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 TY~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 17 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please see the talk page for an edit conflict announcement from orthogonal

Template:Communitypage 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 -- images -- personal subpages -- redirects -- Wikipedia:Cleanup -- translations

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


February 7

NOTE TO ADMINS: This article (Sarah Marple-Cantrell) was up for VfD in May 2003 and survived. Before deleting, please review the deletion policy. I can't find anything on the policy regarding re-nominated articles. Can article be renominated? I think deletion of this article should be delayed until an already written policy on this issue can be found or we can come up with a fair policy. Kingturtle 00:34, 17 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)
    • Not encyclopaedic - are we to have a page on every kid who's ever comitted suicide? What makes Sarah different? Delete. (Also support move to Wikimemorial) PMC 23:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Isomorphic 01:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Twelve year old shooting herself with a firearm. Kinda spectacular. Enough for the news, enough for WP. See the that page's talk page for more argumentation. BL 03:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikimemorial and delete.--Jiang
    • move to wikimemorial and delete. Davodd 09:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikimemorial and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 12

  • Culture of Turkey - mostly some POV rambles, not much worthwhile info there. Dori | Talk 03:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete.Bmills 13:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. An article being bad isn't a reason to delete. There should clearly be an article at this name. Improve, don't delete. Isomorphic 01:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There is culture in turkey. Keep. BL 04:27, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Move to clean up list. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete if not improved by Feb 19. --Jiang
    • Merge back into Turkey -- not enough yet for a sep. article. Davodd 09:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Qibla al-Qudsiyya. Can anybody find any proof of the existence of these people other than a site that gets its information from Wikipedia? RickK 04:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can confirm the existence of some Jews of Medina who converted to Islam in 622, but not under this name or any variant Romanizations thereof -- and I find no evidence whatsoever that they formed a distinct sect of Islam. I don't know; it seems like an odd thing to make up, so defer for now. --No-One Jones (talk) 05:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How to make Biodiesel Not an encylopaedic subject. Wikibooks? Bmills 12:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic subject. Anthony DiPierro 14:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to appropriate location unless it is updated to be more than the mere recipe it is now. - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • m:transwiki this and all how-tos to wikibooks. Gentgeen 14:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikibooks and delete. --Jiang
    • Delete -keep, put under Biodiesel.or make sure to link to from biodiesel. This is an extemely relevant item for present day and historical existence. sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ars (no giggling at the back, please) Dictionary def of a Latin word. Bmills 13:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: a word with a lot of peculiar uses. Not many Latin words deserve WP articles; this is one of them. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 13

