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 RickK (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 3 February 2004 (keep Good ol' boy network). 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)
    • Keep. I like derogatory comments about Windoze. Kd4ttc 03:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Oh my god is that POV!?!?!?)

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)
    • Keep, we have plenty of time and room to improve this. Jack 12:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I find no evidence that this is part of a game in production. I think it is just some kids name. 3 Google hits, 2 of them for wikipedia. Maximus Rex 01:57, 3 Feb 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
    • Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. ike9898 01:45, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge entire article, to allow review and editing from Albert Camus Jack 12:06, 2 Feb 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)
      • Thanks for your efforts, sj. I still have serious doubts about whether Wikipedia is the place for this sort of document. Here, anyone can make changes to the page. It will no longer reflect the ideas of APAS (exclusively). Then there's the question of NPOV. The article currently is (of course) very much in favor of anonymous remailers. But in Wikipedia, it will have to be NPOV - which means it would probably include information about those who object to anonymous remailers, etc. I can also see the huge advantage of having this information available is a wiki of some sort. Maybe a different one? -Anthropos 05:54, 2 Feb 2004 (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)
    • Keep, and basing decisions on google hits, or allegations of "vanity" is against the spirit of policy. Jack 12:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete promotional artice. Bmills 12:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, promotional material. Maximus Rex 01:58, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; I tried nonGoogle searches and found nothing else (A.G., a bit player in some game creations; A.G. a track star). This one-liner doesn't say much; if even he can't come up with something that clearly justifies and clarifies his place in an encyclopedia, it's hard to see leaving this here. Elf 02:57, 3 Feb 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)
    • Keep. I think voters here would do well in reviewing Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls. Jack 12:14, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity page. Bmills 12:23, 2 Feb 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)



  • Erase - dicdef. --Imran 20:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Move to dictionary. Elf 03:02, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Data element - dicdef. --Imran 20:54, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, viable stubling Jack 12:14, 2 Feb 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)
    • Keep. Stub it. JDR
  • 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)
    • keep, unless you havew some evidence that this is innaccurate or vandalism. Jack 12:19, 2 Feb 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)
    • Redir. (seems if it's been redirected.) JDR
  • 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)
    • Keep [if more info is deposited] or Redir. JDR
    • keep, wiki is not paper. Jack 12:19, 2 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
      • Not a vote. see also Nazi human experimentation by the same user. Both seem to be minor rewording of source material to avoid copyvios rather than original articles. Bmills 10:07, 2 Feb 20:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep, unless you havew some evidence that this is innaccurate or vandalism. Jack 12:19, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This article may have potential ... they just had a special on the Discovery Channel, IIRC, on Unit 731 ... but there are probably other examples. BTW, the Head Japanese "Doc" [and I use that loosely] of 731 made Josef "Angel of Death" Mengele look like a boyscout. JDR
    • Keep but move. Needs to be an example in an article on Medical ethics. Geneva convention, Nurnberg trials, current medical ethics, issues surrounding the Tuskeegee experiment. Notable example. Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 03:25, 3 Feb 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
      • 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)
      • Also bad decisions. Deletionism is anti-wiki. Jack 12:03, 2 Feb 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)
    • Delete, ditto. Bmills 12:26, 2 Feb 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)
    • Delete. Bmills 12:26, 2 Feb 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)
    • Uriber created this to make a point, as indicated above. However the point is invalid for several reasons. One is that this page only lists things done by one side (and you can be sure that trying to add the larger number of Palestinian civilians killed would be fought tooth and nail). On the other had the older page lists actions from both sides using the same criteria. A second reason is that all this stuff is listed already at Terrorism against Israel in 2004 (and similarly 2003, 2002, ...). What is the excuse for listing it twice? These have to be merged into a single article. A third reason is that one should not create articles just to make points. --Zero 11:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unlike the other article, this is not yet history. It is an article in a controversial area, set up with arbitrary criteria to favour one side over the other. Otherwise for balance will we have a list detailing every killing of every Palestinian over the same period? (From the BBC website today "More than 2,600 Palestinians and at least 875 Israelis have died since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000.") Imc 19:49, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It is a list of indisputable