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 Jerzy (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 2 February 2004 (Del article on the late Cpl. Jamie Brendan Murphy, Can. LFC (Feb 1)). 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 25

January 26

  • 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)
    • Delete/ move to Wiktionary. Angela. 00:23, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

January 27

  • 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)
    • How long does a page stay around in the db after deletion? +sj+ 20:22, 2004 Feb 1 (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
    • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. ike9898 01:45, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I somehow included the good bits in the ecological succession article. The good bits were quite limited even in the first version anyway. However, I would like to delete this article, as I think it might deserve an article on its own, rather than a redirection. Anthere
  • 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)
    • Delete. The user has now added even more source text. RickK 20:41, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi, I'm not the original poster, but I *have* always wanted to turn that FAQ into a more useful single-page doc... so I did. It should be linked to from an entry on anon remailers. If there's a general no-FAQ policy, perhaps it could be turned into an external link on an Anonymous remailers stub. +sj+ 21:17, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)

January 28

  • 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)


  • 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)
  • 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)



January 30

  • 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)
  • Superorder - dictdef Anthony DiPierro 03:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Scientific Classification, a la Family (biology). - UtherSRG 04:30, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Currently a sub-stub -- but there is an interesting future article here explaining the place of the superorder and why not all species have them. Davodd 11:22, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sub-stubs are candidates for instant deletion. Anthony DiPierro 21:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - valid entry - Texture 16:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Secretlondon 23:36, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect: interesting topic but meaningless except in the context of families, classes, etc. Taxonomy should cover all that stuff, or should we have separate articles (not redirects) for every level of classification? I didn't think so. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:53, 1 Feb 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)
  • 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
    • Delete or redir. Sub-stub with no real use. If you know enough to look at that article you probably already know everything it says. --Imran 00:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 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

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)
    • Delete, subject has done nothing notable. Appears to be written by the individual. Maximus Rex 21:52, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. ike9898 01:41, Feb 2, 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 - winding, 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)
    • Delete. As some folks find it somewhat amusing, copy to "Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense" first. -- Infrogmation 20:44, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. ike9898 01:41, Feb 2, 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)
    • I'm the author of the page. I would like to request that the decision on this page will be based on the same criteria used when deciding on List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (also listed on VfD). Either "keep both" or "delete both" will be OK with me. -- uriber 21:15, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Well, they are not massacres, but suicide bombers, or attacks or anything else.. a massacre is another definition.. also the 1948 massacers ARE massacres, because done by jewish terrorist organisation (as the UN says) and against civimians. the difference, is by killing 100 civilians, each one alone, killing to kill... Both articles shouls be rewritten, specially List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada, it is pure proaganda, and not a history subject like List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war..... And wikipedia is not a place for a cat and mouse play game.. Europeen
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. These are facts. They are massacres: intentional, indiscriminate killing of civilians, even if they "acts of war". I'm wondering who is aginst the list? Israelis would see it as a martyrolog, Hamas would see it as "hall of fame". Both sides should be happy. Mikkalai 03:22, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep of course. Humus sapiens 04:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep both; change both page titles to "List of attacks during". Both pages should eventually include attacks from each side against the other, for the given time period; often there is a clear correlation. Individual attacks may be named "<foo> massacre", if that is how they were most commonly known. +sj+ 21:26, 2004 Feb 1 (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)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Since the theory is "non-traditional", to put it mildly, a more substantial additional verificaion by references to sources is required. Even if the authour is right, unfortunately his sole word is not enough. Mikkalai 03:22, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Disect & Keep. There is a lot of good and valuable info there. why not just disect the article and keep it. Eberite is the way the proto-hebrews are refered to and the article makes a good list of all the documented proto-Hebrew tribal names. No-one but myself has ever tried editing it it seems. Suddenly someone just votes it for deletion but shouldn't wikis edit info "mercilessly" before deciding if the core is delete worthy? Please anyone just start editing it mercilessly and chucking out anything you think is irrelevant and we will see what remains. It is strange to see that the people who nominated it for deletion apparently don't even know enough about Eberites to have been confident enough to try to edit it first. I have done just that with appologies here to anyone's info which I have deleted. Or is it because the subject matter is just so obscure? But isn't coverage of obscure subject matter what makes Wiki sometimes superior to more mundane encyclopaedias? Or is the objective to make Wiki into a common encylopaedia with nothing special to offer?Zestauferov 08:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Graffiti culture - we already have Graffiti and Graffiti art (which need merging, IMHO) and I don't think this has any value as a redirect. Something very similar was at tagging, but I've made that into a disambig for now. - IMSoP 21:50, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Ilyanep 21:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should include Unilang and InfoSecPedia in this discussion, from same author [as Wikiculture], and probably the same unknown yet. andy 11:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved these here as VfD tags were not added until now. Angela. 23:11, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete both since they lack contributors. --Jiang
  • Rookie. I've already posted the text and author in the Transwiki:Wikitionary log. Meelar 00:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Apparently that's an invalid reason for deletion. Anthony DiPierro 14:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Fairy cake got agreements for deletion. Huh? Please explain why not this. Meelar 20:58, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 1

