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 Anthony (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 4 February 2004. 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 29

  • Erase - dicdef. --Imran 20:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Move to dictionary. Elf 03:02, 3 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)
      • Penny Arcade is a highly popular site for it's kind, for a brief while it even entered Alexa's top 1000 most popular websites. It's also linked to from th e front pages of major sites like Slashdot. --Imran 20:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Keep factually correct information. If it sounds like an advert change it so it reads more pessimistic if you must. BL 17:38, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - snoyes 23:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Website plug. Maximus Rex 01:29, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Keep. BL 17:38, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - snoyes 23:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nickname for person associated with above website. Maximus Rex 01:29, 4 Feb 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
    • Keep. BL 17:38, Feb 3, 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)
    • 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)
    • Merge with Unit 731 and redirect, since the page is about Unit731 anyway. 80.126.238.189 15:23, 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)
  • 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)
      • Keep. Any person with a PC can do better and more detailed "self promotion" on a reputable webpage.
    • 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)
    • This is debate worthy. On one hand we have an article of a young man who is not by any definition of the word encyclopedia worthy. On the other hand, he appears to be admired by peers-- enough so for someone to put thought to link his name with city history-- and who are we to deny a legacy, no matter how seemingly minute. My final vote; Keep it. Sk8r Rex 23:22, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Note: the above user has 5 edits, including 3 to this page. Maximus Rex 01:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - snoyes 23:40, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nothing notable. Maximus Rex 01:37, 4 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)
    • Keep. The term "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. The user who created this may have been banned but it's been altered by others since creation and listing on here anyway... -- Graham  :) 11:05, 3 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 Much improved now. Rename & keep. Tannin 13:02, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 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
    • Delete. - snoyes 23:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)

Before the Hutton report last week I would have said, "This is from the BBC. BBC News has a reputation for accuracy." Today I still feel the Gilligan mistake was atypical and BBC news is usually reliable. You could try contacting Amnesty International and seeing what they think of the article. I will amend it. Barbara shack

  • 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
        • Furby was also a children's gift craze. Vacuum 20:54, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • Delete - There is no official web representation of Firby or Furbo by their towns, and I do not believe it is proper to have these villages online here until those towns do have any data/description officially presented on their websites. Bedale and Malton in North Yorkshire, England, for two Firby villages. Smedjebacken in Bergslagen, Sweden for Furbo. - Kenneth Alansson

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
      • When i posted this i was unaware of a previous debate. BUT I would not be presumtious to instruct people not to vote. This sort of rubish reduces a serious work such as Wikipedia to a laughing stock. If people wish to read and learn they can go to the source we do not need to peddle this muck as well Archivist 19:30, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
        • The archived proposal and subsequent vote was only made last week. I do not see how people's attitudes have changed signficantly in the past week to conclude that the outcome might be different if we voted again.--Jiang 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • There is at least one more delete vote (looks like more) so, yes, it is a different possible outcome. Are you suggesting that once voted an article is immune to any future reviews? A year from now it may be even clearer that this is fiction and should be deleted. We should be ready to review an article when necessary. If it keeps showing up on this page by people who have not reviewed it before it is a clearer indication that more and more people find it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia - Texture 22:15, 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 [2] 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)
      • well, the yahoo finance is about a company in the "advertising" section, not a section of yahoo that takes advertising. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Assuming the guy's webpage is accurate I think he's famous enough to warrant an article. However I think we need outher sources for purposes of verifiablility. --Imran 12:35, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doesn't look like a vanity page. Anthony DiPierro 21:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • From Cleanup: "

