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 Angela (talk | contribs) at 10:35, 8 February 2004 (Old boy network kept). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Community Information page

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 {{subst: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 30



February 3

  • 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)
        • They can be distinguished from individual September 11 victims by their effect on the countries concerned. Individual September 11 victims do not raise the same political questions as the first combatants to die in a conflict, who always provide an opportunity for the political opposition to further oppostiion to the situation. It's not so much about the individual as about the situation. Jamesday 11:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to sep11wiki which will become Wikimorial in the next month or two. --mav
    • Delete. The person wasn't particularly notable before his death, and the fact that he joined thousands of other non-notables upon his demise doesn't make him encyclopaedic. Shall we also have individual articles for every soldier killed during WWII? Psychonaut 14:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but keep a copy for when a wiki obituary is started. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikimorial. Speaking of which, is that getting off the ground soon? --Delirium 00:18, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep both this and Jamie Murphy (soldier), the first casualties from each country in the operation concerned and hence the ones which test the political will and mood of the country to continue participating. These aren't solely personal obituaries and are more significant politically than articles on things like single ships or small units. Wikimemorial may want a personal memorial article which doesn't also cover the significance in context. Jamesday 11:34, 7 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)
    • Keep. Andrewa 05:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Psychonaut 14:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Montey Python is culturally significant. BTW there is no deletion notice on the page. The Fellowship of the Troll 20:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge w/ Life of Brian. Not a big enough character (despite his name)to deserve a separate page. +sj+
    • Keep. A hilarious part of the movie. Has a photo, a rare treat on Wikipedia, and has a great link to Roman naming conventions. Kd4ttc 03:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge or delete. Flobster 00:49, 8 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)
      • I change my vote. Subsequent comments have said it is famous, and (assuming that to be correct) that would make it encyclopedic. But the article should say that it is famous - omitting such an important "detail" is a major flaw in the article. →Raul654 21:47, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • Saying it's famous would be POV. Anthony DiPierro 21:40, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Would you say that Madonna's fame is POV? Or George W. Bush?. - Texture 21:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • No. I wouldn't. Anthony DiPierro 22:46, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • The term famous is POV, simply because of this question: Is Madonna famous or is she infamous? Kingturtle 22:48, 7 Feb 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)
    • Keep(!). The article is perfectly good (NPOV, not ad-ey), the only question is whether it's "famous". I'm willing to take Axel's word on that. Axel: if it's famous, the article should say it's famous, and I think it should cite a couple of said mentions in the media. Oh, and find some scandal: it won't read like encomium if there's some dope or a corpse or two. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The article should not say it's famous. That would be POV. Anthony DiPierro 02:39, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep! The article is pure information. Information is power. That's what wikipedia stands for.
    • I don't see any ad at all - and if you do, remove the part you consider an ad, and don't delete the article. MJanich
    • Keep! Great article. Shows how a brothel works in the EU. --mav 10:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - I've changed my mind because my original post was based on ignorance of the facts and not checking the past contributions of the author. I still think it needs to be a more general article though. See Talk page.

Neilinoz (UTC)

