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 Nico~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 31 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, 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 -- 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

Ongoing discussions


January 24

  • Lithobraking - neologism coined by a web site. Secretlondon 22:41, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Humorous, but delete. - UtherSRG 03:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to aerobraking; as the latter indicates, it's only 99.44% a joke. Salsa Shark 04:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition not even worthy of Wiktionary - yet. Anthony DiPierro 23:47, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But should be written in a straightforward way. I have a feeling this term will gain traction, so to speak. -- Decumanus 04:51, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It only gets a few google hits, but one is for a menu of talks at the Univ. of Arizona. It suggests that it is emerging as a real term. The fact that it started out as joke is somewhat immaterial at this point.- Decumanus 04:54, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • OK. I've rewritten it, based on my understanding of its usage. I am not one hundred certain, but I look further into it. I do believe it's legit. I took out the part about its coinage since it seems apocryphal.- Decumanus 05:03, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, rewritten. Maximus Rex 07:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC

January 25


  • Facial. Not encyclopedic. Angela. 22:07, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - list of supplies for doing a facial - no content - Texture 22:08, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is one of User:Craigbutz's student's articles. It's a work in progress. Secretlondon 22:11, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Either Delete it or fix it. It looks very incomplete! Ilyanep 22:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It was started on Friday. We know they are school kids - I don't think we should pounce on them. Delete if its not fixed by the end of the project.Secretlondon 22:19, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Student status is relevant to time given to gel, but not to retention, as i think SL agrees. --Jerzy 14:50, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • I thoroughly agree with Angela here - I don't want to discourage contributors, but this is not encyclopaedic, and it is just some items. Tompagenet 00:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We should give it some more time. See my above comment on eyebrow makeover. My only concern with this particular article is the sexual term of the same name: move this page to Facial (beauty) or something similar, or create a Facial (disambiguation). Unfortunately that will expose Craigbutz's students to imappropriate sexual content, but that's his job to monitor, not ours. --zandperl 01:31, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Secretlondon. Do not delete now. Keep. Optim 07:04, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, encyclopediic. Jack 08:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, no useful content --Jiang
    • Move to cleanup, where the students can experience collaboration not mediated by phone. Move w/ a prejudice toward quick return to VfD when editing appears to be at an end. --Jerzy 14:59, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Delete. I like the fact that students are contributing to Wikipedia, but this article does not meet any standard for a live Wikipedia article. As someone recommended on the teacher's discussion page, the students should be writing practice versions of the article on their own talk pages (or subpages) and moving the article into the main namespace when it is ready. Tempshill 19:54, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. has some valid facets ... history, outcome, n' procedures ... tools is only listed ... stub it ... [btw ... should there be a dab facial (porn)?] JDR
    • Keep and expand. The history section will be particularly interesting when combined with a description of what a facial currently involves. I've added Facial (sexuality) as well, since that is not an act which is restricted to pornography. Jamesday 22:49, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 10:48, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikiculture doesn't exist yet. --snoyes 23:47, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Sure, its creation was a bit premature, but it may become a prominent Wiki soon. -- Seth Ilys 00:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. When it becomes prominent it can have an article. --Imran 02:00, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - looks like advertising by the owner - Texture 02:58, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I wouldn't mind the advertising so much if it actually linked to something operational. An article to go along with that link would have been nice as well.--Nelson 05:47, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • move to meta, or wikipedia space. Jack 08:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I cant see why this would be suitable for meta or wikipedia. Please click on the link. --Jiang
    • delete, "". --Jiang 08:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should include Unilang and InfoSecPedia in this discussion, from same author, and probably the same unknown yet. andy 11:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 26

  • Holy Marriage Blessing Ceremony of the Parents of Heaven and Earth. Utterly irrelevant. Kosebamse 08:08, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is important merge it with Sun Myung Moon and delete or redirect then. I think this event is considered as important in the Unification Church. If someone can write more and explain us why we need a separate article for this, he/she is welcome to do so. Optim 08:34, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • merge with Rev Sun and redirect there.--Jiang
    • No vfd added. Moved to 26 January. Secretlondon 19:20, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. An event which appears, for this religion, to be comparable to the resurrection of Jesus and/or consumption of communion wine is utterly irrelevant? I suppose we should ask Ed to expand this to make it more clear what it's about but it doesn't seem like material for deletion. Jamesday 23:27, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - its a legitimate part of a real religion. Secretlondon 23:39, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Timeline of U.S. economic indicators is hopelessly outdated; wikipedia is not a place to write news articles. This "timeline" contains little information and I don't think it will ever get any better. (Content should be moved to relevant current event months, but the stated date lacks citation.) --Jiang 01:46, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Useful info Jack 05:38, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Not every useful fact belongs in wikipedia. Unless you are willing to fix that entry into a real article or are convinced that someone else will do so, then I don't see the point of keeping this trash. --Jiang
