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 Ugen64 (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 6 March 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you were looking for an article on the abbreviation "VFD", please see VFD.

Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Note that this page is for listing articles that you think are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles you want to see deleted, but doing so would mean a change in policy. In that case, go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to discuss a policy change. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.

See Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#VOTE:_NEW_LAYOUT_FOR_VFD! for a vote on layout change.


Front Matter

Cleanup

Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{msg:Vfd}} at the top of the page adds one automatically.)

Subpages

copyright violations -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- Cleanup -- translations

Deletion guidelines -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- Votes for undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- maintaining this page -- inclusion dispute -- Old cases

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

March 2

  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/Callaway magnetic motor
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/Dennis Lee
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/director message
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/favorites
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/hydrogen on demand
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/invenstments
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/open sourcing
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/oppression
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy/translations
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energy magnetic motor
  • User:Sterlingda/Free Energynews
  • User:Sterlingda/Wiki All
  • User:Sterlingda/de/Free Energy
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Energy
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free Energy
    • Wikipedia is not a personal homepage and bandwidth theft is a bad thing. Angela. 01:30, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Perl
    • Delete. Wikipedia does not host personal homepages. Sterlingda has been given a long time to move this content. Maximus Rex 01:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Evercat 01:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all. He lost interest in editing the main namespace once he realized that self-promotion is not encouraged. He didn't stop working on this stuff. Isomorphic 02:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but give fair warning.—Eloquence
      • I have sent Sterlingda an email alerting him to this listing. -- Cyan 04:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:27, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep User:Sterlingda/Wiki All. Delete the rest. -- Cyan 04:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Cyan. Kosebamse 08:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Keep User:Sterlingda/Wiki All as Cyan said. — Sverdrup (talk) 08:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all but User:Sterlingda/Wiki All as suggested above. There is some indication that [1] is expecting this, their links have been updated in the last few minutes and the notice saying their stuff is "hosted on Wikipedia" has just vanished. Andrewa 08:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Make that speedy delete, or at least immediate blanking and protecting (which may not be effective if they're clever). I just had a look at [2] and they are adding 3rd-party advertisements to the material they host on Wikipedia. Possibly these are from their hosting company, but it's still Wikimedia money paying their hosting bills. If we're very kind, we could offer to temporarily undelete on the condition that the ads are removed first. Andrewa 18:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep 'Wiki All'. Del 'rest' (sadly). ... I was wondering, how / where could something akin to this be possible? (ala. the above is not acceptible, but teh premise could eb workable) ... There are other projects on things and thier uses [ex., "WikiProject Weaponry" and "WikiProject Automobile construction"] ... guess, I'll read up on it [off to look @ the project pages] JDR [PS. respond to my talk page, if you have a response]
      • I think many would sympathise with them. All the more reason for them to buy their own hosting. Continued on your user talk page as requested. Andrewa 16:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete most, keep Wiki All. - Fennec 16:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • NOTE FROM USER:STERLINGDA
      I had hoped we would have our own system up and running a month or two ago. It has taken longer than I thought. We do have a server set up now that can handle this. Please let us get it migrated over before you delete. We should be able to have it done in the next few days. At that point, I will create forwarding addresses, and all links will point to the new location. At that point, there will be virtually no bandwidth issues for Wikipedia. Even now, if you check your stats, I doubt that there are bandwidth issues. We are still in early start-up phase. Sterlingda 17:54, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Starlingda: Even if this gets deleted, I can email you the wiki source or something... or you can copy it into your favorite text editor now. By the way, if nothing else, "free energy" is questionable from an NPOV standpoint (I'm trying to be polite here.) Pakaran. 17:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Hmm ... Pakaran, what do you mean? How is free energy questionable from an NPOV standpoint? The concept can be dealt with objectively [and has been]. JDR
    • Concerning the talk about deletion, this is our first experience with Wiki and we (PES authors) ask that you bear with us until we rehost the material. Any info on how rehosting/downloading is done? eMail mwiseman1@cox.net (moved from bottom of vfd page to relevant section by akaDruid 18:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC))