    • Keep, though it's probably longer than it needs to be considering it's just a medium-sized business. Psychonaut 14:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • indicating how much money prostitutes will pay for certain acts - hey they pay you? This must be most popular brother in the world, and thus keep. More seriously: keep, reasonable enough article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The Fellowship of the Troll 04:32, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I recently needed economic data on brothel behaviour for a serious academic article, and found there is almost none because of the semi-subterranean nature of the activity. Also the issue of foreign nationals working in the EU sex industry is socially and politically important. Much of the "information" around all issues to do with the sex industry is highly POV (and not just from one POV either). This article looks like a useful and objective summary. seglea 20:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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: [1] 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)
        • I don't vote to keep everything. Look above. I've ignored a lot of the pages and I've even voted to delete others. My criteria are verifiability, encyclopedic topic, and ability to make NPOV. Companies and people are encyclopedic topics. This person is verifiable, and the page is currently NPOV. And I don't even think it's a self-promotion page. Anthony DiPierro 02:31, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • "'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV" - Jimbo, on Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls
          • What makes an article about someone who has done nothing of importance except die encyclopedic? RickK 03:29, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • It's about a person. People are encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 20:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • What's the point of arguing this over and over again? Everyone knows exactly what the point of contention is - on the terms of Jimbo and Anthony DiPierro it's irrelevant that someone has done nothing important, or whether they would rate so much as a local newspaper article, let alone a paper encyclopedia article. On their terms, Wikipedia should consist mostly of articles on unimportant subjects. On your terms it shouldn't. This point is not open to consensus, debate or negotiation. Onebyone 10:22, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not notable. Tempshill 05:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:05, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete w:Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Bmills 09:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. —Psychonaut 14:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete w:Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Prawn 00:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rob Barton - non-famous, non-notable, & uninformative. Google revealed no further information. There are 14,107 middle schools in the United State, so being an American middle school principal is hardly encyclopedic. Hcheney 03:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If we're going to allow an article about every school that has ever existed, why not an article on every principal who ever served there? RickK 03:29, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Why not teachers too? And we can't forget teacher's assistants, coaches, school nurses, and custodians. For that matter, we need to also include retired teachers and staff. And the construction workers, contractors, and engineers that build the school should also be receive individual Wikipedia articles. Maybe this information belong in some wiki, but not an encyclopedic wiki. Hcheney 03:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not notable. Tempshill 05:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:05, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete w:Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Bmills 09:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. —Psychonaut 14:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Did anyone stop to check the page it links to, First Baptist Church of Jacksonville. First of all, the whole faculty had their names [[]], which I'm getting rid of right now, which led me to sway more towards "delete". But this school/church has raised a heck of a lot of First Baptist Church of Jacksonville#Controversy in the past couple years, segregating, using the church for blue law prohibition, and hightening Islamophobia in the area. I'm going to look into him right now, he might be ripe picking for an article. -- user:zanimum
      • As it turns out, nothing on him in particular. But the fact remains, no Wikipedian took the time to do a background check, to see what else can be dug up on the subject. Just one click would give you the notarity of this school/church, and hint it might be worth a second glance, hint that he's not just from your average American school. In the end, there was nothing to be found, but you can't win the lottery if you don't enter. -- user:zanimum
        • Alternative take: people looked, found nothing, voted delete. Bmills 15:47, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Did they? Why didn't they say that they did then, to give backup to their delete? - user:zanimum
        • I did do a preliminary background check on him (and for the record, I was the one that added the controversy section) - and nothing came up for "Rob Barton". After doing a further google search on "Robert Barton" and "Bob Barton" I came up an article on his business person's Thrusday lunch bible study and a webpage he wrote on Youth Worker Culture. After doing a search on the local newspaper's site I found he wrote a letter to the editor opposing a new amphitheater because it might attract "Snoopy Doggy Dogg and Korn". I may add some content to the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville article in regards to his letter, but otherwise, he's just another principal and just a staffer of a controversial church. The only famous staffers of the church are Jerry Vines and maybe the deceased Homer Lindsay. --Hcheney 18:02, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • Truthmaker. Is this a valid philosophical concept? RickK 03:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes. Keep, maybe list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, though it actually looks fairly good. --No-One Jones (talk) 07:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well written explanation of the concept even if any non-philosopher would consider it an obvious tautology. Rossami 23:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well-written and not in need of immediate attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • L-5. Nothing but a photo. RickK 03:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep! There it is in all its glory! The Gibson L-5! I added a couple of lines and a stub notice. There's a book available about the L5. I think it can grow into a good article. Tempshill 05:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks like it could grow. Keep. Meelar 05:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: it's beautiful. I'm sure there is a lot to be said for this kind of guitar. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:05, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unsure. There are many hundreds of guitar models at least as significant as this one, eg the Gibson SG, Les Paul, Flying V, Explorer, Firebird, Artiste and SG twin-neck models are all individually at least as famous as this one, perhaps more so (but we probably won't ever get a photo of the Artiste!). See also the photo of my Shergold Modulator 12 and Magnetone TB36/12 guitars in the 12 string guitar article. Are we going to have articles on all of these? If not, perhaps this should be merged into the Gibson article. On the other hand, IMO the Fender precision bass, stratocaster and telecaster models do deserve separate articles, as do a couple of Rickenbacker models and some Gibsons. The content should be saved, certainly. Agree with the recent rename to Gibson L-5. Perhaps we should have a list of famous guitar models to index such articles. Andrewa 19:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looks like an ok stub to me, might grow. But shouldn't it be moved to Gibson L5? (Where did that dash come from?) Lupo 22:42, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cooking a turkey - recipe, has been m:transwikied to wikibooks. Gentgeen 03:38, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. See How-to for the Wikipedia project this is part of. Having a related wiki covering a topic in more depth is not a reason for deleting all material on the subject from this project - the projects are independent, not distributed together, particularly in print. Jamesday 13:08, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Atlantium - irrelevant "micronation". --Wik 05:05, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; agree. Most of the google hits, incidentally, refer to a TV show or a city in a Might and Magic game, not this silliness. Tempshill 05:16, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)\
    • They claim over a thousand members and have recognizable stances. The article is moderately well-written (certainly not patent nonsense). Some of the towns from Rambot actually have less population. I'm forced to say keep. Meelar 05:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • They can claim a lot, but it's not verifiable. --Wik 05:28, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless this is particularly well-known (ie people in Sydney have heard of these people) then delete. Secretlondon 08:44, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't wish to vote on this one, but if it helps I do live in Sydney (since 1958) and have never heard of them except through Wikipedia articles. Andrewa 09:31, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Strongely oppose deletion. This page has been salvaged by a good many longstanding and respected Wikipedians over the last year. --mav 10:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If the topic is irrelevant, there is nothing to salvage. --Wik 19:19, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. It may be small but it is not unverifiable see this article in a major british newspaper and [2][3][4] theresa knott 13:08, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Some of the information in the article might be unverifiable, and should thus be deleted, but I think the article per se should be kept. See these sources. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see how any of this verifies the claim of 1,000 members, and a sizable membership would be the only thing that could justify an article on this. One of your links is a copy of the Wikipedia article Micronation, where Gene Poole himself added his nonsense. Another is merely an internet directory. And the Guardian surely has not verified the membership of Atlantium; it is mentioned within a larger article about micronations, and the information given is likely just based on a web search and maybe a brief telephone interview with Cruickshank. See Andrewa's comment above showing that even a longtime Sydney resident has never heard of this. It is of no relevance and the membership is unverifiable, therefore it has to be deleted. --Wik 19:19, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. —Psychonaut 14:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I find it interesting. -- Cyan 22:03, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Relevant verifiable micronation. Has more citizens than Sealand. Anthony DiPierro 23:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Gene Poole It appears that Wik has issues with the fact that I have chosen to challenge his/her repeated vandalisations of the "micronations" article over recent days, and has chosen to engage in some sort of half-arsed vendetta in consequence. The current attempted article deletion is an obvious consequence of this malicious, uninformed and outright vexatious attitude. Needless to say, more than ample physical evidence exists to verify all claims made by Atlantium and its administration that are not affected by privacy considerations. These include on-site video coverage by such international media organisations as Reuters and TV Deutsche Welle, in addition to a raft of print media articles - all of which are in the public domain. In summary, I encourage Wik to either put up or shut up.