    • Delete. A random smattering of data. This will never become a real article. Tempshill 20:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • User:Mrj - if I am not mistaken there is no such user (that page has no "User Contributions" in bottom as it has for any real user). I am just not sure if such a page can be deleted by the nonsense-deleting-shortcut or not. andy 08:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Why delete a user just because he hasn't contributed yet? Probably lurking and learning so he does a good job when he contributes. Not sure what he's done wrong. - Texture 15:31, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is a joke, right? Keep until the user requests his/her pages to be deleted. There is a user contribs link (I see it, although it's empty). If he/she is inactive, no problem. If he/she causes problems in wiki, just ask him/her to stop and discuss a block if needed. In any case, no need to delete the userpage until he/she requests it or the content of the page is innapropriate. The content seems humourous and ok to me. This user seems to use anonymous IPs for editing, I suppose. I think he has done editing on Talk:Persian language where he said: My own research points to the word Dari being short for Dari-Vari. Dari-Vari is a farsi word and refers to an old speaking technique in which the speaker is not saying anything even though they are talking. This technique is in fact universal and not specific to Farsi. Its often used by religious folk of all persuasions. -- .'. Optim 18:08, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
    • Delete. Well, next time better not to vote while feeling asleep:) I thought it was an inactive user's page. Now I see that the account does not exist. When I said that I saw a Usercontribs link, I was referring to the link at the left, but now I looked better and it doesn't exist at the bottom (as you said). I also did a test creating a User:Optim777 page and looked the same. So it seems it was either a joke or a mistake, I suppose. Hell, why MediaWiki (or the stylesheet, I suppose) automatically puts a usercontributions link at the left whenever somebody access a User: article, even if the account does not really exists? -- Optim 18:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • No, it does not - and I even tried all three different skins now. I can only see that link if the user exists - e.g. in [2] the link exists even though that user accound was never used. andy 10:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Added vfd tag
    • Delete - I'm just sleep-following Optim around... - Texture 19:48, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 15:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Notify IP to register acct or face having this deleted. Delete if not done so by the time waiting period is over. --Jiang


  • European settlers Could be an article, but this is not it. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem here is that we should kill the link from which this non-article was started because it also has a meaningless title. With "What links here" disabled, there is no way we could trace this origin. But let's at least delete this. <KF> 16:20, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Added vfd tag. Secretlondon 18:29, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Perhaps European Colonialism is a more appropriate title for an article on thos & related topics. Marcus F, 28 Jan 04
    • Delete. Already have European colonization of the Americas and many sub articles that are detailed. This article would need to perhaps even more braod in scope, covering trends in Americas as well as S. Africa, India, Australia, NZ etc. to be of any unique use.-- Decumanus 04:45, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Miles Elam - no autobiographies. --snoyes 19:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Autobiography, vanity, POV. Moncrief
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:45, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Yes autobiographies Jack 05:38, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete for the same reasons. Jack, why the campaign to keep vanity pages? Bmills 11:39, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - vanity page - Texture 19:54, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - totally unverifiable - Ams80 22:54, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - okay - I can find a Mile Elam who presents at show at [3] which does appear to be in California, but the rest is an NPOV load of unverifiable info. Tompagenet 00:01, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wei Chen - a Google search for "Wei Chen" +CBC yielded 111 hits. A Google search for "Wei Chen" had no results for her in the first ten results. Meelar 19:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, she is a real person, if that helps. Whether or not we need articles on every journalistt who has ever had their 15 minutes of fame is another question, I suppose. Adam Bishop 23:49, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I wouldn't bother creating an article on someone like her, and it smacks suspiciously of self-promotion (reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article.) However it's already here and she is a public personality.
    • Keep. She is a real person. Wikipedia is not paper. Anthony DiPierro 01:20, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep people are encyclopedic Jack 05:38, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Mirra Richard - a copy paste from [4], although not cpyvio, with 39 kb, no formatting, biased, absolutely hopeless, better to start fresh. Muriel 22:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree, I say keep. This, while far from ideal, is more than we would have otherwise. I don't know enough about anything in the article to work on this, but someone will. Meelar 22:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I say this is terribly biased...Move this article to a subpage (Perhaps Mirra Richard/Starting Point or Mirra Richard/Old Article) and start fresh with more than one source. Ilyanep 23:19, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I will work on this sometime when I will have time. you can replace it with a stub now if you like, but please move the info on the talk page or a subpage. Currently it is an essay and not an article, so it needs lots of NPOVing. If u move it into a subpage, please give me the address at my talk page. Optim 04:40, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, obviously Jack 05:38, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Great to see so many wikipedians with the obvious will and energy to fix it!! Muriel 16:12, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Conscientiology - I don't know if any "new sciences" should be included on Wikipedia. Ilyanep 23:54, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for a while, give the article time to grow. 2000 google hits. Anthony DiPierro 01:08, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Really, people do google hits to look up pertinent articles. Wikipedia is not Google, nor should it be based on Google. Ilyanep 04:00, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • People do google hits for all kinds of reasons. I did it this time to see if the term was being made up, and to see that it is verifiable. This article could very well grow into a good enncyclopedia article and should be given the chance to do so. Anthony DiPierro 15:00, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:45, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Bmills 15:20, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Soapbox. Tempshill 20:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this nonsense. Definately not appropriate 4 an encyclopedia. [[User:Aurelius One|Marcus F] 28/1/04
    • Keep. If we can have articles on American high schools I suppose we can tolerate this. - Hephaestos 00:27, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - I like the idea of a NPOV article on all these "pseudosciences". There are at least two organisations promoting this concept. If we deleted things that we believe are not true then a lot of religion articles would have to go too. Secretlondon 23:44, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wintendo - First of all, does this even exist? Second of all, it is a very impertinent article for wikipedia. Ilyanep 23:54, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • "Impertient"? Snerk.
