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 Francs2000 (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 19 February 2004 (See Talk:List of Number 1 Hits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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)
    • Meaningless rambling. Delete. Being bad can well be a reason to delete, when 'improving' can reasonably be considered harder than 'writing anew'. Andre Engels 00:56, 18 Feb 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)
  • Hungarian-American Wictionary. Bmills 12:51, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to wiktionary - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Could be expanded. Keep stub. --Jiang
    • Expand and keep if expanded. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Too basic even for a dictionary. I wonder why this even needs to be voted upon. Andre Engels 00:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, take a look at Polish-American, which is now a nice little stub. This article can certainly grow, and the topic is encyclopedic. There's all kinds of material we could put in here: where concentrations of them are, culture, etc. Keep. Meelar 03:15, 19 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)
    • Move to dictionary. Andre Engels 00:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Conditional keep/delete. If it is still a dicdef, delete. If fleshed out, keep. I know there is atleast one artistic institution/event with that name. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:12, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

February 13


February 15

  • Ancient Anguish. Advertisement, substub. RickK 00:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 00:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; non-informative, obscure.—Eloquence
    • Delete. No special claim to fame on this MUD (at least none that's given on the page), and we should not be includig all of them. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Can't vanity posters even get http:// right? :) Fennec 03:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Keep. Needs NPOV-ification. Important topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete/redirect. If it's going to be shortened to a semi-stub (as proposed above) anyway, that semi-stub can be moved to predestination, and this page redirected. That page might well be split, but then do it with the merged version, rather than splitting off what just happens to be on another page. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 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)
    • I wonder why this has not been deleted outright. See Talk:Bakta for the language the article author (211.21.23.202) has used. Jay 10:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: fabrication. Consider banning the author. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:52, 18 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)
    • Keep stub. Anthony DiPierro 00:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Too stubby; having both this stub and Europanto amounts to doing the same thing twice. Delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 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)
    • Keep. Such a list can be of use. Someone created it for a purpose. You may not see the purpose, but the article is useful to someone. It does not violate any policies. This article does not obligate us to make more articles like it. Articles are created because individuals see needs. Kingturtle 10:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course it's useful -- that's why Sony Corp maintains such a list. The problem is that WP can never keep up. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lists like this are important as a directory reference for people doing research. Davodd 16:04, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Sony main page. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Andre; as long as the list isn't longer than it is today, it fits better as a section of the main company article than as a separate article (reconsider if/when list gets longer than, say, 15-20 items?). --Wernher 11:22, 19 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)
    • Keep. Columnist for important news service. I have improved it a bit, added an interesting book she wrote and link to a sample column. Can't find original "Press release" on google, but could use further refractoring I suppose. Fred Bauder 14:40, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What Fred said. Anthony DiPierro 00:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • With Fred's improvements, keep. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Catherine Loguidice - move to 9-11 wiki. andy 21:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Nothing there to move, but one might want to move the talk page. Whether or not, as a Wikipedia article, delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 16