      • Gene Poole had the audacity to put his "Atlantium" fiction on a list of "serious aspirant states" together with Palestine; my "vandalisations" consisted in removing it from that list. If there is "ample physical evidence" it's up to him to show it. --Wik 05:47, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gene Poole The increasingly shrill blatherings of Wik on this subject are a clear illustration of this individual's inability to maintain anything approaching an informed or rational viewpoint. Atlantium is obviously not a fiction, no matter how often Wik attempts to devalue it by making that patently false claim. It is a real entity comprised of real people - many of whose photographs, names, addresses and telephone numbers are listed - along with a large volume of other entirey verifiable data - squarely in the public domain. The fact that Wik cannot be bothered to do any serious research (sorry but a Google word search doesn't qualify) - even when provided with appropriate leads - speaks volumes concerning his/her real agenda - namely, to rubbish the efforts of those whose personal attitudes he/she disagrees with.
    • Chill out, Imperator. As for everyone else, I think it is worth mentioning semi-serious endeavours with real histories and extended followers -- they are definitely encyclopedic, although might be culled from a paper 'pedia. See for instance Pi Day or even Yellow Pig Day (but see its VfD entry below) or the Scottish streaker who crossed the pond to hit the Superbowl. But I do think that all Atlantium content [bios of its Emperor, list of its cabinet, refs to its policies] should be on a single page, reflecting its size and small history. And I don't think it should show up in any list other than a "micronations" list which explains that most of these political entities are recognized only by other micronations, if at all. +sj+ 03:28, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
    • Delete: irrelevant. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - we could all invent micronations in our bedrooms. Secretlondon 23:47, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • William Kelly (Politician) - Non-famous, unverifiable, not a politician. The only reference I could find is this: [10], which doesn't mention any "assassination", an event that should be in the news if it happened. Minesweeper 09:36, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I added VfD note. Bmills 10:03, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. —Psychonaut 14:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Verifiable. Famous. A politician. Anthony DiPierro 00:00, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. But if Anthony gets his way, can I write a vanity article about myself? Unlike Mr. Kelly, I was a politician that actually stood for public office. Hcheney 20:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Pardon my sarcasm)
        • Can you verify it? Anthony DiPierro 21:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Pardon my seriousness)
          • Anthony, you said above "Verifiable. Famous." Well then, did you find something more on him? For me, the info is not verifiable. Lupo 00:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • Something more? I don't remember. But the news article linked above verifies that there is a William Kelly who was chairman of the Campus Republicans at UM-Flint. Some of the information is not verifiable, of course. But some of the Al Gore information is not verifiable as well. That doesn't mean we should delete Al Gore. Just that we should remove the non-verifiable information. Anthony DiPierro 21:04, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • If you haven't noticed, Anthony is a troll who votes Keep on everything. --Wik 19:30, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
              • Actually, if you've noticed, I'm not a troll and I don't vote Keep on everything. I simply have a higher standard for deletion. Unproven accusations of vanity or non-famousness don't cut it. Anthony DiPierro 21:04, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the author adds corroborating external and verifiable sources. I searched far and wide, and found many far more noteworthy William Kellys, but nothing on this one. Incidentally, I suspect the info in the article might confuse him with his father, see [11]: ("Kelly, William Osmund of Flint, Genesee County, Mich. Mayor of Flint, Mich., 1940-44. Presumed deceased.") Lupo 00:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Umm, did you even read the link? " But William Kelly Jr., chairman of the Campus Republicans at UM-Flint, said fairness is the fundamental issue." The first three sentences are clearly verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 21:10, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: unverifiable, not famous. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 19:30, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Arthur T. Murray, AI4U, Mind-1.1 are all vanity articles. Arthur T. Murray is widely regarded as a crank, troll, and spammer on Usenet. He has been adding numerous articles on and references to himself and his own vanity-published book to Wikipedia. There is no evidence that any AI researcher in academia considers his work to be valid, let alone famous. Please see Talk:Artificial_intelligence for further details. —Psychonaut 11:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If he's widely known on usenet then he's famous. Keep ATM. No vote on the others. Anthony DiPierro 11:20, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • He's not widely known on Usenet. He's widely regarded among those who happen to know him or come across his writings as a kook. Anyway, normally I wouldn't object to keeping the article on ATM himself, but keep in mind that he has and (if it is not deleted) will likely continue to repeatedly edit the article so that it misrepresents him in an overwhelmingly positive light. —Psychonaut 14:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • at which point he can be banned. Just because pages are commonly vandalized doesn't mean we should delete them. Anthony DiPierro 23:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • You cannot ban Arthur T. Murray. He has access to accounts on at least a dozen different ISPs with dynamic IPs. He apparently has no qualms about cracking systems or purchasing and dialling up to remote accounts in order to cover his tracks. Do a Google Groups search for articles by him and be astounded at the range of originating hosts. —Psychonaut 10:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • So he'd do all this to modify a page but not to add one? Anthony DiPierro 11:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 14:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. theresa knott 15:17, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Self-promotion by a not-famous crank. No-One Jones (talk) 15:20, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Mr. Murray -- I assume it's him -- posted a lengthy rant about this on my talk page. Though his knowledge of Latin is impressive, as are his flames against Psychonaut, I still think this should be deleted; Arthur Murray does not appear to be recognized as an AI researcher anywhere outside his own mind. Besides, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --No-One Jones (talk) 19:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 18:11, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lupo 22:42, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. →Raul654 00:54, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete AI4U and Mind 1.1, but I'm ambivalent about the Arthur T. Murray article - sometimes crackpots are interesting, but this particular one doesn't seem to be. Bryan 02:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all Arthur T. Murray pages: he's a crank, but not entertaining enough to keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • APCOR - sub-stub --Hemanshu 17:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Could theoretically become a useful article, cork from Portugal is fairly important, economically and enologically speaking. --Dante Alighieri 18:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • APCOR is an incredibly controversial figure in the world of wine, spending millions to promote Portuguese cork over any and all alternatives. They also contribute to research that attempts to eliminate cork taint. Keep this stub, please.
    • Keep the stub it now is. Jamesday 13:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Liberal Party (Egypt) - a copy and pasted article about Israel from another liberal party. Secretlondon 20:22, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Has been stubbed by now. Keep stub. Lupo 00:57, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Mistubishi companies - mispelled Mitsubishi - nothing in it but an external link that I moved to Mitsubishi - Texture 22:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Am working on Mitsubishi Keiretsu and need the page. Thanks. :) Christopher Mahan 01:27, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Can we delete the misspelled redirect and you keep the Mitsubishi companies that is correctly spelled? - Texture 15:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Do not delete misspelling redirects, please. Reason #2 on Wikipedia:Redirect for what do we use redirects for? is misspellings. Kingturtle 03:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Spy network - content: Belle Boyd was a Confederate spy. She was known to be outspoken about it, especially to reporters. " - page on Belle Boyd already exists - Texture 23:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I deleted this one, but battle school could be reworked... unlikely, but... ugen64 23:15, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Battle school - content: "Battle School in the book Ender's Game was a military school in space where child geniuses were sent to train them for a war with the formics. " - Texture 23:09, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. As much as I love that book, this topic will never deserve its own page. Rossami 23:32, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Ender's Game and redirect. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 00:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Rossami's logic but disgaree with his assessment. It is famous enough to warrant an article, but the question is whether or not there is enough article-worthy material to write about. I think there is. →Raul654 00:36, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Looks good now. Keep! →Raul654 07:25, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I rewrote the page; it should now be a legitimate encyclopedia article. Keepm, though you might want to check over this; it's been years since I read the book. Meelar 05:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Much better content (and your memory is excellent). Thinking about it further and comparing it to the Ender's Game page (which by comparison is a bit thin), I now recommend merge and redirect.Rossami 13:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Holy crap! I didn't realize that the ender's game article was so paultry. I will beef it up tonight or tomorrow. I might even have to ask Sarah (a friend of mine who teaches a course on Ender's Game at Berkeley) →Raul654 21:09, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
        • I'd have to say I disagree; reading the entry for Ender's Game, I think the two articles are sufficiently separate to justify two separate entries. Keep, IMHO. Meelar 17:11, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Ender's Game and redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 5