Tim Girvin - smelled like a vanity page to me at first and I thought to vfd it, but very soon I changed my mind for some reason. 300-some Google hits. Linked from The Evergreen State College as "notable student and alumni". Girvin's page created by User 166.84.151.94 but the same IP also created the school's page and listed Girvin in it. From IRC: "<Imran> Optim: According to Girvin's own website he was responsible for the design of the electronic version of EB". I have no time to check it more, so someone please do a research and expand the article so that it will explain to the reader why this person is encyclopaedic and why he is important. If you make it vfd-proof, you win a wikicookie :) if u see that this person is not important, vfd it. Optim 01:13, 2 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)
    • Keep - Snapshot of 20th century Canadian woman Vfp15 06:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Why does this anonymous user's signature link to User and not to a real user's page? RickK 05:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • He's the author of the article in question, as well. →Raul654 05:28, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, I am the author, had a typo in my sig (sorry) and the article is interesting to some people. It is not nonsense, and is currently an orphan, though I can imagine an entry for Villa Maria girls' school linking to it. Vfp15 06:24, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, nonfamous.--Jiang
    • delete. --Imran 12:35, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC).
    • Delete not an encyclopedia subject. Bmills 12:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep assuming verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 21:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Why?
        • Why not?
    • Delete. - snoyes 22:55, 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)
    • delete, agree with above.--Jiang
    • Delete: not encyclopedic. Bmills 12:41, 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)
    • Keep but move to Old Boy Network. Moncrief 06:04, 3 Feb 2004
    • Keep with the current title - "Old Boy Newtork" does not mean anything in the contemporary southern dialect. Hcheney 21:00, 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)
    • Remove, but someone keep a copy for if/when "wiki obituaries" gets started. --Carnildo 07:25, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, nonfamous. --Jiang
    • keep, wikipedia is not paper. Vfp15 06:24, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete not encyclopedic. Bmills 12:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. While there are simliarities with the Jamie Murphy (soldier) article I don't think they should be treated in the same way. We don't need to have a black and white rule regarding whether every set of people should be included. Ian Malone is different from Jamie Murphy, for example, in that he was the first Irish fatality of the conflict. It is also difficult for us to judge the effect that similar events have on different nations, it's entirely possible that Ireland was more affected by this than Canada was by the death of Jamie Murphy. In a more general sense, an event which happens in say, the US, may be considered much more minor by the US population than it would be by the Welsh population if the same event happened in Wales. We can't have one set of rules governing everything as different groups of people will find different things important. So I think this article should stay. I should probably also mention that I found this article genuinely interesting, there is well researched information on his childhood/life/death/funeral, including reference to the fact that politicians from different parties attended the funeral, a quite rare example of Irish politicians putting aside their differences for a short period. I just think it would be a shame to lose this considering some of the inane rubbish which is happily kept on here. -- Ams80 20:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Jamie Murphy (soldier) does belong here. Anthony DiPierro 21:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Why do they belong here but the victims of 9/11 do not? What makes either of them an encyclopedia article? Why can't I list my grandfather, who fought in WWI or my father, who fought in WWII?RickK 02:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • The victims of 9/11 do belong here. What makes them encyclopedic is that they are people. You can list your grandfather, but please include references on the talk page which make it easy to verify the information you provide. Anthony DiPierro 02:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Biggus dickus - A page dedicated to a character in the Movie Monty Python's "Life of Brian". I'm a fan of Monty Python but does there really need to be a page on this guy? Neilinoz
    • There's pages on other characters in films/books/etc... Dysprosia 12:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This poll should be removed as there was no reason given for deletion. Anthony DiPierro 21:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Atlantis (brothel) - I already deleted a link to a porn site from this page. It is an article about a Brothel in Germany, indicating how much money prostitutes will pay for certain acts. There is no new information about Brothels or sexual acts. It seems to exist as some form of advertisement. Neilinoz
    • Delete ad. Bmills 12:41, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete ad. - Texture 16:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep non-ad. - Anthony DiPierro 21:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not everyday you see an ad for a brothel. Sweet. Sadly, it's gotta go. →Raul654 21:21, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • It is as neutral and complete a description of the brothel as I could produce. The place is well-known and has repeatedly been covered in German media. Wikipedia has several other articles about brothels and red light districts. "deleted link to a porn site" -- it was a link to the brothel's home page; I can live with the link's deletion. "no new information about Brothels" -- it has a lot of new information about this particular brothel, as well as some new information about other German brothels and prostitution in Germany in general. "or sexual acts" -- an article about a brothel should not be deleted because it doesn't contain new information about sexual acts. See also the article's Talk page. AxelBoldt 01:58, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • One hundred twenty-seven - junk - text: One hundred and twenty seven equals ten if you follows the pataphysical way of considering the numbers. If instead you are more likely to be an adept of the conspiracy theory this number is the cardinality of the set of 'them'. - Texture 19:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I deleted it. There's no point in discussing it, it's just a waste of people's time. -- Ams80 19:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You shouldn't have deleted it. I recreated it as a redirect to one hundred twenty. Anthony DiPierro
      • Readded VfD tag - We don't need every number between 1 and infinity as redirects. I can't even figure out why we need One hundred twenty. - Creating this as a redirect just junks up Wikipedia with useless entries. - Texture 21:26, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I reverted you. 1) you blanked the redirect part. 2) redirects are put on redirects for deletion. 3) redirects aren't supposed to have the vfd tag added to them. Also see Talk:List_of_numbers/Deletion for your comment about one hundred twenty. I actually agree with you that we shouldn't have one hundred twenty, but as long as we do, we should have this redirect. Anthony DiPierro 22:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I reverted you. This was on VfD prior to your redirect so the discussion should be completed before you take unilateral action. Thus, you are reverted and the original page remains on VfD for review. If you choose to reapply the redirect, please move this discussion to RfD instead of avoiding discussion. - Texture 22:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • The original page was already deleted. Anthony DiPierro 22:22, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • Isn't it wrong to create a page that was listed for deletion and deleted? You just bypassed an admin and a vote to recreate it. - Texture 22:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • No, there was nothing wrong with what I did. Anthony DiPierro 22:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • Personally I'm not bothered about whether an article called One hundred twenty-seven exists in itself or re-directs elsewhere. I was just attempting to save people the wasted time of the page going thorough here when its content is patent nonsense. Out of interest I don't think the redirect to One Hundred Twenty is that great as, at least on my screen, most of the page is actually about 120 and the other numbers aren't mentioned until I scroll down. Perhaps an index at the top might make things clearer. -- Ams80 00:38, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) (P.S. Anthony, I signed your name on the '***You shouldn't have deleted it. I recreated it as a redirect to one hundred twenty. ' comment as I think it makes the conversation clearer.)

February 4

  • Ryan Pamplin and RCAM Games. A kid's autobiography and his video game "company". It's not even accurate (perhaps a joke?), let alone verifiable. Ryan gets 6 Google hits and his company gets 4. Maximus Rex 00:23, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Google hits aren't everything. It is verifiable. Inaccuracies should be fixed. Anthony DiPierro 00:57, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • How is it verifiable? Maximus Rex 01:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Which part? That Rick Pamplin has a son named Ryan? How about this: [3] Anthony DiPierro 01:08, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Anthony, your fetish about keeping anything and everything is becoming an obsession. Why does this person deserve to be kept? What are your criteria for removing a self-promotion page? RickK 02:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2296928"