    • Delete and speedy - the advertising pushes it over the edge - see Andrewa's note above - Texture 18:09, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Email the Wikitext of these pages to Sterlingda or appropriate, and delete them. Dysprosia 22:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Flockmeal 23:19, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The pages are inappropriate. We are not a hosting agency or a holding tank. Sterlingda, you should simply copy the data onto your computer. It isn't complex data. Kingturtle 19:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Of course it's not. This claims to be a technical site. Their inability to get a Wiki running within three months is quite literally incredible. Post delete, the pages can be emailed to the creator on request, as deleted pages regularly are to any user requesting them. But surely they have offline copies? In any case there is no suggestion that they will lose their data, just the ability to (very competently) use Wikipedia servers to run their advertiser-supported site. Andrewa 20:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, please. We are not a file repository. Secretlondon 22:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Michael Earls - bizarre. Evercat 02:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Truly bizzare. Moncrief 03:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:27, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with bizarre and redirect Anthony DiPierro 04:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Apparently this is a serious request!? Keep. It's a disambig page. Anthony DiPierro 04:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It was a bit more bizarre when I listed it. :-) Evercat 00:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Disambig that doesn't link to a live article about any of the Michael Earls? Delete until we actually need it. (Frankly, I consider this a very creative attempt to get around the vanity rule.) Rossami 15:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no "vanity rule." Anthony DiPierro 16:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Sure there is. Wikipedia is not a homepage (bullet 15). Rossami
              • That's not a rule, nor is it about vanity. And how does a link to several famous people constitute as a home page? If this page gets deleted, and I recreate it, does it then cease to be vanity, since it was created by someone completely unrelated? Anthony DiPierro 18:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Very bizarre. RickK 04:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bizarre. - Texture 06:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, by all means! Vanity: apparently created by one of the Micheal Earls himself: one of the extlinks given (www.cerkit.com) resolves to 66.32.251.52, the IP of the creator of that page. All four Michael Earls do not look encyclopedia-worthy to me. Lupo 09:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd say keep, on the grounds that the published author Michael Earls does pass the "Google test", if nothing else. The book does exist. However, none of these articles exist yet. The last thing anyone needs is a disambig to pages that don't exist yet and many of which aren't important. It's tantamount to a disambig for the 500 or so Mike Church's that exist (incl. myself, a southern radio DJ, an author, a physicist, a fictional detective). So, delete. If someone writes a worthwhile article on author Michael Earls and his book, let it stay. Mike Church 17:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless. The articles should come first, then the disambiguation page if it becomes necessary. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - not bizarre, just a kind of granfalloon Denni 22:19, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)
    • Delete. Articles first, disambig afterwards.
      • The order in which things are added is not very relevant. If disambiguation is going to be needed, the page has to be created at some point, so it might as well be now. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep now. Secretlondon 22:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redir. This is a different article now than the one most people voted to delete. Davodd 01:14, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • As a redir where to? Lupo 09:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: my vote above ("delete") still stands. Can't find the book. Lupo 09:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nothing to disambiguate. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Full Text of the United States Constitution - wikisource. --Jiang 03:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK 04:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not a source depository. Rmhermen 04:47, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikisource. Dysprosia 08:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Certain documents are of such significance to so many articles on Wikipedia that they belong here for easy reference. We have photographs here, right, to illuminate articles. An article on the constituion of the United states needs the text of the soruce document to illumintate an article about it.
  • Management accounting -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This same material has already been removed from at least five other articles that I know of. It is unfortunate that the translation is so bad that it is impossible to fix it. mydogategodshat 08:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but remove the babble (there was a short stub before 23-Jan-2004). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reverted to most recent good stub. Andrewa 13:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The reverted stub is still nonsense. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Internal control -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Created by the same author as the babbling at Management accounting (and it's a word-by-word copy of that other babbling, and it turns into an advert at the end, and the extlink is dead (for me, at least)). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No useful history. Good topic but no point keeping this. Andrewa 14:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Battiadae -- May refer to something, but looks like nonsense. --Ryan and/or Mero 13:43, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • You may like to add the MediaWiki:nonsense message on it. Optim 13:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I suggest us to always check backlinks of articles in question. Rare term, but hits the google nevertheless. Mikkalai 17:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Canada Games Company -- appears to be a fictional company. The website listed points to a squatter's site. Google did find a company with this name (sort of), but they make jigsaw puzzles only and don't seem to be notable. Their site is hosted on a free server. —Frecklefoot 15:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Keep - article improved - Texture 15:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No Vote, it is a real company but it is not particularly major one, even in Canada