  • Dated -- wiktionary entry ? Mikkalai 08:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: related to fashion history; can grow. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Mariusz 19:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Del. I am the guy who created the index. Well, I guess I must admit that was mistake. Having a list of Japanese literature or so is useful but not this one. This index contains any work avaliable in Aozora Bunko, not necessalily prominent Japanese literatures. This should not have existed in the first place. -- Taku 08:59, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not material for an encyclopedia. Link to Aozora Bunko's own list (if they have it) instead. Andre Engels 16:16, 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)
    • Keep. Although one would hope there would be a better title for it.
    • Keep. If there's a better name, move it, but as a historically significant pilot, it is encyclopaedic. - IMSoP 18:58, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Other significant Doctor Who stories, characters, planets, etc have entries. - Logotu 19:37, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. In addition to what the others have said, I challenge the description of the telemovie as a "failed pilot". It's not completely wrong, but there are plenty of more accurate two-word descriptions available. --Paul A 01:26, 19 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)
        • Even though there's not much available information about him, that doesn't make him unencyclopedic, just harder to research. Clearly, he does exist (per the ext. link) and someone will eventually come across this article and finish it. Since it's not nonsense or false, and on a verifiable, encyclopedic topic, I do vote keep, and proud of it! Feistily yours, Meelar 22:03, 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)
    • Merge content into Traci Lords and delete. Andre Engels 16:16, 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)
    • Marginally for keeping. Andre Engels 16:16, 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)
    • As said: Dictionary definition, and an incorrect one at that. Delete. Andre Engels 16:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 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)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition. With a funny spelling mistake as well. Andre Engels 16:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 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)
    • Keep: it can grow. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 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)
    • Content is worth keeping, but no need to have a separate page for it. Merge it into the South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut page, and then either redir or delete. In other words, agree with Adam Bishop . Andre Engels 16:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge somewhere and keep as redirect - I must admit I didn't know who Boitano was or what it was parodying, so the content's definitely there, but not a whole article's worth. - IMSoP 20:20, 18 Feb 2004 (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)
      • If this information can be added to it and thus it is not just a duplication of information which can be better dealt with by being merged into some Simpsons article, I vote to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even close to being some central concept in The Simpsons, let alone outside. Andre Engels 16:16, 17 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)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep in rewritten form. DJ Clayworth 18:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete in rewritten form: still a stub. Mariusz 19:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep in rewritten form - Texture 01:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:33, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (but more content needed). Jacob1207 00:17, 19 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)
      • As I thought, the topic is worthy now it's a non-stub. Keep. - IMSoP 14:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: ad Mariusz 19:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert - Texture 01:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, rewritten.—Eloquence 05:01, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. - snoyes 06:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Agree with snoyes. Anthony DiPierro 17:34, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 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)
      • I have a problem with the redirect. 'Pulchitrude' may be defined as 'physical beauty and appeal,' but in the last few decades it has taken on a connotation of, shall we say, a much earthier kind of appeal. There are some, me for instance, who while not criticising the fleshier, more sensual message the word now carries, may not necessarily see it as pertaining to beauty. Best bet - send it off to Wikt & delete Denni 20:31, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Merge with beauty then redirect, or keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with beauty & redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge, redirect, AND transwiki? Fennec 03:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 17

  • 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)
    • Keep. Regional significance.
    • Keep. Some significance. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:25, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. He does show up in the IMDb. —Frecklefoot 18:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Vanity Mariusz 19:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Vanity insanity. Anthony DiPierro 01:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I like that idea about being at least as inclusive as IMDB. Meelar 04:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. To quote RickK talking about a porno, "Noteworthiness is in the eye of the beholder. No need to delete this just because it isn't famous." At any rate, this actually is noteworthy insofar that it has useful facts about a character actor. Cool Hand Luke 22:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Margaret Kyles non-famous. - snoyes 02:13, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless some information can be added colourably justifying inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a faculty directory of all faculty at every high school, so without more, this should be deleted. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like vanity. —Frecklefoot 18:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 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)
        • Gee, Sam, you wouldn't happen to know the politically correct terms for "flank strap" or "hotshot," would you? I can appreciate your concern about hurting yourself laughing. Just hope you're not a rodeo animal in your next reincarnation. Denni
    • 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.
    • Put horse breaking, this page and the other related pages on the Clean-up list. After they've been thoroughly worked over, revisit the VfD question for any of the pages (if any) that are no longer necessary. (Sorry, P0M. I'm sure there's good content on the pages, but I can't make heads or tails of it. From the discussion page, neither can others. The creation of this page gives the appearance that the edit process for "horse breaking" fell into a straw man fallacy, but I can't be sure.) Rossami 23:58, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I rewrote the article completely, based on the pioneering work of Monty Roberts. I read his book 5 years ago, and saw both movies.
  • 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)
    • Merge content into Manowar (band) and delete Andre Engels 00:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge w/ Manowar and delete. IIRC there are several such pages -- one for everybody who's ever been the band. Same for all of them. Sorry, I'm too lazy to go find them now. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Haepul -- 0 Google hits. Another fabrication from the author of Bakta (211.21.23.202). Jay 10:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Can't find anything on Kim Tae-hyung either (all occurences are of current-day non-famous people of that name), but on the other hand, google might miss either because they are just found in Korean-language pages (which usually do not use Latin script). No vote. Andre Engels 00:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: unverified, & created by an author with a history of fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • DElete! the article refers to bulgoki meaning soul, when bulgoki is actuallya beef dish! --Mishac 03:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sant Cassia Finally had enough of the contant changes to sant cassia. I believe this should be deleted once and for all. [Conte Said Vassallo]
    • Another renomination for deletion, two in one month... I would say keep and sort out the edit wars another way, though I suspect even if it was to be deleted you'd have to wait until the renominations policy had been sorted out (see votes for Sarah Marple-Cantrell at the top of the page). -- Graham  :) 13:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete
    • Keep. The current minimal content there is presumably uncontroversial and useful. As to the mass of material that has been the subject of edit wars, mediation seems in order. If the bulk of this is to be found elsewhere on the Internet, perhaps we could settle on just a short article and some external links? -- Jmabel 18:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • RSSOwl - self promotional, yet another program Fuzheado 14:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Perhaps mention somewhere as an example RSS reader, but doesn't deserve its own article (yet). [Note: you forgot to put the VfD notice on. I've added it now.] - IMSoP 17:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Robert Happelberg 19:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: just another RSS reader which is already listed as an external link on Really Simple Syndication. Not significant enough to warrant its own article. RedWolf 03:41, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • List of relational topics -- not a single topic since the article's start in Aug, 2003. Morever the article has a vague purpose. Jay 14:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Could be an article, but not this. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't a comparison of people be POV? Delete either way. -- user:zanimum
  • Home folder -- I don't have one, do you? -- user:zanimum
    • No, and marginally important, but these do exist, so I vote to keep if this can be expanded. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - misleading - If anyone wants to create a real article, "home" is a unix concept, not a PC concept. Since unix does not call them folders, the article should be deleted, and, if necessary, recreated with an accurate title. - Texture 16:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It is a PC concept too (although originating from Unix as you mention). On the Windows platform, it's called "My Documents". Keep as redirect to home directory though, as mentioned. ShaneKing 01:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and agree with Texture (!). Move to 'Home directory' and expand. It's about 20 minutes old, give it a chance Syntax 16:41, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, we already had an article for Home directory, so I've merged them. [Therefore, I vote to keep as redirect] - IMSoP 17:56, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Marco Marra - no explanation of who or what Marco Marra is. Evercat 22:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - originally deleted a few times already for junk content. Fuzheado 23:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Retinue - Good definition but recommend Wiktionary unless someone knows how this can be substantially expanded. Rossami 23:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 18