      • Am I using my big word language? Better switch over to...wait a sec...this isn't simple English! Wikipedia is not a place (...previous discussion) to post comments & derogeratory slang. Ilyanep 04:00, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 01:04, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikitictionary. Derogeratory slang, in uncommon use. But that doesn't mean it's not a reasonable dictionary definition. Syntax 02:03, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:45, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The word exists, and I've just added to the entry. But yeah, it's a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia entry. - David Gerard 11:58, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, or merge into Microsoft Windows and redirect or move to Wiktionary. The word is in relatively common use, and the article is no longer a mere description, but also gives some background on the term. (I am the original author of the article in question.) arj 13:40, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary (at best). I don't see how it will ever become a real article. Tempshill 20:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Rossami 22:03, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Alright...looks like there's a general consensus. Ilyanep 03:31, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 27

  • Jewpedia - not famous Anthony DiPierro 02:50, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep not famous means nothing, wiki is not paper Jack 05:32, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete. --Jiang
    • A real article on a real wiki. Why not keep? - David Gerard 11:48, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • 17 non site or wikipedia sites match the term on google - delete Tompagenet 12:56, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't like the name much myself. But it's listed under Sites using MediaWiki, and is in French, so including an English description on its own page (and then linking to it) seems reasonable - keep sj 21:00, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ilyanep 23:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why would WikiTravel for instance have its own article and Jewpedia not ? Our wiki will grow fast for sure and is a really useful service for the Jewish community. David Levy 17:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I see no justification for deleting. "Not famous"? Why is that relevant? Moncrief
    • Keep. Secretlondon 23:45, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-famous. Non-Important. Advert. Wikitravel is more popular than Jewpedia by several orders of magnitude. --Imran 15:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no justification to delete it, other than attempt of censorship of jewish and french people :-)))) Anthere
  • Mason Klesel - "A character in the still in production game Dark Realm" --snoyes 03:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's very flattering to have game creators list their characters each as a separate article on Wikipedia before the game is even released, but not what we want. Andrewa 09:14, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; agree with Andrewa. Tempshill 20:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We can list it as an article when the game is released, if the character is important. Or Redirect at best. Ilyanep 23:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete until the game is released. Secretlondon 23:45, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dark Realm - Looks like it has a 'this is test content' message. Should we just delete it now? Ilyanep 23:28, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Traci Harding - I have never heard of this 'Australian novelist'; it's obviously a self-promotional entry
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Self promotion can evolve into a good article Jack 05:32, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete if nonfamous. --Jiang
    • Keep. 2300+ Google hits. -- Seth Ilys 07:54, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, although make sure that the article is NPOV. There seem to be enough mentions of her on the internet that an article isn't out of the question. As pointed out, Google shows 2,320 hits, and some of her novels seem to have been through several reprints. Not a particularly well known author, but not nobody, either. -- Vardion 07:56, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not particularly well known, but does have some sort of a readership. Needs verifiability/NPOV though.--Imran 13:01, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The Google hits are quite convincing. She publishes with Fictionwise, a somewhat credible ebook outfit. There are reviews in place that don't seem to be obvious plants. I have no idea what Raven's Reviews is, but her book scores on the "top 100" list... and not suspiciously high on it. Dpbsmith 20:50, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's self-promotion; more likely just a gushing fan. Harding, from the little I know of her work, strikes me as the kind of writer who would have fans like that. My vote: Keep, but rewrite for NPOV. —Paul A 01:29, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. As it stands the article is neutral. She has published nearly a dozen books and most of them are in public libraries in NZ if not elsewhere. ping 08:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Albert Camus: The Absurd Hero - this is a literary essay on an aspect of Camus' writing by an academic who previously published it elsewhere. IMHO it is not, nor can it ever be, an encyclopedia entry. Maybe some of the content could be added to Albert Camus. Bmills 12:12, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: bits and pieces of worthwhile stuff. Some should go into Camus, some should go into existentialism, and some should go away, but not all of it. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agreed. --Jiang
  • Vegetation succession - Looks a little flakey. Merge good bits into Ecological succession, then delete. - UtherSRG 16:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • merge with {{Ecological succession]]? Wetman 16:23, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Ecological succession and redirect. The page Vegetation succession could conceivably contain specific examples of succession, but as it stands it's a general discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • why delete the redirect? --Jiang
      • 'What links here' only lists Ecology. It's highly unlikely anyone would recreate the redirect. - UtherSRG 21:06, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • if someone linked to it once, how are you sure no one will link to it again or recreate it? Redirects dont hurt unless theyre misleading. --Jiang