  • Formula fiction — Substub, dictionary definition (and not a particularly good one). There could be a good article about formula fiction, but this one has shown no signs of becoming one; it has not changed since Jan. 2003. Dpbsmith 00:23, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub. Anthony DiPierro 00:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect and merge with Genre fiction, which already covers similar territory more thoroughly. Smerdis of Tlön 02:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why wouldn't it be good in the future? BL 04:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have tried to expand this, and distinguish it from genre fiction. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • "Formula fiction" and "genre fiction" are still not quite right. Might be heading in right direction. Elf 20:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's improving. Keep. Karada 23:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Won't this always be an essay? How could this become an encyclopedia reoprt? All genres have formulas. A good Wikipedia entry would identify formulas in genres, under each genre. Wetman 23:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Recent edits are going in the right direction. "Beatniks Wandering the Midwest" -- hey, wait a minute! I resemble that comment! Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • Michael Moore and US foreign policy - irredeemable POV. Secretlondon 09:22, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Put anything of value in Bowling for Columbine before deleting. theresa knott 11:02, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The current version of the page does not strike me as overly POV, but the content seems to belong more properly directly in Bowling for Columbine (which is not yet so large an article that the two can't be combined). This page title is wrong for the topic, though. Merge then delete. Rossami 14:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - POV - Texture 14:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. HectorRodriguez 23:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge back into state terrorism and redirect. The list is cited and attributed, which makes it NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 06:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into state terrorism and delete. Politics is (are?) important, the connection with Michael Moore is not. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) (new vote below)
      • "merge into article and delete is not a valid option (except for public domain text) because it destroys the information on authorship of the content." Wikipedia:Deletion policy
        • Agreed, if we merge we should redirect rather than delete. -- VV 06:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Just for context: I created this article after pulling it out of state terrorism because Moore's random (fictitious) list had no place there, both because it does not on the whole pertain to terrorism at all, and his long list of opinions is not suitable encyclopedic material for a subject as broad as state terrorism, belonging instead under some "Michael Moore" head. Thus, this article was a compromise to keep it at all. I agree it is worthless and should be destroyed, but anyone else who favors this should also propose how to keep the peace after doing so. -- VV 10:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete See my case at Talk:Michael Moore and US foreign policy. 172 12:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into Bowling for Columbine and redirect. 172 has made a very convincing case. --No-One Jones 12:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into a Michael Moore page and redirect. I agree with 172. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • OmniVoid while this looks sensible, even professional, it gets exactly zero google hits, which it not what you expect from a new network protocol that has any reasonable chance of being used. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - added VfD message on page - delete unless someone can provide a single link or reference to provie its existence. - Texture 18:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. You know, I'd say this article is a worthy candidate for Still more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Denelson83 19:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Either "original research" or a prank. Dpbsmith 20:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looked unlikely when I first mentioned it on cleanup. Elf 20:40, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's no RFC for it or any other standards track, looks like original research. Jor
      • Note that lack of entry on a a standards track is insufficent reason for deletion - see, for example BitTorrent Syntax
    • Delete. "OmniVoid is going to be ... " -> Original research. Once it's written, the author can try to get a page again. Syntax 01:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:56, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • St Gregorys - fictional. The third largest channel island is either Sark or Alderney. There is no St Gregory's. Secretlondon 19:38, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless perhaps we're in an alternate universe? Sounds believable, dunnit! Elf 20:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • He does mention it is volcanic, so maybe it just rose up out of the depts… Get rid of it. Jor 21:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fictional. Googling "Svenby" turns up no tourist information. Dpbsmith 23:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think I recognise the writing style of a previous troll. Karada 23:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 14

  • Bhookay_bhedhiye - looks like nonsense to me Brian Rock 03:37, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense. RickK 04:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - looks like a gaming group of friends trying to make themselves a page. - Texture 16:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ditto. Elf 22:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing links here, some private club's page. Jacob1207 22:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Happy Birthday, Cookie Monster--nonfamous children's book, can't grow past what's here. Meelar 06:55, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Add infomation either to Seaseme Street or create a new article about books based on Seaseme Street then redirect. Saul Taylor 13:53, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No content on page (just title & year of publication). Jacob1207 22:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: content free. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Check it out now, I've expanded it a fair bit. -- user:zanimum


  • Probability and statistics and ProbabilityAndStatistics and Probability and Statistics Fairly useless orphans. Davodd 09:05, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Hmm. I was in a "Probability and statistics" class at three different universities so in my mind the phrase always goes together. (As it says on the page.) Although at the moment nothing links to them, it seems probable that something will, and then the pages would reappear. But I'm not violently opposed to deletion. Elf 22:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If deleted it would be recreated. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Toz Looks like self-promotion Lee M 14:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - vanity/promotion/lame request for attention OR identity theft attack as a joke or malicious attempt to spam someone. - Texture 16:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. WTF is an "identity theft attack?" Anthony DiPierro 17:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Pretend to be someone you don't like... go on the web as them and post their real life phone number, email address, ICQ/Instant Messenger address, postal address, etc... then either request people to contact the person you pretend to be or make inflamatory posts to create a flood of resonses to the person you are pretending to be. It is a common way to attack spammers. - Texture 17:45, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • What crazy terms you kids have these days. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oxford Revelation Rock-Gospel Choir Looks like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. The group in question is hardly important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article anyway. G-Man 16:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 17:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It may be verifiable but that doesn't mean it warrants an encyclopedia article. Are we to have an article about every obscure gospel choir G-Man 18:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Checking their web site, looks like one of a zillion small casual choirs. Elf 22:57, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 05:29, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Novatianism - dictionary definition. should be moved to wiktionary - Mark 15:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 17:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep/rewrite to stub; looks like could be an interesting topic. Elf 22:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep/rewrite - An important and influential schism. Mkmcconn 22:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Changed from a dictionary entry, to a brief stub. Mkmcconn 23:04, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: informative. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC
    • Have another look. It's getting better. Wetman 06:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC))
  • Ashley marie - 15-year old's vanity page - Texture 17:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Predict Anthony's vote: "Verifiable and Famous. Keep" →Raul654 18:09, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not just move it to a user page? I've done that before (whether they wanted me to or not :)) Adam Bishop 18:14, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to user page and delete. Davodd 18:37, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Newbie mistake. Maximus Rex 22:29, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Jacob1207 22:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rampant Mouse - promotion of website - Texture 18:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting website, might buy a sword or two from them. But delete the article, it has no place here. -- Graham  :) 19:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Promotion of website. Elf 22:23, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Persection of Muslims - A misspelling that's a redirect to the correct spelling; nothing links to it. Elf 22:01, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Jacob1207 22:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why delete? It's not getting in the way, and it may be useful if someone misspells. Nothing should link to this kind of redirect. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 03:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tank top a little nonsensical, not very informative Dysprosia 23:42, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs work, but keep. RadicalBender 00:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Needs a picture... any idea where to find a copyright-free picture of a tank top?
      • Here?
    • Keep. Needs work, but is informative. Davodd 02:32, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Articles on types of garments are valid. Cedars 05:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - its much better now: originally I was talking about this version Dysprosia 05:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 15