  • Abromeitiella - This page has no purpose, it's a a deleted plant genus, and hasn't been edited since 2002. Flockmeal 04:19, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it existed as a taxonomic classification at one point, then it's probably encyclopedic. People who read references to it in older botany textbooks and aren't aware of the change might want to look it up here. I suggest moving the info on the taxonomical correction to deuterocohnia and then making this article a redirect. Psychonaut 12:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Would have voted to keep, but Psychonaut's move & redirect proposal sounds even better. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Claremont Resort Boycott - This page needs major revision or total deletion. Flockmeal 04:34, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If someone would like to write an article on the Claremont Resort, then this can be incoporated. Delete is not improved. --Jiang
    • Delete. Stub on a current affair never likely to be worthy of an article, written by an anonymous user probably connected to the dispute. If it ever becomes sufficiently famous, write the article then. Andrewa 09:26, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Probably not important; rewrite if it happens to become so (unlikely). Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Claremont Resort. Or is Wikipedia finished and we can stop accepting stubs? Anthony DiPierro 21:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for reasons given. The place is lousy, by the way, a bad joke on a respected local institution; and the long-running labor dispute may be directly related to its badness; but it's not Wikipedia material. Dandrake 23:14, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Taiwan's Food - I am confused. Why is there an article on this here? Wouldn't some of this info be better under "Taiwanese couisine"? --Vikingstad 13:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I would suggest making it into a redirect but I think if you NPOV'd the page there would be nothing left. Saul Taylor 14:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: informative. List on pages needing attention; could use spelling clean up, NPOV-ification, and maybe a renaming. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Taiwanese cuisine and redirect. Gentgeen 15:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Making it into a redirect is good. Whether the merge is worthwhile I doubt, little or nothing left when NPOVed.
  • Protein molecule - No useful content. Happy to reconsider if any info is added. -- Warofdreams 16:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Protein for now, not sure if they should be separate articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I see no reason whatsoever to do so. Anyway, keep as redirect. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Diamond theory - Content not sufficiently encyclopedic, a personal theory. -- Charles Matthews 17:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks rather bogus. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be a theory from the book titled "The Non-Euclidean Revolution". I'd say keep for now. Anthony DiPierro 20:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • My doubts aren't about it's being real mathematics, nor about connections to interesting areas - I just suspect it of being 'minor' research, of which there are 1000s of papers put out annually. No connection with NEG Charles Matthews 21:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure myself even if it's real mathematics. But 5 days doesn't seem long enough to research this. Anthony DiPierro 21:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Usenet troll - vanity article - this is a troll from someone and their college buddies to get a single web site linked. Zero google hits related to this college group that has "since dispersed". The topic may be ok but would need to be rebuilt without the vanity text - Texture 17:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I just redirected it to the article Internet troll that already covers Usenet trolling. Bevo 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of collectors - This "list" only contains two people. Either add more and revise the article, or delete. -Flockmeal 21:28, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - a list lacking a list - Texture 21:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dumb. Anthony DiPierro 23:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If there were actually a lot of collectors listed it could be worth keeping, but not with only 2 people. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Abuse/old This is an old and ideosyncratic version of Abuse. It was listed on VfD, and then removed when the new version was written halfway through the process. Now it should probably be got rid of. DJ Clayworth 21:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans. This is just a list of the names of various advert campaigns. This information is of no use to anyone and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an advert for McDonalds. Astrotrain
    • Keep, unless you want to merge it with McDonalds. Anthony DiPierro 23:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I suggest keeping. It may be useful for Media / marketing students - and McDonalds advertising is quite hard to escape. Secretlondon 23:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep--or at least merge w/ McDonald's article. Material is somewhat interesting. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, decent little chunk of information. Merging with McDonald's would be OK. This information is potentially of use. Within the last year I personally was trying to find the approximate year in which a certain Coca-Cola slogan was current ("Coke is a natural—naturally!) and a list like this would have been exactly what I needed. And it isn't very promotional for McDonald's. Companies only want their current slogan publicized and rather dislike having old ones mentioned. Dpbsmith 00:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • Paul Saelee a.k.a booda -- a 13-year-old with a high opinion of himself; unverifiable vanity. --No-One Jones 23:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity page. --zandperl 23:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ditto. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous, two Google hits, neither relevant. Dpbsmith 00:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