  • Lord Eidolon -- has anyone heard of this? It seems to be no more than the product of an anonymous user's imagination. No-One Jones (talk) 00:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Google is your friend. Keep. No vote. Anthony DiPierro 00:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • 66 hits on a search for "Lord Eidolon", most of them from two websites ([12] [13]), which contain descriptions quite unlike that in the article. 225 hits for a search on eidolon + occultism, all of which are talking about eidolon (Greek for "image") in a very different sense. How about a link or two? --No-One Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • You got the link correct. What makes you think this isn't describing the same character? Anthony DiPierro 01:15, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, I don't know, how about this: Lord Eidolon describes a 20th-century mythical figure, supposedly a reincarnation of Cronus, who has the attributes of a dying and rising god; the pages linked, on the other hand, describe a 240th-century science fiction character, apparently some sort of space captain. That's what made me think that they have no similarities beyond the title (not that it's relevant; see two entries down). No-One Jones (talk) 01:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • The seem to be the same. However, you're also right that they seem to be all derived from one person's drug induced fantasies, so I withdrew my vote. Anthony DiPierro 11:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 03:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 14:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- The Anome 14:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Nacelle - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Dominus 03:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article has great potential for Star Trek applications. -Branddobbe 03:44, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article has no potential for Star Trek applications any more than other generic terms such as hull, bridge, and torpedo. Articles on warp drive nacelles can go under warp drive. Psychonaut 10:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and expand. In addition to the relevance to Star Trek (to which I'm biased), nacelles exist in real life and there's probably a lot to say about them. I will do some research on them and add what I find to the article. ShutterBugTrekker 22:00, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Much more could be said, on topics other than star trek. moink 22:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I added a magazine, a dinghy term, and a explaination in terms of dirigbles. -- user:zanimum