  • Predestination (Calvinism). This page is essentially a polemic against the doctrine rather than an imformative definition of it. Regardless of my opinion of the doctrine, i would expect as a researcher, to find a posiotive definition of the doctrine with links to arguments against it. notsnhoj
    • Should probably be listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup, not here. RickK 04:56, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The article was created with a practical purpose in mind, which has since been satisfied. Its essay form probably qualifies it for deletion. However, it was written more than a year ago, and has been linked from several other articles. Rewriting may be a less messy route. Mkmcconn 07:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, this should not be here. Sam Spade 15:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but truncate to a near-stub. The article topic is highly appropriate. The two opening quotations from Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith are a good start for such an article. But even the sentences introducing quotations need to be rewritten to remove the POV stuff about "bluntness." The rest is very non-neutral, and is "original research." I am strongly tempted to rewrite the opening "The doctrine of predestination, as formulated by Calvin, is: 'Predestination [etc.]' It appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith in this form: "By the decree [etc]." and move ALL the rest of it to the Talk page. The above would then constitute the entire article (until the time that someone more knowledgable about Calvinism than I should choose to add to it). Dpbsmith 00:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Sounds good, do it. Andrewa 02:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)



  • Bakta -- prank article by some students probably. See its talk page for more. Jay 11:10, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, Complete nonsense. None of the 'philosophers' can be found with google nor in the 'Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy'.Andries 17:31, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree with Andries -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Gag-O-Rama - a not very famous web-comic. - SimonP 15:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, not important enough. -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not verifiable. No original research. Anthony DiPierro 20:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Diego Marani - hopelessly POV. Each sentence portrays Marani and Europanto as an attack on Esperanto and Esperantists. I really can't see anything in there to salvage except "Diego Marani...is the inventor of...Europanto". At least part of the article looks like it was created by one of the parties involved in the edit war at Europanto. --cprompt 17:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Billy Dee Williams - Vanity page. --cprompt 17:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, certainly not famous -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Famous enough to have 8 odd pages linking to him [1], assuming it's the same person. Mintguy (T) 18:25, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is the same person. --cprompt 19:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Billy Dee Williams played Lando in Star Wars. The birth dates are the same. silsor 19:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I rewrote this into a page on the Star Wars actor; I think the previous version was about someone entirely different. Should be fine now, keep. Meelar 20:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Because of Meelar's edit, I withdraw my request to delete. Keep. --cprompt 00:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. If for no other reason, the famous Colt 45 Malt Liquor commercials. Fuzheado 07:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the bio of this star of Brian's Song, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Batman (1989 movie). Davodd 18:53, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Zarraffa's Coffee - little more than an advert. Is this actually well known in Australia? -- Ams80 18:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More than an advert. Anthony DiPierro 20:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. I removed what I thought made it, "like an advert," so now it's less like an advert but more like a stub. (I considered removing the silly sentence explaining that it sells coffee). I see no compelling reason to keep it but no harm in keeping it. Dpbsmith 01:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Odd, the corporate website is strangely silent on matters such as annual revenue, number of stores, etc. It was founded by someone from Seattle, by the way. The article was created by an anon who has contributed two substantial articles on Education in Australia and HECS. Dpbsmith 01:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know if Zarraffa's is famous, but I know of it. I think many people living in Brisbane would be aware of it. So I think it's fine to keep. ShaneKing 02:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of Sony products - are we going to have a (incomplete, and never likely to be complete) product catalogue for every manufacturer? -- Ams80 18:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not? We are building an incomplete, and never likely to be complete encyclopaedia. Mintguy (T) 18:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to another namespace or keep. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 18:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I created this article for the purpose of being able to write an article about the printer listed there, without having to make it an orphan. I suppose I could have looked for/created a list of computer printer models. But if the list is deleted, the article would become an orphan. —Vespristiano 19:47, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
      • And that article deserves to be deleted as well.
        • What's wrong with it? —Vespristiano 03:45, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • There's a List of IBM products too. If IBM's ok, then Sony's ok. Agree with Mintguy that incompleteness is not a criteria for deletion. Jay 08:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment - Could this could be altered to a list of important/notable Sony products, such as the Walkman, Playstation, Betamax, Aibo? Linking to only products worthy of further discussion. Average Earthman 20:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: hopeless maintenance problem. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rheta Grimsley Johnson - orphan, non article, short story -- Infrogmation 20:57, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - either original work, copvio, or vanity page - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a press release. Press on and release it from Wiki. Delete orthogonal 10:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 16