facts....these, along with others, will provide the material from which people will select and deem some subset to be relevant and create a history. The history will contain context. It is indeed early to write that context. Wikipedia should be, at least we should strive to make it, a consistent whole. This list is a subset of Terrorism against Israel with a selection based upon the number of dead. Terrorism against Israel does not include failed attempts or acts that failed to kill Israelis, so that list is also partial, a subset of a fuller list. List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to the List of villages destroyed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war may (have not checked each and every instance) have a similar subset/superset relationship. If so we should decide how to handle such articles and apply that decision to both. So, keep until we have a policy on subset/superset articles. OneVoice 01:31, 3 Feb 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)
    • 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)
    • Keep. Copyedit it. (linked to by Arpachshad; and that article is link to 3 other articles ... "seems" valid (but I don't know anything about it)) JDR
      • Well Arpachshad was written by Zestauferov, the author of Eberite (and he made the links to Arpachshad too), so this doesn't mean anything (not that somebody else linking there would mean much either). To people who do know about it, the article doesn't seem "valid". There's nothing worth copyediting. "Eberite" just means "descendants of Eber". The connections among various peoples suggested by the article are pure speculation. That there was a people in a certain region, speaking a language with certain features, who were related to the Hurrians, who gave rise to the Hebrews and to various other peoples, and who are referred to as "Eberites", are assertions that I cannot find anywhere else. If we don't delete something like this, what's to stop someone from gathering together some names of peoples, some of which sound a bit alike, and making up a history that relates them all? Josh Cherry 02:28, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Richard Haynes - looks like self promotion. -- Infrogmation 20:37, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Nico 20:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ilyanep 21:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Self-promotion. Moncrief 23:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Time magazine once referred to him as one of the top six criminal lawyers in America. I think he's got better things to do than promote himself on Wikipedia.
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. High quality stub. Jack 12:03, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. low-grade self promotion. Bmills 12:26, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 22:07, 2 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)
    • also a misspelling, should be "kaputt", delete it --Mikez
  • The Flowers Family & Steven Flowers - not notable; looks like self-promotion. --Minesweeper 04:14, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Referring to oneself in the third person can't disguise an obvious autobiography. Delete. — No-One Jones (talk) 04:22, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree with self-promotion. Google search for "Steven Flowers" returns 383 results many of the results referring to random people named Steven Flowers (apparently). - Hemanshu 04:38, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. People are important, and concievably verifiable. Jack 11:53, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Does that mean all six billion deserve an entry? Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Same reasons as given. Bmills 11:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I wrote the article, and I assure you that I am NOT Steven Flowers. I met him a few times and in our city he is a known person. At the rate he has been going he will very well endear himself as a part of Glendora History. Irish Ladd
    • Delete. No internal evidence to warrant inclusion. --Imran 01:51, 3 Feb 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)
        • I neither see how that is necessary for something to be "encyclopedic" nor do I see how it is necessarily true about this person. Furthermore, such criteria would eliminate many pages which are currently kept, such as city pages. Anthony DiPierro 06:55, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, it's been a long frustrating day of crashes and timeouts, but are you in fact saying that you think personal information that is of no use to the world at large is suitable for an encyclopedia? Bmills 16:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • If it's definitely useful to no one, then it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. But if it might be useful to anyone, then it is suitable for an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 21:41, 2 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)
      • Let's list every single person who has died in Afghanistan. Anthony DiPierro 06:56, 2 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)
    • delete, nonfamous. --Jiang
    • Delete, must surpass some threshold of "famousness". --Fuzheado 07:02, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Remove, but someone keep a copy for if/when "wiki obituaries" gets started. --Carnildo 08:26, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Copy kept at [2]
    • Keep. Clearly verifiable, VERY IMPORTANT individual. Jack 11:53, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. non-encyclopedic. Bmills 11:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, nonfamous. Tannin
    • Delete. Good for m:Wikimorial. --ESP 00:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, like we delete the September 11 people. It's a sad story, but not useful for an encyclopedia. Adam Bishop 04:30, 3 Feb 2004 (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) Now that Sj has de-Michaeled the article, keep.