    • from Daryl Clark "Clark as Johnson always carries a potato and boxes people 1930s style outside of pubs" sounds completely phony. Delete all. (surprised some of these have been around so long) Maximus Rex 06:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems there is really a "Red China Magazine" see [[15]], but you have to search 紅色中國 in google. But I don't know whether it is famous enough within China. wshun 06:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; nonsense/vanity. Psychonaut 10:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Red China Magazine, That these entries do not link to specific sites I take issue with. Although I do not find this site to be a forum for esoterica, I can also state that many things found on wikipedia I cannot find elsewhere using google. As the writer of some of these articles, and the ex-husband of another person interesting in compiling information surrounding this art-group, I must say that most of Smith's/LaBier's/Clark's work, including the magazine, have been published by vanity presses or organizations since folded. The first time I came across Smith's work was in St. Mark's bookstore on the consignment shelf. There was no record of prior printings (copyright expired?), but I know for a fact that The Light Flood (published or possibly reprinted this year), which was given me by an old prof, was printed once before in 1970. Thus I find Smith, LaBier, and, to a lesser extent, their linking partners, to be relevant. Thanks are given to Clark, Johnson in Stockholm Evenings, a work published of Smith that I believe, but have not factually confirmed, was published by Hauser prior to the two's parting ways. For my final argument that these topics are worthwhile, I should direct all concientious voters to both pigironmalt.com and Poetry Motel, magazines where Smith has published once if not several times per. Ocean City: Poems and Artwork is available for sale on amazon.com (and several other sites) as well. However, it is listed as a first printing. All of my letters to the vanity press have yet to be answered, although all I ask for is that I be forwarded to the executors of the work courtesy of the press. If anyone else has info regarding these artists, please come forward. Otherwise, I should go about my cataloguing of their lives elsewhere. I vote that they remain available to the public via this publicly upheld site. Please do not delete. Jon500
    • Can you point to a single website that mentions these people? RickK 04:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Mathematical problem - just a one-line dictionary definition, no history and no scope for much expansion that I can think of right now. Bryan 06:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • rather amorphous and vague, ditto the expansion thing. Delete Dysprosia 06:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. wshun 07:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 15:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Higgs' Laws someone's personal law? Gets 6 google hits: [16] Maximus Rex 06:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; vanity article. Besides which, the first and third "laws" are simply incorrect. Data transmission protocols (e.g., 56K modems) are often engineered on the hardware level such that upstream bandwidth is narrower than downstream bandwidth. And there were (and possibly still are) jurisdictions where copyright is perpetual. Psychonaut 10:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Simon Higgs. Then let's come back and discuss that page. Bmills 14:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - If it gets to stay then I get to write an article on Texture's Law.... :) - Texture 15:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Now that I'd vote to keep. Bmills 15:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia:No original research Anthony DiPierro 22:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Vrapciste - What is this? -- user:zanimum
    • A village in Montenegro. The text is copied from here. I'm going to post it on possible copyvios. Bmills 16:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