    • Keep. I doubt it's vanity. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but the article needs help. They do or did manufacture more than jigsaw puzzles. See its talk page. Lupo 20:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-famous non-important. Note that there have existed several companies with this name hence the dating problems on talk. --Imran 00:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • Neilie Casey (10d/3k) - Listed on RfD - Anthony has chosen to recreate the page prior to the redirect - Discussions on the talk page have not resoved the issue - additional delete request here in addition to RfD so it does not go back and forth to avoid deletion - Texture 18:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Dissident 18:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. When I want to look up an individual 9/11 victim, I go to sep11.wikipedia.org and search there. Makes no sense to duplicate the entry here. Lupo 19:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. sep11 wiki is for POV entries. When I want NPOV, I go here. Anthony DiPierro 21:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 21:55, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 22:42, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sep11. I disagree with ADP's invented POV theory. Tempshill 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Take a look at the Sep11 Wiki some time. It's mainly personal experiences which violate NPOV and No Original Research. Or read meta: "Yip, articles about victims are fine as long as they at least tell us who it was, what he/she did, etc (frankly, I think we can do without those as well, but general opinion says we should keep those)." That was in September of 2002. So it's clearly not something I invented. Anthony DiPierro 00:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The POV/NPOV distinction is not "invented". It is, and always has been, a fundamental difference between Wikipedia and the tribute site. Of course keep. No-one has even given a reason for deletion here, and that is a minumum requirement for deletion to take place. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete. Kosebamse 11:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikimemorial and delete. Rossami 13:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous enough for the pedia. moink 23:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Archive for wikimemorial and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: Wikimemorial updated with new information - Texture 19:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Leo Wyatt - Nutty, if somewhat funny, profile of a "former whitelighter and now Elder of the Charmed Ones," who does all sorts of incredible things. Definitely not encyclopedic. Moncrief 19:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. Apparently this is a character from the TV series Charmed. RadicalBender 19:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If you made me king, I'd delete because this is a minor character in a TV show - not what I think of as encyclopedic. But compared to others that are routinely kept, it's no worse. Keep but post to clean-up so the link to the TV show is obvious. (Do we have a naming convention that would help?) Rossami 20:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Added text to make it clear where he comes from. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I've already deleted this once because it read like patent nonsense and had no context as to what it all meant. As it's from charmed, I'd say merge and redirect with Charmed Graham  :) 21:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep now. Tempshill 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Saul Taylor 08:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep.Chris Perry, Piper Halliwell(-Wyatt), Darryl Morris created by the same user are fictional characters from the same show (and need cleaning up). They could well be redirects to Charmed, but I have a feeling that various fans will keep recreating these pages even if they are deleted. Might as well let them have them.-- Decumanus 18:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Characters are encyclopedic; we probably have an article for every single minor character in Harry Potter, I don't see how this is different - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:40, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Battle of Merton: entire text is from http://timelines.ws/0600AD_999AD.HTML
    • and in any case it's the Battle of MARTON! Lee M 20:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and please do so on the speedy plan. Moncrief, 2 Mar 2004
    • If we don't have it, move it. From the edit history of the contributor (added vagueand inaccurate to There is a very large amount of vague and inaccurate historical information available in Wikipedia, and several different ways of classifying it are given below. and linked the site as a friend of wikipedia) I think the contributor runs the site the content is from. In any case, it's minimally copyrightable since it's almost exclusively factual and our usual rewrite to our standars will eliminate any potential copyrightability. If we have it. make it a redirect and list on redirects for deletion. Jamesday 21:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've listed it on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. That's the page that should be used for possible copyright infringements. Someone should remove the entry from this page after this has been seen. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 3