    • 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)
    • Keep whatever is verifiable and NPOV. Blank the rest. Anthony DiPierro 06:58, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be deleted immediately Bmills 15:36, 2 Feb 2004 (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)
    • Keep, wiki is not paper. Jack 11:53, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Cute. Keep Tannin (I changed my vote)
    • There is indeed a Captain Haddock article. Move content there and delete this. Bmills 15:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You're right, but until Feb 1 20:00 it was just a re-direct page. I agree that the idea to merge the list of swearwords with the article about the character ike9898 16:02, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - the most useful page I've found all week. The Fellowship of the Troll 20:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. "Wiki is not paper" does not imply that "Wikipedia is not encyclopedic." --ESP 00:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It adds value. If it were a list of meaningless words, I could see the rationale for trashing it, but anacoluthon, bashi-bazouk, ectoplasm, and so forth are real words, and this page offers a useful alternative to having to look them up one by one.Vremya 01:14, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. His creativity at swearing is legendary and I've often wished for a list like this! I could also see a link to this from some entry on profanity or euphemisms or similar. Elf 02:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Pull-off - dictionary definition. silsor 21:19, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Instruments can make interesting encyclopedia articles. Anthony DiPierro 07:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • By the way, if this one is going to go there's a whole list of them we should consider as well. Chitarrone and Gadulka are two examples. Anthony DiPierro 07:12, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, even if only a redirect to guitar. --Fuzheado 07:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Guitar techniques. Bmills 11:49, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redirect to guitar technique or something similar. Tannin
    • Keep. I added some more info, so it's not a dicdef any more. We should have some kind of "guitar technique" or something article, but I'm stuck for a name, as the same info applies for lots of fretted and some unfretted string instruments, and it can be dangerous to antagonise a balalaika player:) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:28, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 2

  • Anthony Bergen non notable individual. Seems to be an autobiography. Can't find anything on google, only for other (non notable) people with the same given name. After writing this and the related page KiddChris, he added himself to a list of pimps. Maximus Rex 06:40, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 07:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, individuals are important. Jack 11:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Individuals are important, but not "pimps". We have a list of pimps? That's really urking me. - user:zanimum
    • Delete - agreed - Texture
    • del, nonfamous --Jiang
  • The article, on North Korean human experimentation which I am writing has been nominated for a vote for deletion. I have been given no reason why. I can see nothing about it on this page. I can't answer the argument without knowing the problem. I hope you won't judge the article before its finished. Barbara Shack
    • Keep - but clean up - Should not refer to content of a website but rather report the facts on North Korean human experimentation. - Texture 18:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I think we need to be really careful with this one. The chemical experiments on dogs allegedly happening in Afghanistan were later proved to be propaganda, there are no chemical weapons in Iraq (despite that fact that we were told the contrary). I am not a supporter of the North Korean regieme, but I am a student of cold war propaganda. This seems too much like an attempt to make them out to be Nazis, especially with the current tension with this US regarding weapons of mass destruction. I'd want to be _really_ sure of sources before we spread this one around. Sorry. Secretlondon 19:27, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • French immigration - Contents: "The french immigrated, thus it is called the French Immigration" - Texture 18:48, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Firby - I vote this be deleted as a personal vanity page. I am forever sorry for creating it. I now have a personal website that is better for this sort of thing. - Kenneth Alansson
    • Request moved to VfD and content restored for review - Texture 19:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Texture 19:11, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep? Wtf? I broke Wiki's policy by using it like a homepage and my vanity was spilling in many places. Since I made a vain attempt to reconstruct my genealogy surounding my surname, I believe it is rediculous to keep. Please delete it, and if not, you must allow me to fix it solely, because I fucked it up pretty royally. - Kenneth Alansson