February 6

  • Greater Prussia "Greater Prussia is a term which may be used to refer to Brandenburg-Prussia, The Kingdom of Prussia and the subsequent Republic of Prussia as one continuous entity. The term is artificial. It may also be used to refer to the Kingdom of Prussia at its greatest extent."
  • 01-02, 01-03, 01-04, 01-05, 01-06, 01-07, 01-08, 01-09 etc. etc. etc.. These pages are redirects to dates, but they are ambiguous. For most people outside of the USA 01-02 means 1 February, but it redirects to 2 January. Mintguy (T) 00:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The deletion of these were already approved, but then someone threw a fit. Maximus Rex 00:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I missed the discussion. Who threw a fit and why?, would they throw a fit if I made 01-02 redirect to 1 February? Mintguy (T) 01:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • This post from Angela on my talk page summarizes what happened. Maximus Rex 01:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If your problem is that they're ambiguous turn them into disambiguation pages. Of course, I don't see why we need them in the first place. No vote. Anthony DiPierro 01:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • These can be deleted right away if someone is willing. See my sandbox for a list. I was going to delete these at some point, but never got around to it. Here is a summary of votes from when these were last listed here back in November. As you can see, most of the votes were to delete, but then we waited until a software solution was implemented, which it was some time ago. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#ISO_8601_date_format for other discussion. --Minesweeper 03:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; too ambiguous to be useful, nor even deserving of a disambiguation page. Psychonaut 10:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I proposed the original deletion, and support it now. I didn't realise that it hadn't happened yet. The original creator didn't seem to realise that the notation was ambiguous. The pages that originally used them have been rewritten. Now only two user pages and VfD reference them. We don't have to wait for the new code; deleting them now will be no detriment to Wikipedia. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep 01-07. It isn't solely a date. It's apparently the name of a computer virus as well, presumably named after one version of the date on which it was discovered or activates. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wha River created by a user with a history of making fictional entries. 0 Google hits. Maximus Rex 00:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all of SmartBee's fiction. RickK 02:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Then put that user under a hard ban. Denelson83 03:12, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Nobody is allowed to ban anybody anymore. RickK 03:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Well that's plain stupid. IMHO, if someone persistenly adds blatantly false information to Wikipedia, then (s)he needs to get banned, regardless of whether (s)he has also contributed true information. →Raul654 03:52, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bans can be enforced by Jimbo still, I believe. Bmills 12:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Lap joint. There is no there there. RickK 02:03, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added a a brief description of Lap Joints, it is a woodworking term and refered it to the appropriate article. Probabaly OK now. I have no idea what the original article was about. ping 08:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I have added the VfD tag. Original was a link that threw up a drawing of a cross lap. Bmills 10:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Now a valid stub.
    • Keep now. And can we have the link to the drawing back, please (or can someone photograph one)?
  • Brockwell Lido Pointless. Right? --Alex S 02:09, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote. I added VfD tag to the article. I have mixed feelings. Maybe this could lead to an article on the British Lido phenomena? Bmills 12:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I doubt it. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I can write an article on Brockwell Park Lido. Secretlondon 22:13, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not that hard to write an article about a public pool with some history. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Quebecois Separation Referendum 2004. This sounds like a lie to me. I have not heard anything about this at all. --Denelson83 03:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Created by SmartBee, all of whose work is questionable. RickK 03:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless someone can find a citation. Nothing on CTV news recently about a proposed referendum. Psychonaut 10:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I haven't heard anything about this either, and I live in Quebec. Delete. --No-One Jones (talk) 10:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and refer to Wha River discussion just up the page. Bmills 12:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • With the Liberals in power in Quebec, this is just fantasy (and anyway if would be 'Quebec separation' not 'Quebecois separation'). Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Swag. Wiktionary. Angela. 08:00, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fuzheado 08:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Wiktionary. Bmills 09:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; Wiktionary. Psychonaut 10:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to cannabis. Keep as disambiguation page. Anthony DiPierro 21:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't know the meaning relating to cannabis, but anyway there are several different meanings for this word so that would be a poor redirect (swag = a thief's booty, a garland, a lurch/swagger, a subsidence, a shop, the bundle of belongings carried by transients, a large quantity, a trifling object) fabiform | talk 03:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • From dictionary.com, "Herbal tea in a plastic sandwich bag sold as marijuana to an unsuspecting customer." Anthony DiPierro 03:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as the disambiguation page the above discussion shows it needs to be. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Multiple definitions are still definitions. Point the links to Wiktionary and readers can just as easily find out the different defintions there. Rossami 04:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Astraphobia substub. Astraphobia is fear of thunder and lighting. It is especially common in young children. It is the the List of phobias By precedent, candidate for speedy deletion, unless someone writes more. Mikkalai 08:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not that substubby, though maybe it can be put somewhere more usefl. Dysprosia 08:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to List of phobias and merge, unless this phobia is in some way noteworthy. --No-One Jones (talk) 10:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Discutant - improve and -> wiktionary Mikkalai 08:58, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This was prematurely deleted, presumably because of the lack of a VfD tag. I undeleted it and added the vfd tag so it can sit here until due process expires and it's deleted. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Steve Labelle - 105 google hits; if we dont know this guy, then delete --Jiang 09:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Bmills 09:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Appears to be a vanity article; he seems a bit young to be famous, especially considering his profession (disc jockey).
    • Keep. Not vanity. Anthony DiPierro 21:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - snoyes 22:15, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. 105 google hits is generous: if you search for "Steve Labelle" and DJ (his claimed area of success) you get 2 hits, neither of which seem to be him. Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yellow Pig Day- Google's already indexed it, and various users of Wikipedia content have already copied it to their databases, but it was just created minutes ago. All reference on the net seem to be to our content, or to bloggish sites. - user:zanimum
    • Not a vote (yet) Hours ago, actually. It seems to be something of a private joke (see here). Can the author please step forward and explain? Bmills 13:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only two google hits, and neither provides any clue as to what this is. Fuzheado 17:22, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be an Amherst College thing [17]. Hmm, but hcssim is Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics (and note the yellow pig on the top of the page). I'd say merge somewhere and redirect. But I'm not sure where yet. Keep. List on cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 21:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • More here. You really only got two google hits? You didn't do a very good search. Anthony DiPierro 22:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This was already deleted 21:41, Oct 30, 2003 Angela deleted "Yellow Pig Day" (listed on vfd for 5 days; all real votes to delete) Maximus Rex 22:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The original was actually better. Apparently this is more popular than we thought. Anthony DiPierro 22:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Or the originators are more persistent than some about reposting an in-joke. I vote to delete. Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm the more recent author. Sorry to cause trouble; didn't realize it had been here before; was browsing the deletion-policy-discussion page, saw the paragraph below, and [as YPD is a real verifiable day, and people really do throw parties on July 17 or, occasionally, travel across the country to celebrate it in Amherst] thought to add it. I would be happy for it to be a) merged with a page on yellow pigs [which, as a phenomenon, are apparently far more widespread than I should like to believe], and b) added to a list of "Days" as recommended by Maximus; is there such a list? +sj+ 03:01, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
  Day Pages: MrJones asked whether there should be a policy on whether 
  pages about days (Pi Day, Yellow Pig Day etc) are allowed and whether there 
  ought to be a separate wiki for them. Maximus Rex explained that such pages 
  are kept if they concern real verifiable days, and felt a separate wiki for 
  them may not be useful. He suggested merging them into one page.
    • Keep verifiable day pages like this. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Paul Wiegert - Appears to be patent nonsense. Found via the "random page" link. Only link is from 3753 Cruithne (which might help explain part of this garbled message's intent). -- Dan Carlson 14:10, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • It was posted to the reference desk about 4 days ago. It has no place in an article. I'm deleting. →Raul654 14:12, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've undeleted this to follow due process, because it appeared here first. Please list things like this at Wikipedia:deleted test instead of here. Jamesday
  • Du Hast -- This page is just the lyrics to a song. Is there a precedent about lyrics? There's already discussion about whether this is copyright violation or not. Is it necessary to say that Wikipedia is not a lyrics database? - DropDeadGorgias 16:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The lyrics are ambiguous which is interesting. I think I could make an article on the song because it was also brought up in colombine. Secretlondon 22:13, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Individual songs are a perfectly acceptable topic for an article. The only problem is that reproducing the whole text is ofen not considered fair use, so one has to be a bit careful. - snoyes 22:25, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. But this is more than just lyrics. Right now it seems to be on the borderline between fair use and copyright infringement. But that can easily be cleaned up. Keep. List on cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 22:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Agreed that Wikipedia is not a lyrics database - looks like it was cleaned up as a good start of an article with reasonable fair use. - Texture 22:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - It's an interesting piece of lit crit. -- ChrisO 01:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It does reproduce the whole text, though it isn't an exact transcript (doesn't repeat the text when the song repeats the lyrics). However, I think the side-by-side comparison of the various versions, one of which is our own literal translation, puts it firmly in the context of scholarly criticism. --Delirium 00:33, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • WIkisource? Mikkalai 01:25, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep here as an interesting article. It's not a copyright infringement - it's a transformative use (discussion, not musical work) and is well within the normal criticism and comment fair use range. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chimalman - This is an Aztec goddess, but Nina? This is less a Vfd, but a clean-up notice. The original mentioned her favourite colours, even. -- user:zanimum
  • Hobbit-lasses - I can't find this as a hyphenated word anywhere on the internet. I think it is two words that are not the exclusive term for female Hobbits and the list of links can be moved to Hobbit - Texture 17:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Content has been moved, and this is now a redirect with no links to it. Vote to delete. -- The Anome 19:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Habiru - dubious?
    • The article or the content? Hapiru (the alternate spelling) gets many legitimate google hits. I see some discussion about the contents but I'm not sure why you list it for deletion. - Texture 19:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The page is well written, plausible, but patent nonsense; I suspect that's why it is here. Hapiru was the Assyrian name for the Hebrews, which makes me suspect some kind of suspect agenda is at work here. The referenced site at the bottom seems to go on about flying saucers and the Urantia Book. (The truth, by contrast, is found in Oahspe.) -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:02, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • That link was put in by User:Wetman possibly as an attempt to sabbotage. I request the history page is looked at. The topic Habiru is well worthy of a wiki entry why delete? Why not just edit it or re-write it? At least I made an attempt to put something there even if it is considered wrong by those without enough conviction in their own knowledge to edit it. It is a pity some people vdf every time they cannot think how to edit. Must be from terrible insecurity and an act of acknowledgment on their behalf of their self limitations.Zestauferov 14:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, it is nonsense, like all the other articles created by User:Zestauferov; judging by his user page, he seems to be pushing our buttons. Adam Bishop 21:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. As others have said, "Habiru" is a real word, and possibly related to "Hebrew", but this article is full of utter nonsense. Josh Cherry 00:08, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Owlish fantasy. Delete Wetman 14:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bollocks - delete and move to Wiktionary? - Texture 19:39, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed Wiktionary, but before we move it we'd better correct it - at the moment it is a load of self-reference; it has the secondary meaning of "Rubbish" in every variety of English known to me.
    • Also the canine variety has the opposite meaning. Secretlondon 22:13, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • shouldn't bollocks redirect to testicle? Kingturtle 08:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as the disambiguation page the above discussion shows is appropriate. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Can't hurt. Anthony DiPierro 12:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks more like a Wiktionary entry to me. Definition(s) and usage. No real encyclopedic content. Links to the page probably should be redirected to testicles. Rossami 04:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • The House On The Hill (poem) - This is more a clean-up request. The article had a vfd notice attached on 18 Dec 2003, then spent some time in the copyvio quarantine and when it got out on 23 Dec 2003 it kept the vfd header, but wasn't deleted. A christmas present? Anyway, it's the source of a poem. Delete or wikisource or just remove the vfd header? Lupo 21:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and move to wikisource - Texture 21:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikisource unless drastically cleaned up in the next few days. Anthony DiPierro 12:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The Passionate Shepherd to His Love - delete and move to wikisource - Texture 21:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This poem is important and deserves an article. Change to a discussion of the poem and keep. moink 21:51, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • rewritten as stub. text now in wikisource.-- Decumanus 03:51, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Kp. Cavalier poets, right? If i can recall that much abt a poem, it's significant. --Jerzy 03:56, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
    • Keep - it's a good article now. - Texture 01:41, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I have been through the List of phobias and while there are some phobias listed that are very common and have some decent articles written about them, the following appear to be little more than definitions and I dispute whether they need to exist separately: Anglophobia, Athazagoraphobia, Automysophobia, Bathmophobia, Clinophobia, Hoplophobia, Onomatophobia, Paraskavedekatriaphobia. -- Graham  :) 23:16, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - these are basic dictionary definitions and not articles - Texture 23:28, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Let them expand when somebody who knows about them finds them. Everything starts as somewhat of a dictionary definition, but I doubt many dictionaries have those in them - Fizscy46 23:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Replacement by redirects will do the same. Mikkalai 01:18, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect or keep. Anthony DiPierro 12:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep them all, some perhaps as redirects. Keep and expand Hoplophobia beyond the rewrite I just did - it's a fake phobia, part of the US firearms debate, not a real phobia. Jamesday 16:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 7