February 19

  • please delete whale songs.It's a copy one.
    • Notes: the above was written by Hli11, who is also responsible for the content in question. Also Whale songs is actually a redirect to Whales song, so both should be deleted. I know this isn't the best place for this - and it's already listed as a copyvio anyway, but I thought I'd gather the information into one place, so an admin can act appropriately. - IMSoP 02:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How to compute calendars - Article rehashes knowledge already available in detail on Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and Calendar itself, as well as being very centered on both of those calendars, but not giving details for either. If I have missed something, the missing content should be merged into one of those three and this page deleted; it does not provide additional value. Should the article instead be enhanced to encompass a "how to" guide for every calendar around, a lot of duplication would be neccessary (of the articles for the respective calendars) Eike 03:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Moai - Couldn't this just be added to the Easter Island article? --Flockmeal 04:46, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub, it could improve -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Jim Hall - sounds like an autobiography. Antonio Rehab Runaway Martin
    • Keep. (It smells like autobio as well: the smart-ass has already created the link from his home page to this article!) But the guy did do something sensible and IMO deserves here not less than half-known pop-artists. However the page requires proper disambig: it turns out there are quite a few Jim Halls already mentioned in Wikipedia (e.g., see the back-links). Mikkalai 08:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and turn into a disambig page -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Montreal Canadiens Captains - No signifigant updates since 2002, no reference to what these captains "captain", but I'd guess an NHL team. Update or delete. --Flockmeal 04:55, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Just because it hasn't been updated, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. It does mention above, and have a link to the Montreal Canadien's NHL team entry. I'd suggust merging with the team article, if anything Lyellin 06:07, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • The 300 new captains in the last year or so have not been added to the list: Better delete right away. :) mydogategodshat 07:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Lyellin -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • RAF Church Fenton. Just a link to the org's website, with a description of the website. -- Khym Chanur 07:14, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless improved within the time limit -- Graham  :) 11:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • [[2]] I misidentified the IP address, thinking it was mine. User:Dylanwhs 08:11, Feb 19, 2004 [UTC]
  • John Highway - Appears to be purely a vanity page. The only edits are by User:John Highway, and this is the only page he has ever edited on Wikipedia. Bryan 08:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete vanity page -- Graham  :) 11:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2443613"