          • Change the link at Ecology. - UtherSRG 23:54, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Keep the redirect, the usual examples of ecological succession are examples of vegetation succession (if I'm not mistaken). An article on fire ecology would very naturally want a link to vegetation succession. No need to suggest "you don't really want to do that". Wile E. Heresiarch 15:03, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous remailer faq - An apparently abandonded project to move a FAQ into Wikipedia. See the discussion here. Are FAQ's appropriate content for Wikipedia? -Anthropos 23:51, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Doesn't look like it is being used for anything. Ilyanep (26 Jan. 2004)Ilyanep 23:58, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:45, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Added VFD notice to page, as I forget to when I placed it on the list (rats!). Moved entry to here as appropriate. -Anthropos 22:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, has been there too long. Fuzheado 04:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 28

  • Pyrophobia - serves little purpose but to advertise a web page. - `Hephaestos
    • I'd say speedy delete. There's a lot of phobias (google for something like "phobia list") and all of them do not need articles. Pakaran. 00:26, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Even if it does deserve an article it should be in wiktionary anyway. Keep as redirect. -- Graham  :) 00:34, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirected to List of phobias. Keep as redirect to stop it being recreated. Angela. 00:40, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, as redirect. Andrewa 09:43, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Aaron Grant. - doesn't seem to turn up any hits on google besides the website he runs. Probably autobiography/spam. --snoyes 00:59, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, this page is either sycophantic or self promotion. The idea that the guy is a web pioneer is somewhat laughable. Delete. -- Ams80 23:42, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Appears to be a simple vanity page. Andrewa 13:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Odidience plant - was redirect to Arrowroot but appears to be typo for "Obedience plant". Only google hits are for wikipedia and its derivatives. WormRunner 06:17, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Holy - I do not believe this can ever be more than a dictionary definition, should thus be moved to Wiktionary. -- Ams80 23:11, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. — No-One Jones (talk) 23:27, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It certainly could, but it's not. No vote. Anthony DiPierro 23:48, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm confused as to how it could, I thought that information such as definitions, origin, related words, synonyms, translations etc. were for Wiktionary. What else could be written about this? The only thing I can think of is perhaps 'changing usage of the word holy throughout the ages' or something, but I still think even that would be better in Wiktionary. Perhaps you have some other ideas? -- Ams80 23:59, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect to holiness. Anthony DiPierro 00:51, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikte - seems to be a confusion with Winkte. The only hits in Google are for Wikipedia itself. -- Decumanus 23:56, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If so, merge and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 00:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I think it's a mispelling, actually since it produces no Google hits, and thus it probably shouldn't be a redirect.- Decumanus 06:01, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Merge with Winkte and redirect, this is actually a much better article than the one currently there. Sioux words are notoriously hard to spell in roman script. And Google is not God. Andrewa 16:53, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 29

  • Aza Raskin - less than 500 Google hits for "Aza Raskin" many of them copies of Wikipedia content. - Hemanshu 02:08, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Having fewer than 500 Google hits is a stupid reason to delete a page. Anthony DiPierro 02:24, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. These 500 do not tell us mch about his importance besides "developing"(!) the THE. My full name (real one) gives around 700 hits, because of numerous references in bibliography lists. So what? Shall I put up my hall of fame here as well? And oh, yes!! My alias 'mikkalai' kicks a dozen and a gross hits as well! Now I know why I'm editing wikipedia and posting on usenet! :-) Mikkalai 04:19, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity page. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:03, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del: anyone choosing to "develop" now anything named THE is ignorant of the role of Dijkstra's THE in the development of structured programming in the '60s and '70s, and will stay obscure for a while. (That's besides my being stupid.) --Jerzy 05:36, 2004 Jan 29 (UTC)
    • delete, has done nothing significant. --Jiang 02:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity. - UtherSRG 13:18, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Decision theory- An anonymous addition, this sounds like something that you hear in his middle school life skills class rather than a real science as described in several pages which link to it.
    • Keep. It's a legitimate topic and will grow. -- Seth Ilys 04:02, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: important topic. Needs work, I'll get around to it eventually. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:03, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: What was there is hopeless, but I am in the process of doing an initial rewrite on it (but we need to watch out for overlap with decision making) seglea 05:17, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If it sounds bad, fix it. Anthony DiPierro 21:23, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep. Very important interdisciplinary topic, and there's a good article there now. moink 00:23, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The rewrite has the makings of an excellent article. -- Karada 01:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I used it to say keep. Just kidding. Keep anyway. - UtherSRG 04:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - genuine topic. Charles Matthews 16:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Free ports - I believe this belongs on wikitionary. Ilyanep 03:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think the topic has potential to become more than a dictionary definition. Angela. 04:10, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, keep! There is lots of room for expansion. I will add a stub message if I forgot too. Psb777 04:56, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - I have wanted to link to such an article in the past (though it certainly needs major improvement). But shouldn't it be free port, not free ports?