  • Marxist-Leninist government. See the talk page.
    • Funny thing; both articles: this and Communist state are almost of the same age; many active authors edited both of them, and nobody noticed that both are basically about the same ?!! Mikkalai
    • Keep. This needs to be hashed out more before anything can be done. Anthony DiPierro 12:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This does not seem to be a request to delete. The discussion should go on its talk page on whether and how to merge.--Jiang 12:48, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Shouldn't ever have been listed here. Andrewa 19:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Shaheen Lakhan was written by his obvious sock puppet and is again self promotion.--Jiang 01:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not written by his obvious sock puppet and is not self-promotion. Anthony DiPierro 12:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Refer to the page history and look at his userpage. Notice any similarities? Do you not find the contribution history of User:SOmai suspicious? --Jiang
    • Delete. Written by his obvious sock puppet and again self promotion. --Wik 19:30, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I just reverted the edits on [Shaheen Lakhan] by User:Kuhn3, who came here to vote keep, but had his comments reverted because he got caught in an edit conflict and didn't bother to merge. Another sock puppet by the same user. Click on "what links here". The degree of self promotion this user is putting in WP is disturbing.--Jiang
  • Oeconomicus source dump, doesn't say anything about subject or the variable spelling thereof. Onebyone 01:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Copyvio. The original page [Ancient History Sourcebook] specifically states:
    • This text is part of the Internet Ancient History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
    • Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No representation is made about texts which are linked off-site, although in most cases these are also public domain. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
    • © Paul Halsall, August 1998 halsall@murray.fordham.edu
    • Mikkalai 01:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Independent of the merits of the listed article, material in the public domain cannot be "re-copyrighted" simply by putting it into electronic form. Translation copyrights are a different matter. We can and should safely ignore any claims of copyright to public domain content.—Eloquence 03:29, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • This is a public domain work. The original text dates from 370BCE and this translation is from a work published in 1912-1913. The scan from that work doesn't create a new work in US law because it involves no creativity. Jamesday 16:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of lifestyles - (also "alternative lifestyles") - a seemingly random list of unconnected things, inlcuding, among others, adoption, bisexuality, Baha'i, Atkins diet, wealth and single parenting. The article is wildly non-NPOV, and its factual accuracy is disputed (also by me). Serves no obvious purpose. Delete.
    • So far, the factual accuracy has only (not also) been disputed by Exploding Boy. Secondly, this list was put on VfD last October and then removed again (but I was unable to retrieve that discussion). There must be a reason for it being removed again. It's the old problem: Whenever someone discovers a page the whole procedure may start all over again. Thirdly, how can anyone be so strict and draw conclusions from unfinished sentences? Keep. <KF> 04:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What I meant was that in addition to listing the article for deletion I have also disputed its factual accuracy. Sorry, don't understand your third point; could you clarify? Exploding Boy
    • I'll do that on the talk page. <KF>
    • Delete. Seems like it's inherently POV as to what goes in such a list. Since I doubt the list is particuarly useful, it's more trouble than it's worth so get rid of it. ShaneKing 10:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Surely we can define lifestyles in an NPOV way. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 12:26, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Penelope Rosemont - Self promotion? At the very least the link for buying books needs to go. --Dante Alighieri 06:55, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not self promotion. Anthony DiPierro 12:30, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are 17 (seventeen!) pages that link to this article, including Wikipedia:Most Wanted Articles. <KF> 16:47, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Fine by me, the ad is gone and it seems to be a real article. I withdraw my request for deletion. --Dante Alighieri 22:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I've just removed the VfD notice but not the above entry (just for the record). <KF> 23:30, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Release Part 1,2 & 3 ambiguous title, almost no content --Jiang 09:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Blackalicious and delete (we don't need the history, as it's public domain information). Anthony DiPierro 12:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Creature --> wiktionary Mikkalai 09:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Allow to grow. Anthony DiPierro 12:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Can this ever go beyond a dicdef? I vote delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good subject, good stub. Just BTW, I'll add the VfD notice. Andrewa 19:47, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I feel really bad about this one. She's not an encyclopedia subject, but she certainly deserves to be remembered somewhere. Wikimorial and delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This was already listed in VfD back in May, 2003 (see Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell). I supported deletion, but there were not enough votes to delete. Kingturtle 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:List of blank pages - an empty list Anthony DiPierro 16:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Would've been great if it was just a completely empty page, but sadly, no.Exploding Boy 16:26, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's linked to from a lot of places. Just because it isn't currently up to date doesn't mean it will never be. It's a useful page. Angela. 10:03, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)