Customer experience management

- Until I can get an answer to the question at User talk:145.254.237.111, I'd like this listed for deletion. It looks to me as though this is a large school project that hasn't informed us it's coming, and isn't being run by people who are familiar with Wikipedia. I am hoping that the VFD notice on this page will convince one of the people on this project to come here, see this note, and let us know what's going on with a description at Wikipedia:School and university projects and a contact name of the person in charge so that we can better understand what's going on and educate the students about Wikipedia. Jwrosenzweig 00:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Karsten Kilian on Deletion Request for Customer Experience Management (CEM) Thanks for your feedback. We are a university in Germany with an international students from 6 different countries. The aim of the Customer Experience Management (CEM) is as follows:
        • introduce a fairly new concept in the literature to interested audience
        • make students familiar with wikipedia.org
        • add to the content quality of Wikipedia
        • I hope that my explanation does make it clear what our goal is and I would be thankful if you could withdraw the deletion note.
    • Kudos to the university for trying this, but we need to ensure that what they are doing fits the Wikipedia mold. Currently the articles don't stand by themselves. Could we find someone willing to hand-hold these students through the Wikipedia process, getting the titles right, making sure each article is self-contained etc.? I think we should also strongly encourage all the contributors to create logins, or at very least the teacher to create a login, so that we can send feedback. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks; Not complying to neither NPOV nor Wikipedia style and layout. — Sverdrup (talk) 16:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I am in contact with Karsten on my talk page and via email. I urge you all to hold off a few days and let Karsten and I try to find a way to make this workable. Wikibooks might be a very good idea (thanks Sverdrup) if Wikipedia turns out to be a bad fit. Anyone who wants to help guide these students, please do, but if you're wondering who is taking the lead for the moment, it's me. I think we can sort things out. Jwrosenzweig 17:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much for doing this, James. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree; if they want to fix it, we should give them time to do that. — Sverdrup (talk) 17:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • As an update, Karsten has agreed in an email to me that the current articles are not matching Wikipedia's standards well -- he pledges personal attention to them, and asks that we delay any decision making for 2-3 days while he help his students shape the articles. Jwrosenzweig 20:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all: original research. They need to set up their own wiki to host this stuff. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all, for the simple reason that they aren't encylopedia-type topics by any stretch of the definition. The folks at Wikibooks should judge whether this would be welcome there... -- Seth Ilys 23:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all - this effort has started up again. User:Kkilian72 is creating pages linked to CEM: Experiential Innovation Customer Interface Brand Experience Experiential Platform Experiential World - I thought they agreed to stop until this was resolved. - Texture 23:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what to make of these articles. I havnt read them all yet, but from what I have read, most articles are a mix of accurate statements, a couple of inaccuracies, and an attempt to present well established marketing concepts as new by renaming them. I wouldnt want to see them all deleted, but at the same time I wouldnt want the job of fixing them all. mydogategodshat 01:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I have read more of the articles now and I think most of them could be kept, improved, merged, or renamed. I would suggest letting the students work on the articles in a defined project space, then having Kkilian add them to the main Wiki when he/she thinks they are ready. Note to Kkillian: There is a common theme than runs through these articles. It is the dicotomy between outside-in processes and inside-out processes as first described by professor Schultz and George Day. I have a lot of respect for Don Shultz's work, but I think in an encyclopedia we shouldnt redefine concepts in terms of one point of view. Send me an e-mail if you wish to discuss this further. mydogategodshat 02:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Booger