    • Moved to Free port Psb777 06:37, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Takano, Yayori. No Google hits. Angela. 06:14, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. Misspelt Takano Yayoi? A porn girl with 100+ hits of yahoo.co.jp and goo.ne.jp. Takanoha 15:25, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. No google hits is not a valid reason to delete a page. Anthony DiPierro 21:23, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • "yayori + takano" gives three hits; one of it suggests the name is of some fame. I vote to wait 6 months and then delete. Mikkalai 22:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If it improves before the voting is done, I'll reverse my vote. - UtherSRG 04:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Scarce contents of the page make a serious factual error. There is no such a "super star" in Japan, contrary to the article. Takanoha 11:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • No-Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Pie is a recipe, and the decision has been made to move all recipes to wikibooks. Has already been transwikied. Gentgeen 08:02, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Doesn't seem to be a useful example of a style, traditional or otherwise of interest to the encyclopedia. Jamesday 05:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Vibuthi - spelling mistake by article author - corrected name at Vibhuti - Texture 20:08, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 21:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • There is nothing to merge. Original author blanked the page and created a redirect of a correctly spelled alternative: Vibhooti. I would rather not create a redirect from the wrong spelling. - Texture 15:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete. Is there a need to keep a spelling mistake? - UtherSRG 04:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I think not, since it may lead people to believe it to be a valid alternate spelling when it is not. - Texture 15:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I am the author and agree with deleting. Sorry, for the mistake Andries 15:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 30

  • Famous universities and colleges in the United States - no clear criteria has been established for inclusion on this list. As User:Rbellin put it: "I think this page is a bad idea. Judging "prestige" is a slippery slope for Wikipedia to tread. Even apart from the discussion of their merits, there are probably copyright issues involved in Wikipedia's reporting any of the published "best colleges and universities" rankings, and a completely subjective list is a poor substitute for these." --Jiang 00:07, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Delete. Who's to decide what universities are famous? Hell, who's to decide what famous means? Ilyanep 01:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unavoidably POV. Anthony DiPierro 01:38, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • (not voting) It's certainly POV for wikipedia to decide which schools are and aren't famous, but it's quite reasonable for us to report the various lists (as mentioned in the article) produced by news organisations (just as we report oscar nominees or nobel laureates). The article would be genuinely useful if it presented an archive those lists over time (so one could, for example, track the rise and fall of a given school's reputation). But that's not what this article is now. So if someone is interested enough to make it NPOV reporting of some other organisation's POV, then I'd vote to keep. If not, I'll vote to delete. -- Finlay McWalter 01:47, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Finlay -- side on delete unless you can refactor this into something more objective (ie. rankings, outside sources).
    • If I ever get the time (which is usually), I can do some research on some outside sources and convert this into NPOV. At least that would be an outside source. Ilyanep 02:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. A page like this is inherently POV. However, a page specifically describing the U.S. News & World Report rankings (or others) would be valid. --Minesweeper 02:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The page should simply be the list of colleges and universities that have, or ought to have, Wikipedia articles. What's the criterion for being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? Whatever it is, if it can be formulated, that can be the stated criterion for being listed on this page. Neutral point of view doesn't mean NO point of view. Surely everyone agrees that Princeton is a famous university, and that Alice Lloyd College (in Pippa Passes, Kentucky), is not? Dpbsmith 03:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • there's no need to repeat what's already at List of colleges and universities. If it deserves an article, it's already linked on that list. It's not about the certain entries, it's about the in-betweens. How long a list do you expect this one to be? --Jiang 04:05, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. My reasons are given in the article's Talk page. Dpbsmith, for what little it's worth, I'm posting from Princeton and I disagree with your last assertion. Rbellin 07:21, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Minsweeper and Jiang said it all. - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a useful list of the ones the well known sources in the first paragraph consider to be the famous colleges in the US. It's not duplicative of the complete lists because of the classification it's doing. Jamesday 05:32, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • As shown on the article's talk page, I had asked the anon how exactly he formulated this list from dissimilar rankings. He did not answer. Therefore it is not clear how this is "list of the ones the well known sources in the first paragraph consider to be the famous colleges in the US". Normally, these rankings publish it for all the four year institutions in the U.S. For example, US NEWS has a top 50 ranking, a top regionals ranking, a liberal arts ranking, (all of 50 institutions each), then underneath those are 2nd and 3rd tiers and also separate lists for specialty colleges like Julliard. Princeton Review publishes what it considers the top 350 (give or take a few). This list is obviously not as comprehensive and I am not about to tell what criteria was used for inclusion.--Jiang 05:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not surprised to find incomplete articles in a wiki. I don't have the source lists around but if you know that another university is in the top ten or top 20 or whatever the eventual consensus is on the talk page for inclusion in this top list, go ahead and add them. It'll be far more useful than sinpoly a list of every marginally notable place of higher education in the US and encyclopedias are in the busines of identifying the most significant things of all types. Jamesday 11:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Then please be bold and establish a clear criteria for listing on that page. No objective criteria is not fine since famousness is a matter of opinion. Otherwise, we'll have revert wars on whether a place is "marginally notable". --Jiang
    • Delete. Can never be NPOV. Bmills 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: inherent POV. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:37, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • redirect to College and university rankings? --Jiang 09:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Sunfist.com Looks like an advertisement. Ilyanep 02:04, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The website does not sell anything. This entry is no different than Penny Arcade or 8-Bit Theater. Sunfist 21:12, 29 Jan 2004 (EST)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 02:12, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like nothing more than a promo to me. Denelson83 02:37, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, together with Penny Arcade and 8-Bit & evilbob. There are ZILLIONS of this kind, suitable for wikiwebdirectory or something. Mikkalai 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity. - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If we're going to cover every web site out there, Wikipedia may become larger than the rest of the web! --Carnildo 08:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delets. Bmills 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - vanity advertising - Texture 16:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:43, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: All good points. Sunfist 18:31, 30 Jan 2004 (EST)
  • Evilbob. See discussion on Sunfist.com (above). Ilyanep 02:07, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 02:12, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, together with Penny Arcade and 8-Bit & sunfist. There are ZILLIONS of this kind, suitable for wikiwebdirectory or something. Mikkalai 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity. - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity page. --Carnildo 08:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - vanity advertising - Texture 16:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:43, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Inverted triangles. Does this look like NPOV to any of you? Denelson83 02:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Please give a valid reason for deletion. Anthony DiPierro 02:56, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Basically, it talks about an easy way to facilitate prejudice. It does not sound appropriate to me to put something like this in a publication such as Wikipedia. Denelson83 02:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Valid reasons for deletion are
        • Bad title; as a minimum, it shoud be "Inverted Triangle (symbol)" or something
        • Bad text: no context. Looks like someone's list-type joke, kind of "Ten most obnohious behavours in an elevator".