  • all subpages of Aozora Bunko (e.g.Aozora Bunko: A) -- index of another site. they don't make sense. TY 08:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete these index pages. A maintenance nightmare anyway. Users are better off visiting the Aozora Bunko website directly. Lupo 13:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, this is a useful index for stimulating articles in English on classic works of Japanese literature. Keep. -- The Anome 13:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete subpages, keep Aozora Bunko. "Maintenance nightmare" is right! Let people be stimulated by visiting the Aozora Bunko website. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Enemy Within from the article: '"The Enemy Within" is the named used, in leiu of a better alternative, for the unnamed pilot episode for the American continuation of "Doctor Who"' (and the series wasn't picked up). A page for every failed pilot? I know that Dr. Who is a cult favorite, but really. orthogonal 09:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm not a huge Dr Who fan, but this sort of info is interesting and useful. It's not just a failed pilot, it's a failed attempt to take a popular British show to America. That to me makes it a worthy entry, as it's not like it's just some obscure show that didn't make it, but something people would want to find out about. That said, the article itself needs work. ShaneKing 12:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Has a bunch of good info it'd be a shame to waste. zandperl 19:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • William Kelly, Sr. (politician). Just a one-liner duplicating the info given in the extlink. Seems to be not noteworthy at all. (I had thought the creator of that article wanted to flesh it out, but apparently not...) Delete. Lupo 12:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This seems to be a cleanup request, rather than a deletion request. Anthony DiPierro 15:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Mayors of major cities are encyclopedic. Sure, it's a stub, but that's a cleanup problem. Meelar 22:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Hm. Not a vote (I already voted), but some clarifications: 1 Googlit, which is the "Political Graveyard" extlink, and the "Sr." part not verified (it's only an assumption that he might be the father of the William Kelly, Jr. whose article got deleted last week), and the extlink for "Mayors of Flint" at Flint, Michigan giving access to this info, and the entirely unhelpful "presumed dead", and not linked in Wikipedia except from a disambig page, and you want to keep it? <Shakes head> Lupo 07:01, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Future Voyeur - do we need info on every single porn flick out there?? Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we don't. Delete. No useful content. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • yes we do. Keep. 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Create a list of porn films and move these stubby one-or-two-sentence articles into it. Dpbsmith 23:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • KEEP. It is a real movie. A user created it. I am sorry if you don't like the content. We can't go picking and choosing what content gets included. Please read closely what falls under the rules of deletion. Kingturtle 00:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Deleting porn films and not other films is POV. RickK 01:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to clean-up and wait a while to see if anything is made of all these porn articles. - SimonP 02:05, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Electric Blue 28 - unmoral article, contains reference to unnatural love. Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Morality is not an issue. Nevertheless, delete: no useful content. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. you keep stupid lists and you want delete movie articles? 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Create a list of porn films and move these stubby one-or-two-sentence articles into it. Dpbsmith 23:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • KEEP. We are not the moral police. We are an encyclopedia. Please review what can and cannot be deleted. Kingturtle 00:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Deleting porn films and not other films is POV. RickK 01:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Deleting insignificant films is NPOV. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. (Ditto for other porn movie entries.) I figure if IMDB [1] lists it then it certainly counts as a "real" movie, and if we're going to discuss movies here then we can't pick and choose. But of course the choice of words is subject to edit for our expected and preferred audience just like any other article. (Oddly enough, IMDB didn't find these titles when I searched, but it *did* find Traci Lords and listed these titles in her page. Huh.) Elf 02:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • Pact with the devil - dictionary definition - and arguably inaccurate - example given: "cum swallowing in 1700s" - Are we really to believe there is any documented proof of this claim? - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not a pornopedia. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs serious help, but is article-worthy -- something examining the various legends regarding pacts with the devil could certainly be written. Keep. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • keep 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Contains nothing worth saving. Quoth Google: "Your search - "Pact with the devil" "cum swallowing" - did not match any documents." Also historically misplaces the notion of witchcraft as a pact with the devil in the "dark ages" (a deprecated term) rather than the more topically applicable (though apparently cum swallowing) 1700s. - Nunh-huh 03:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • old school gangster - do we really need this?