        • Help me understand some things. Is Firby a real place in Yorkshire borough? If so, I don't see any reason to delete an encyclopedic entry about a real place. Also, why are you signing your posts as "Kenneth Alansson" but not signing in as Kenneth Alansson to make your edits? Can we be sure you are Kenneth? (Don't bite at me for being protective of logged in users - just trying to understand.) - Texture 19:40, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see this as vanity - it needs pruning certainly, but it seems to be mainly factual. Secretlondon 19:35, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Right. The IP that made this request (User:68.0.144.217) has only edited today, and only on this topic. User:Kenneth Alansson has not edited since October 03 - but has edited Firby and Furbo. He then went round blanking all his content eg "Stop trolling by reverting my content. I want nothing to do with wikipedia anymore. I am erasing my contributions, and just leave it that way. I hate this fucking site, you are all snobbish twits.". Secretlondon 20:02, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • no...seriously. I fluffed up Wiki with my own stuff and misused Wiki for my own purposes. I don't need to put this here. Anybody who wants to see this can check out Genuki. - Kenneth Alansson & Alansson
  • Furbo - Another vanity page of mine, please delete. I have fluff here too.- Kenneth Alansson
    • Writing about the place you live in isn't vanity. Secretlondon 19:35, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • no...seriously. I fluffed up Wiki with my own stuff and misused Wiki for my own purposes. I don't need to put this here. - Kenneth Alansson & Alansson
        • Firby and Furbo are real places, but irrelevant, since my bit was in genealogical format...- Kenneth Alansson & Alansson
    • Keep - I can't justify deleting an article on a real place - If there are parts that aren't real, can edit out that portion? Could you describe what in it you think is "fluff" so we can fix it? - Texture 22:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 3

  • Time cube another one of those crank theories Archivist 00:42, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • (I assume you really mean Time Cube). See Talk:Time_Cube/Delete. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, as dirty as it makes me feel. It's quackery, but it's famous quackery, and that makes it encyclopedic. Now I think I'm going to go take a shower. →Raul654 02:25, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think we should remove this listing. This article went through VfD not two weeks ago, and there's no reason to suppose opinions will have changed since. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I didn't have to read far to see Ms. Cleo doing my horoscope... - Texture 03:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • DO NOT vote on this entry. Previous discussion is at Talk:Time Cube/Delete. --Jiang 04:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tim Girvin - Looks very much like a vanity page. -戴&#30505sv 01:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • (not voting, yet) Perhaps not. This [3] seems to indicate that Tim Girvin created the logos (& stuff) for lots of famous movies (The Matrix, Apocalypse Now, Braveheart, etc.). So I think he passes the "encyclopedic" test, and I kinda doubt he'd have nothing better to do than create vanity pages. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • update: Yahoo Finance, Puget Sound Business Journal , Retail Traffic (on Bellagio redesign). I can't believe anyone is this good at inventing themselves, so I vote keep, move to cleanup. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:17, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - don't let the above fool you. Yahoo Advertising section, Local section of a business journal, and "Retail traffic" advertising magazine. Any company can show a local paper listing and a couple of companies they advertise through. - Texture 03:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Marie-Rose Gervais - somebody's grandmother? RickK 02:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Put in a good word with God for me, though, will you, Marie-Rose? - Texture 03:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Original Italian Pizza - is this something worth keeping? RickK 03:08, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not the phone book. →Raul654 03:12, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain and leaning towards keep - Chain restaurants seem worthy. Gonna watch the traffic on this one. - Texture 03:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There is no content to be taken as encyclopedic. Is this chain notable for having done anything inventive, anything that was copied. Any trends set? How important is it as a chain? Even the name seems uninspired. Kd4ttc 04:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Good ol' boy network - never would have guessed the title. Vacuum 04:00, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Consider moving to Old boy network or somesuch, which I think is a more common phrase. The concept is real, and the page could give a more broad perspective. It's certainly not localised to the US south. Evercat 04:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - the phenomenon is quite widespread and famous. A better name might be in order. →Raul654 04:07, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid political and social concept. Maybe list on Cleanup for improvement. RickK 05:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ian Keith Malone - Doesn't belong here if Jamie Murphy (soldier) doesn't belong either SD6-Agent 04:57, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a shame to delete it, because it is well written. But, in the end, it is nonencyclopedic, and needs to get the cut. →Raul654 05:12, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. RickK 05:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2289798"