      • Mikkalai 03:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • This is an explanation of a historical system in Nazi Germany. The context was not clear in earliest version of the article, but with modifications since it is now. Keep. -- Infrogmation 06:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think the concept is worthy of keeping. Most, if not all, of these symbols were used by the Nazi regime to brand those they felt were inferior. If there isn't yet an article on this aspect of Nazism, this is a good place to start. Also, at least the queer community has reclaimed the inverted pink triangle and made it a positive sign instead of the negative it originally had. - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This article accurately describes the triangle colors used to identify the reason for people being placed in the concentration camps in WW2. It's not a new creation of the person who created the page. I've corrected the one error, missing Gypsies in one of the classifications. Yes, it's definitely POV. Unfortunately, it's also history and the description of the POV in the history is NPOV. Jamesday 05:43, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - decent historical article now. - David Gerard 13:04, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep this version. Bmills 13:40, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This are important details about the concentration camps Laudaka 17:56, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) (Paul/laudaka)
    • Keep, now that the article became decent and clear. Originally it was out of the blue, with no back links and no background, hence it arouse natural suspicions.Mikkalai 18:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the contents. The title is confusing and is not conforming WP standard (singular vs. plural). Something along the lines of Deathcamp badge would be better, IMO. Humus sapiens 20:09, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Deathcamp badge is not accurate; at least the yellow one for Jews was used in general population. Note story of King of Denmark wearing one. (Or two? At least in some times and places, two were superimposed to make the Magen David; don't recall if that included Denmark or not.) --Jerzy 06:17, 2004 Jan 31 (UTC)
    • Keep, but move to singular. Revised version is excellent. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:06, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valuable for historical colour-symbolism. Pedant17 23:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; documents Nazi methods in concrete context that can penetrate the fog of emotionless abstraction that was an important part of those methods. --Jerzy 06:17, 2004 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Weight - dictionary definition Anthony DiPierro 03:12, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. ??Dictionary definiton??-wshun 07:25, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The term for a dictionary with this level of detail is "encyclopedia" --Carnildo 08:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Syntax 10:43, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Bmills 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looks fine to me. This is at the very least Britannica "Micropaedia" level. Dpbsmith 01:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Heberite. This article consists mostly of assertions that cannot be found in accepted scholarship. The alleged relationships of various names to the term "Heberite", which are stated as facts, seem to be just speculations on the part of the author. A Google search for "Heberite" turns up few other uses of the term, and none which use it in the way that the author does. Josh Cherry 03:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Matshishkapeu - 78 google hits. Anthony DiPierro 03:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • What? It's a real Inuit mythological character. Keep...even if only on the precedent of having hundreds of other mythological stubs.
