. But it's border-line. Anjouli 05:27, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • Keep. Optim 05:48, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2221208"