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 Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 8 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 {{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 4


  • 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)
    • The information is not deleted, just moved to another Wikimedia project they are more suitable too. The How-tos are next to go over, after the recipes (which are really just how-tos about food). James, this has been discussed at length at many places, and you seem to be the only one who objects. Gentgeen 11:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub version. Bmills 11:14, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub version. —Psychonaut 14:34, 4 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)
  • 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)


  • 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)
      • Agreed. Merge with Ender's Game and redirect. The Ender's Game article needs some more substance and being out of balance would provoke more people like myself to expand it. : ChrisG 12:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I just don't see how to merge them properly...it would be like merging Middle-earth with The Lord of the Rings. If someone else feels they can do it well, go ahead, but I don't see a way. Meelar 16:42, 8 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 ([6] [7]), 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 [[9]], 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: [10] 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."
  • 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 [11]. 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.
  • 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)
    • Keep. It's not just lyrics, its an analysis (with other facts sprinkled in). - Hephaestos 16:38, 8 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)
    • Keep, interesting article. --Alex S 16:33, 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)
    • Delete or wikisource. Anthony DiPierro 16:49, 8 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)
      • Why shouldn't blank pages be listed on vfd or cleanup (or unblanked directly), instead of taking the extra step of listing here? What is the use? Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 8 Feb 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)
  • 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
  • Wikipedia:List of stubs without msg Page no longer used or updated. -- Graham  :) 23:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • When the server is happier maybe it should be updated. Secretlondon 23:44, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • But now that the {{msg:stub}} tag is more widely known is this page really needed? -- Graham  :) 13:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes because there are still many that haven't got the msg, and it's easier to add now. Secretlondon 15:56, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

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" [12]. 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)
      • Keep. Looks like good work. Secretlondon 15:56, Feb 8, 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
        • Verifiability. Encyclopedic subject. NPOVable topic. Anthony DiPierro 16:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Delete; not notable. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Alchemigram idiosyncratic or made up art term. No google hits not related to wikipedia [13]. Maximus Rex
    • Delete. 0 Google hits is even worse! --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have given this cite over and over and over again. Read the book Surrealist Experiences by Penelope Rosemont. I am getting sick of the ignoring of offline cites followed by the assertion about a lack of online references. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep until cite can be checked. Anthony DiPierro 16:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Jeff Veasey - former owner of a web site - not famous. Secretlondon 11:54, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Former owner of a web site. Famous. Anthony DiPierro 16:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Or does owning website qualify for 15 words of Wikipedia fame? Ianb 16:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bryan 16:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Hephaestos 17:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bethany Massimilla - person who works for CNet. Not famous. Secretlondon 11:55, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Person who works for CNet. Famous. Anthony DiPierro 16:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's known that you believe every person should have a page, whether they're famous or not. So why pretend that this person is famous when that is not the case? Onebyone 17:46, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not pretending. This person is famous. Anthony DiPierro 18:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Or does working for well-known website qualify for 15 words of Wikipedia fame? Ianb 16:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bryan 16:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete. Kosebamse 16:58, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - Hephaestos 17:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I am going to seem crass here, but Carlie Brucia and Samantha Runyon should be deleted. It is terrible that thousands of kids are abducted each year, but this is not the place to document each and everyone of them. Kingturtle 17:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2337127"