  • Serial polygamy - delete or wiktionary - Texture 02:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There is a version of this article found at [1] which cannot be found in the page history for some reason. - Hemanshu 04:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Make mention of the term on polygamy perhaps, but otherwise, delete. RadicalBender 05:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It isn't even accurate; what is described is serial polygyny. There is a need for a general mating systems article and this information could be a one-liner within that. Some day I'll write it if no-one else does first. seglea 08:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Kaput - delete or wiktionary - Texture 02:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Deleteike9898 20:12, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Jamie Murphy (soldier) - the comment on cleanup was "will there be an article on every person, US, Canadian and Iraqi, killed in Iraq?". If people really want to write these sort of articles can we find a way of putting them in the 911 memorial wiki? It's certainly true that Afghans and Iraqis would never get an article and therefore I don't think the existance of articles on the small number of soldiers killed, but not on the larger number of locals can be NPOV. Perhaps we should make policy that if you are famous only for dying then you are not encyclopedic. Secretlondon 14:15, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Among the things Wiki can be is a little time capsule. I would like it a lot if we could do more obits. Paul, in Saudi
      • Wikis might be like that. But this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. And just dying in service doesn't make you encyclopedic. Delete. -- JeLuF 19:43, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. [See why in discussion above]-- JeLuF 19:43, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If you are famous only for being killed while valiantly serving your country then you are encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 15:56, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete.. No you aren't. You're only encyclopedic if information about you is useful to people who didn't know you. This information isn't. Prawn 20:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. [See why in discussion above] Prawn 20:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless we're going to list every single person who has died in Afghanistan, what makes this person worth keeping? RickK 19:57, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, respectfully. I denounce the gratuitous callousness toward a specific recent decedant expressed in some of these deletion votes, especially as it is expressed not privately but in a public forum accessible to his comrades at arms and loved ones. But WP is neither for recording real heroes nor for recording fake heroes, unless they are famous by our usual standards. --Jerzy 02:35, 2004 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Velvet Revolver. Although this article contains valid information, it was created by banned user Michael, and should be deleted. RickK 19:48, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless someone feels like sorting out the real information from the Michaelese, then it should be deleted with all haste. — No-One Jones (talk) 20:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds like an odd form of revenge! This is like a good, concise, well cross-referenced article about an up-and-coming band. What does the authorship have to do with deleting it? I've added an external link to a Rolling Stone teaser for quick basic verification. +sj+ 21:35, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks for the explanation. Article shortened appropriately; should be safe now. +sj+ 22:00, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • List of Swearwords used by Captain Haddock - this is beyond trivial; I suppose a couple examples of these swearwords could be merged into a related article. ike9898 20:09, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I consider it encyclopaedic and useful. Someone who writes an artice on Tintin may read this one in order to get quotes for use in his/her article. The swearwords are too many so it is better to have them in their own article. Optim 22:08, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We don't want Wikipedia to contain absolutely all human knowledge (leave that for everything2); if we allowed everything on this level of triviality, we would end up having refactored versions of all works of fiction. - IMSoP 22:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Useful information. Wiki is not paper. Saul Taylor 23:08, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep! I love lists like this. They are occasionally useful and very hard to generate on the fly when you need them. Ditto about not paper. +sj+ 00:28, 2004 Feb 2 (UTC)
      • I should also point out that there is no article about Captain Haddock. ike9898 00:41, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • Perhaps one should be created, then. Haddock's section in the Tintin article is fairly hefty. Bryan 01:12, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, considering I just did some cleanup work on it and the thought of deleting it didn't even cross my mind. :) Bryan 01:07, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 2

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2283246"