    • I don't think so—for me, it's close to being nonsense. Delete. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --cprompt 15:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition. Anthony DiPierro 17:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Institutionalism - I'm not sure if this is an original work or a copyright violation but there are clear cut-and-paste errors. - Texture 17:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Creating user has blanked page, so this is probably ready for deletion - Texture 17:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Also appears to be a copyvio. - snoyes 17:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Resort. This belongs in Wiktionary. Denelson83 17:49, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wait. 8:42 minutes after creation it's on VfD?! Give it time, most great novels weren't written overnight. zandperl 19:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Um...I believe this could be expanded into a real encyclopedia article. I just don't have the time to work on it, particularly as I'm not fully knowledgeable on it. If nobody can come up with something, I think it'd make more sense to redirect it to hotel. --Johnleemk 08:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • What Would Brian Boitano Do? - Anthony irrelevance. --Wik 17:52, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Somewhat well-known and of marginal significance, but enough to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this but put the info back in WWJD where it was originally. The song doesn't deserve its own article, but then this article wouldn't have been created if someone (bet you can't guess who) hadn't been reverting the WWJD article. Isomorphic 18:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Agree with Daniel, plus this is a stub which can be improved. Anthony DiPierro 18:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • My vote was deleted. Please don't delete votes that aren't yours. RadicalBender 20:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Old vote:
    • Merge with the Music heading of South Park. RadicalBender 18:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose [i.e., Keep], until some reason is given for its deletion. Dandrake 19:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wik only listed it here because Anthony created it, and Wik is on a war against Anthony. RickK 19:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • But then we should probably question why Anthony created it...the content should probably be moved to the South Park movie article, and then WWBBD redirected there. Adam Bishop 20:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and merge with South Park music section - it won't expand since it only exists in the content of that one movie. - Texture 22:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • KEEP. The song is real. A user created it. The content does not break any violations. Many wikipedia articles are about songs: I Drove All Night, Good King Wenceslas, Puff the Magic Dragon to name but a few. Kingturtle 00:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. As mentioned, songs are valid article subjects. ShaneKing 00:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, songs can be encyclopedic. Meelar 04:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep it. It exists, mildly famous, good enough for me. -- Jake 06:52, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Scotchtoberfest - doesn't merit its own article IMO. Dori | Talk 18:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but needs cleaning up. Apparently this has become a real event since invention by the makers of the Simpsons... -- Graham  :) 18:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Reported in FinanceAsia.com - apparently advertising, no reason for an article with this name. Isomorphic 18:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This and Reported in friedlnet.com were created because Caijing had links created to them; presumably a kind person helpfully created the missing articles and put the references in them. I fixed up Caijing so these two are now orphans. DJ Clayworth 18:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I didn't realize the context. Isomorphic 19:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete the orphans. - Texture 22:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Free the Slaves - What's this? Junk? -- JeLuF 20:53, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gobbledygook. Delete. RickK 21:57, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I removed the gobbledygook and made it a stub. Keep. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Konspire2b - Advertising? RickK 23:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote: it's a valid topic, and you have jumped on it rather quickly. But if it hasn't changed in 5 days time, it will make little odds whether it's deleted or left as a stub. - IMSoP 00:11, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Pulchritudinous - dictdef, nothing more. Fuzheado 23:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Somebody has now turned this into a redirect to Beauty, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, since anybody presented with "Beauty (redirected from Pulchritudinous)" would be none the wiser as to its meaning. If it were likely to come up in other articles, it should be left as a stub. Given that I doubt that, I vote delete. - IMSoP 00:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 17