  • Sordidnym - As far as I can tell this is a made up word. I can't see any reference to it on the web except in sites that have copied Wikipedia content. -- Ams80 16:29, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, same reasons as above. -Branddobbe 20:20, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • All subpages of User:Xuepiao, User:Wanli2 and User:Wanli. A precedent should not be set that people can use subpages for storing whatever they like. Both Wanli2 and Xuepiao seem to be using the space as stores for research on University/school projects. Both hardly ever contribute to Wikipedia other than these subpages. Both have also ignored questions on their talk pages as to whether these pages are of any use to the project. Wanli was banned long ago and I see little reason to keep these pages (I would assume, though I could be wrong, that Wanli=Wanli2 which may be evn more reason to delete the pages of Wanli2). -- Ams80 17:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • (Out of interest, is it possible to list the sub pages of a user, maybe I'm being dim but I can't see any way to.)
    • A database query gives the result below. -- User:Docu
  • Wanli2/Fourteen
  • Wanli2/Fourty
  • Wanli2/Fourtyeight
  • Wanli2/Fourtyfive
  • Wanli2/Fourtyfour
  • Wanli2/Fourtynine
  • Wanli2/Fourtyone
  • Wanli2/Fourtyseven
  • Wanli2/Fourtysix
    		•
  • Wanli2/Six
  • Wanli2/Sixteen
  • Wanli2/Sixty
  • Wanli2/Sixtyeight
  • Wanli2/Sixtyfive
  • Wanli2/Sixtyfour
  • Wanli2/Sixtynine
  • Wanli2/Sixtyone
  • Wanli2/Sixtyseven
  • Wanli2/Sixtysix
  • Wanli2/Sixtythree
  • Wanli2/Sixtytwo
  • Wanli2/Ten
  • Wanli2/Thirteen
  • Wanli2/Thirty
  • Wanli2/Thirtyeight
  • Wanli2/Thirtyfive
  • Wanli2/Thirtyfour
  • Wanli2/Thirtynine
  • Wanli2/Thirtyone
  • Wanli2/Thirtyseven
  • Wanli2/Thirtysix
  • Wanli2/Thirtythree
  • Wanli2/Thirtytwo
  • Wanli2/Three
    		•
  • Wanli2/Turkey
  • Wanli2/Turkish
  • Wanli2/Twelve
  • Wanli2/Twenty
  • Wanli2/Twentyeight
  • Wanli2/Twentyfive
  • Wanli2/Twentyfour
  • Wanli2/Twentynine
  • Wanli2/Twentyone
  • Wanli2/Twentyseven
  • Wanli2/Twentysix
  • Wanli2/Twentythree
  • Wanli2/Twentytwo
  • Wanli2/Two
  • Wanli2/Uzbek
  • Wanli2/Vlach
  • Wanli2/guestworker
  • Xuepiao/Zapgnow
  • Xuepiao/bed
  • Xuepiao/gau
  • Xuepiao/gnow
  • Xuepiao/izap
  • Xuepiao/izapek
  • Xuepiao/lak
  • Xuepiao/no
    		•
  • Xuepiao/sa
  • Xuepiao/sazap
  • Xuepiao/si
  • Xuepiao/zap
  • Xuepiao/zapbed
  • Xuepiao/zapek
  • Xuepiao/zapgau
  • Xuepiao/zapi
  • Xuepiao/zaplak
  • Xuepiao/zapsa
  • Xuepiao/zapsi
  • Xuepiao/zapzed
  • Xuepiao/zed
  • Xuepiao/zek


    • delete all. some are also copyright violations. --Jiang
    • The pages somehow remind of User:GrandVoivodOfErdely's. If someone has time to look at them. -- User:Docu
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Five
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Four
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/FrEn
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/French
    		•
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Italian
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/One
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Portuguese
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Seven
    		•
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Six
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Three
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Two
  • GrandVoivodOfErdely/Weird


    • Alien artefacts This material is thoroughly covered and more easily findable at any of the establish "Alien visitation"-type entries. Delete Wetman 17:22, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep as a redirect to one of those established "alien visitation"-type entries. Onebyone 19:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete misspelled and redundant page; at least convert to redirect. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Del; mv'ed info to Erich von Däniken's bio. JDR

    February 8

    • Wikipedia:Miniseries of Wikicivics - well I am not sure the purpose of this page. At present, it is just a collection of links. Besides, what are miniseries? wikicivics?? -- Taku 02:25, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • The name is just a play on words. A short series of pages...a miniseries...looks like "ministries". "Civics" is "The branch of political science that deals with civic affairs and the rights and duties of citizens" [18]. Hence "wikicivics." This page is one in a hierarchy or directory of pages....part of Metadirectory project I just started. Give it a shot. I've been here a long time and I still have an impossible time finding things. I think we desparately need something like this at least.168...|...Talk 02:44, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Its title, while clever, is far from intuitive -- but that can be fixed easily enough; its content is also partially redundant with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, but it has a far superior organizational structure. Keep and retitle -- a guide like this is much easier to navigate and absorb than a monolithic wall like policies and guidelines. --No-One Jones (talk) 02:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • And Wikipedia:Miniseries of Style and Operations. Another nonintutitve title with little purpose. RickK 03:00, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Taku who nominated it is going around by hims self and removing all the headers that lead back to the directories, even before anybody votes for deletion. Anybody care to help me protect them?168...|...Talk 03:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Kendall Bruns subject only has 344 google hits (wikipedia no. 3), looks like self promotion. --Jiang 02:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Subject has 344 google hits. Doesn't look like self-promotion. Anthony DiPierro 03:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • My name registers 30000 google hits (probably none really referring to me). What's the threshold for inclusion? --Jiang
      • Delete. Looks like self-promotion. --Wik 03:33, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete, self-promotion/vanity. Maximus Rex 04:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Ditto with Anthony. --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Ambivalent. This is about as grey-area as it gets. Not famous, but not totally obscure. My instinct says that he himself probably created the page. This is a hard call to make. →Raul654 09:05, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Talk:Gundam Wing - this is the English wikipedia. Created by same user who dumped a whole bunch a crap (subpages listed above) --Jiang 02:34, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Fisher's Deduction no google hits, by same person as parson. Sennheiser! 03:58, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. seems made up. Maximus Rex 04:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. 0 Google hits is even worse! --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Same as Parson's razor, above. Delete. Kosebamse 09:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Alchemigram idiosyncratic or made up art term. No google hits not related to wikipedia [19]. Maximus Rex
      • Delete. 0 Google hits is even worse! --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2334520"