    • Keep or merge into Inuit mythology. - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Bmills 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - valid native american myth - Texture 16:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Deleting it will mean Wikipedia doesn't care about other cultures. Deleting it would be an unencyclopaedic action, that could even be described as nationalistic or hostile to the Inuit culture. Optim 16:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep DJ Clayworth 17:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Secretlondon 23:36, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Idliragijenget - sub stub. not famous. Anthony DiPierro 03:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, same as above. Adam Bishop 04:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge into Inuit mythology. - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep.Bmills 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - valid native american myth - Texture 16:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Deleting it will mean Wikipedia doesn't care about other cultures. Deleting it would be an unencyclopaedic action, that could even be described as nationalistic or hostile to the Inuit culture. Optim 16:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep DJ Clayworth 17:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Secretlondon 23:36, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems to be part of Wikipedia:Shortpages/Mythology-WikiProject. -- User:Docu
  • Oliver Russell - linked from a Midwife page, but looks like a plot os some obscure novel - Nilmerg 12:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. May be a summary of Best Laid Plans by Sidney Sheldon. Bmills 12:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Nigga - apparent snippet from a political message board, with links on the bottom. - Nilmerg 12:29, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Well-meaning rant. Bmills 12:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I marked is for fast delete. - UtherSRG 13:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Roy - Too minor for its own article - content about "Roy" already exists in Fire Emblem - Texture 16:11, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've cleaned it up a bit, but unless we can get at least 100 words on this character in the next seven days, delete. -- user:zanimum
    • Delete. Video game characters rarely need their own page. Prawn 16:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: video game characters are not material for an encyclopedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:43, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree strongly. We are an educational project and disk space is cheap. Children look up these characters, we can then draw out patterns and historical references (if we are good). For example in one of these games there was an article on a race called the Faustians, I linked that to Faust. They wouldn't get that on a fan site. We are not necessarily writing for ourselves, and we mustn't forget that. Secretlondon 23:52, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we're going to keep Idliragijenget and Matshishkapeu, we might as well keep Roy. Anthony DiPierro 21:57, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • This isn't a political negotiation where if you vote for this I'll vote for that. Those are historical mythologies from an indiginous culture. "Roy" is a minor character in a modern game that will be forgotten in five years. - Texture 22:07, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I didn't say it's a political negotiation. I'm just trying to find NPOV standards for deletion. It's hard. Idliragijenget is a minor character in an ancient myth that has already been forgotten. Anthony DiPierro 22:10, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Idliragijenget is far more important that Roy for evidence see H. Newell Wardle's The Sedna Cycle: A Study in Myth Evolution. She is also historically more famous.--Imran 23:32, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
          • I do not understand how an article on an ancient cultural entity can be compared to a minor character in a computer game. Do people really vote on whether they personally have heard of something? Secretlondon 23:47, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wiki is NOT paper, and this could be a valid article (albeit one I can't write). We're not our only audience. Meelar 00:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • redirect to Fire Emblem. --Jiang
  • Japanese human experimentation has merit, but is just too hackneyed and likely NPOV as it stands. Title needs a change too... Human experiments by Japanese government? -- user:zanimum
    • Delete and merge if only focused on Unit 731 (which has its own page). Expand if there is more to it. - Texture 17:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote to make in into a redirect or delete. The topic is searchable by "human experimentation" Mikkalai 19:02, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • redirect to Unit 731 if not fixed into something more general by the time the waiting period is over. --Jiang
    • I found it unpleasant to paraphrase material about people being deliberately frozen to death and the like. Despite this I felt it important to keep the memory or the holocaust and the Japanese atrocities alive. If we are aware of what happened in the past it is less likely that similar things will happen in the future. It is a good idea to put a brief note at the bottom of each page explaining that these atrocities are past and that both Japan and Germany are now stable democracies. If the problem is simply about copyright the new version of the page is acceptable. Basrbara Shack
  • Chief of Staff - Anti-Israeli ramble - Texture 18:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. WP is not a blog. Humus sapiens 19:41, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, of course. Does this really have to wait seven days? uriber 19:49, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI I reproduce the deleted content here, so that non-admins can see what was deleted: Competent Chief of Staffs are non existent in the Israeli Defense Forces. The Peter Principle is used to pick each Chief of Staff. For example the previous Chief of Staff was Shaul Mofaz. Three times he took the officers test for entering officers school. Three times he failed it. Utilizing the Peter Principle, he was made an officer anyway and with every careless failure and blunder he was promoted until he was made Chief of Staff not because he was competent, but because he was born in Iraq, and it was felt he would increase the morale of Israeli soldiers whose parents were born in Arab countries. The current Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon was chosen because he had been a total failure as Military Intelligence Chief. Known as "Crazy Meshuganah Moshe," he believed every word from those he appointed to head the Iraq desk of Military Intelligence. Bush and Blair would love daydreamer Moshe for he still believes Iraq has tons of WMD weapons. Moshe is the type of Chief of Staff who believes every lie Sharon tells him. If Sharon told him the sky is falling, Meshuganah Moshe would say, "yes, Prime Minister, I see it, I see it. Needless to say the Peter Principle guarantees Moshe will go far in politics when he retires. .'. Optim 20:36, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