  • Steak_and_Blowjob_Day Fictional. Mrdice 00:36, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Well, it does get 10 Google hits and has a website at http://www.steakandbjday.com/, but I vote to delete anyway. RickK 01:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if someone would undelete it and let this be done in a civilized, due-process style way. I'll probably vote delete, but let's not jump the gun. Meelar 06:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ned Austin Vanity page. RickK 01:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Appears in imdb, and I see no reason why wikipedia can't be as extensive as imdb. ShaneKing 01:37, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Iberian-Caucasian peoples. Attempt to link every non-Indo-European people into a single language and ethnic group, from the Hittites to the Hatti to the Etruscans, with no historicity. This is Levzur's attempt to bypass the objections people have raised about his use of the term Hetto-Iberians. He's now redirected that page to here. See also Pelasgians and its history. RickK 02:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Note
    • 1) this has been placed here by RickK who according to his contributions does little constructive editing (prefering revert wars) but an unpropotional ammount of VdF-ing
      Your opiniion of me has no bearing on the merits of this listing, but I'll put my edits up against yours any time. See my user page for a list of articles I've created. RickK 03:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Not an opinion, just a verifiable observation and one that bears very heavily on any VdF with your name attached to it.Zestauferov 06:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 2) Levzur has not been informed of such objections
      Sure he has. He's been fighting this battle for week's now RickK 03:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Please give the link to any place where he has been addressed directly concerning this so that we may verify your claim because according to his talk page your info is incorrect.Zestauferov 06:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 3) Hittite or Nesite as it is more accurately known has not been linked, this assumption comes from RickK's habit of gloss-reading and assuming the rest, it can be traced to the talk page he now wants deleted.
      I have no idea what this means. RickK 03:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It can be stated that the article does show a strong Georgian POV but this can easily be edited for more neutrality. Zestauferov 03:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't pass judgement on the validity of the theory, but I will note that the article cites an extensive list of sources, so -- assuming the sources aren't made up, and that they actually say something in support of this theory -- it doesn't qualify as original research. I think it just needs attention from someone else who's familiar with the history of the Caucasus. --No-One Jones 03:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The problem is that he's seeding all of the history articles with the theory as if it's established fact, when it certainly isn't. RickK 03:38, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Neither is the Indo-European hypothesis.Zestauferov 03:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Dear RickK and Dear No-One, I am a Georgian historian. The Main fields of my scientific activity are source studies of the history of the Caucasus and the history of the Caucasian peoples. Unfortunately, you do not know the history of the Caucasus, nor the Georgian sources, nor the very important investigations of Georgian scholars, nor the results of archaeological excavations on the territory of Georgia and the Caucasus! Levzur - Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze 17 Feb 2004
      I hope you do not mind me smoothing-out the grammar a little in your post Levan. It seems your points were anticipated by the neutral vote of User:Mirv aka No-One Jones which according to convention (since neutral votes have no other established value as far as I have understood) indicates s/he will be voting but wants to see how the discussion progresses first.Zestauferov 06:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force - Huh? RickK 04:11, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I created this page. I did the article on the "breaking" of horses and somebody claimed it was not NPOV because it did not include the views of people who favor doing things the "bronc buster" way. I would have included more information on that approach, especially since people still used it (and I've seen it used locally by a "rancher" who makes a business of raising, training, etc. horses), but I have never seen anybody who advocates/admits the use of the method in print. Delete it (i.e., Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force) if you will. If somebody wants to describe how they abuse horses I guess they can make and link their own article. P0M 04:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Have you ever heard of a rodeo? If the wiki is going to write a politically correct article on every subject, I am going to hurt myself laughing ;) Sam Spade 04:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps your question is warranted. I am never sure of how to satisfy the multitude of demands for NPOV and for objective and for "knowing the way of the world" articles.
  • Michael Shankle, orphan, name gets 92 hits on google, on first page for several different people of the name. Any fame, use? -- Infrogmation 05:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2421675"