    • Keep, of course. This is an important topic. Anthony DiPierro 22:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The importance is not under question. But nor should this discussion really be in VfD. As it's gone, it should be listed on votes for undeletion if there's to be a vote. For me, I'm just glad it's gone. Andrewa 19:40, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Terrorism against Lebanon - Even if the article can be save it will need to be recreated with a new title - Texture 19:22, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The title as it stands really is a barrier to producing a good article on terrorism and Lebanon--whether perpetrated against or by. Jwrosenzweig 19:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bunch of propaganda & unsubstantiated grievances under fashionable today title of terrorism. Perhaps some data could be reused in a new article, if backed up by refs. Humus sapiens 19:41, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article does not mention the fate of Lebanese Christians. Article confuses the Palestinian with the Lebanonese, indiscrimately lumping together events that have affected the two communities differently. Article does not note the effects of the PLO on Lebanon. Article ignores "state terrorism" commited by Syria. Article ignores the effects of Hezbollah on Lebanon. The article as written has a single political purpose. OneVoice 19:52, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But move to attacks against Lebanon. Most of the "terrorist" attacks are not terrorism. --mav 23:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It talk about terrorism against lebanon only, so all info are about terror attakcs against lebanon. And i did only put terrorist attacks. what do u call the kill of civilians? it is terrorism.. The article is not complete, i am going to add new content about the plo, christians, syria, usa, and more specific terror actions. so don't judge the article by your emotions. If you support Israel, that does not mean that you can hide the truth. Killing civilians is a terrorist attack, whether done by a suicide bomber or a tank, or a military plane... Don't let emotions judge the article, be objective... Europeen
        • There needs to be an intent to terrorize civilians by killing them. --mav
      • Author of the article. --mav 01:37, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
    • Keep. Why always remove articles showing the terror done by Israel? see Terrorism_against_Israel, is it objective? no.. why not putting that in vote for deletion.. this shows that this encyclopedia is not objective... just a game! Aranes
      • Sock puppet. --mav 01:37, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Maybe some retouch in the general organisation. cat_and_dog
      • Sock puppet.--mav 01:37, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. Same reasons as Texture. --Jerzy 05:43, 2004 Jan 31 (UTC)
    • Delete. Every part of this article is either unrelated to its title ("Regular violating of Lebanese air space by israeli military planes"), nonsense ("christian israeli troops"), or just wild unsubstantiated and unattributed accusations, all copied-and-pasted from this propaganda site. And all in very poor English, too. Hopeless. uriber 09:50, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Christian israeli troops, means israeli army + some lebanese christant militant... and why always when we talk about crimes done by israelis you say it is propaganda.. Wikipedia is full of israeli propaganda.
        • Then start an article on actual terrorism by Israel. The only example I know of involving directed attacks against innocent civilians by the Israeli government involves destroying the homes of the RELATIVES of suicide bombers. I don't think anyone dies from those acts, however. I have never heard of any acts of direct terrorism by Isreal, although they have attacked military targets and created collateral damage (like any country, including the U.S. in times of armed conflict). - Texture 20:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 31

  • Try the Ghost - Personal page it looks like. RadicalBender 00:25, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's well written. Of course, it'd be nice if someone could add a real date of birth... - Arthur George Carrick
      • Hmmm. That wasn't there when I made a mention here. Either way, still a very low Google count (mostly for stuff that is unrelated). Doesn't really seem like Wikipedia material. RadicalBender 03:13, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep, obviously. Google means nothing. If google hits are so important, lets just give up on the wiki, and go work for google instead ;) Jack 03:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, that's not what I meant... My point is that other non-famous small/garage bands get deleted too. RadicalBender 05:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete since the subject is nonfamous. --Jiang
    • Delete. Vanity page. --Imran 15:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, and I added a VfD marker just now. Meelar 17:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Imran said it. Ilyanep 18:52, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Vanity page - Texture 19:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Interstate 1 - this is a goofy page based on a proposed idea that, as far as I can tell, exists only on one website. It's not a proposed interstate in the sense that any serious person expects it to be built (as it's imagined on the only website that mentions it, it would follow much of the route of California Highway 1 and the coastal US 101 in Oregon - windy, scenic, protected roads hardly conducive to an interstate!), yet until I just edited it, the Wikipedia entry was written mostly in the present tense with the exact format of entries on existing interstate highways. As the "reference" website given on the page reads: "Ideal Western Interstates/As someone that travels across the West frequently, these are the roads that I think need to be upgraded to Interstate status." So basically this is one person's fantasy, and it's been made into a page with the same template of actual interstates! Moncrief 02:38, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: If it doesn't exist, or isn't remotely close to existing, it should go. Tampa Pauly
    • Delete. "Interstate 1 is an imaginary interstate highway". Keyword: imaginary Maximus Rex
    • Delete. Oh, God, please delete it. -- Decumanus
    • I kinda like it, but DELETE. I learned something from it though, I didn't know Interstate 70 made it to San Jose, I always thought it stopped somewhere in Utah. You think that being born and raised in San Jose I'd have known that we're the home of a major Interstate terminus. Gentgeen 13:54, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I like it too, but this thing is dumb. Ilyanep 18:52, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Note that the author tried (unsuccesfully, thanks to vigilant wikipedians) to wire it into the US highway system articles: i70 doesn't really make it anywhere near San Jose. Next time we look, he'll have the M25 connected to bifrost. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    •  Delete Nico 20:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada ... an israeli propaganda. they don't show the reasons or the attacks, neither the israeli crimes done a day or two before the attacks.. + "massacre" is not a objective, and even wrong.. Should be deleted, or done again with changing the name, to "attacks" instead of massacres, and showing reasons and israeli crimes, done a day or 2 before.
    • Keep - Factual events - large number of people died on those dates and those terrorist groups claimed responsibility. ` Texture 19:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Nico 20:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Eberite. The main author of Heberite, a candidate for deletion (see above), has moved its entire contents here. The change in title helps nothing; nobody uses "Eberite" this way either. The article remains pure speculation. An attempt, for example, to connect "Eberite" (or "Heberite") with the Iberians via a Google search turns up nothing other than this article. Josh Cherry 19:03, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2272892"