- Well, I tried, but it didn't turn out very well... is this a dictionary definition or an encyclopedic article? ugen64 01:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

    • The content is OK. Isn't there a technical term for this, though? It should be moved there. Meelar 04:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The proper technical term is bolus of overdried glutinous extranasal respiratory secretions. (And if you believe that, then you'd believe that flatus advanced by rectal transport is another proper technical term...) Dpbsmith 00:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Symbiotic algorithm

- Looks to be primary research. Suggest merging any salvageable/encyclopedic content with parallel algorithm and delete. --Lexor|Talk 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Lexor. Google Test yields very few results. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:42, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Emerging Symbiotic Clusters

- Primary research, zero Google hits [3] (cf symbiotic algorithm). Suggest merge/delete (see above). --Lexor|Talk 05:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Report from Himmler to Hitler

- looks like it needs a transwiki to WikiSource, then a deletion. Any other opinions? Isomorphic 05:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Source text. Transwiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 11:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete the page but don't delete the image. --mav 06:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nascent

- Belongs in Wiktionary. Boot it over there. Denelson83 05:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Democide

- We have already Genocide and Holocaust about the same subject. I doubt if the democide exists in English. It seems German word only. Seaman 09:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Keep but add links to genocide and Holocaust. The word was coined by an American political scientist, so it's not a German word only. However, as the article rightly notes, it hasn't gained much traction in English. Moncrief, 09:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. What is exactly difference between Democide/Genocide and Holocaust? Isn't better to merge those articles? Cautious 09:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep, of course. To answer Cautious' query: Genocide (killing of ethnic groups) is a subset of Democide. The Holocuast (Killing of Jews et al. in WW II) is a subset of Genocide. Democides can be samaller scale and are political. Davodd 10:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
        • Keep. Word was obviously coined by some Rudolph J. Rummel, professor em. of political sciences at University of Hawaii. He wrote a two-volume piece titeled Death by Government and Statistics of Democide. The word is definitely not German by origin, but now it exists (Demozid) as a translation of its American English counterpart. It is used in a much broader sense than the other two, as Davodd has already pointed out. --Palapala 10:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Mr Rummel is higly controversial alternative historian. His thesis are highly POV and were never verified by other historians. Cautious 10:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not one of his fans, but the term is there, his books are there, controversial as they might well be, and he is talked about. Also they have been translated into foreign languages (like German). Doesn't that all suffice for an entry? --Palapala
          • OK, stay, on condition that some NPOV comments are included. Somebody can open the article and be terrified by huge number of people allegedly killed, while this is mostly playing with statistical numbers. Cautious 12:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep, is in widespread use. -- Dissident 20:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please google before listing VfD. BTW, bing "terrified" is a healthy reaction: those were human lives, and not "statistical numbers". --Humus sapiens 22:46, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ontario_Mills

- Shopping centre in Ontario. If we delete nonfamous people, surely we delete nonfamous shopping malls. Maroux 11:54, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

    • Keep if it going to be expanded, otherwise move to Ontario, California. Concerning the comparison with people: there are far fewer big shopping centers than nonfamous people.--Patrick 12:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Shopping malls are famous. Anthony DiPierro 13:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - malls in general are not famous - Texture 16:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 16:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. we have articles on a number of shopping centres - SimonP 19:50, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Malls are visited by hundreds of thousands of people annually. That seems to imply some level of notoriety and importance. If anything, they go towards local history in many cases. Besides, there are other malls in Wikipedia (e.g., Houston Galleria). RadicalBender 20:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep this. Malls are famous locally--there's usually only a few of them in any given area. Meelar 22:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We're adding every interstate and interstate spur route in the country. Surely there's room for every mall if people want to make entries for them. Moncrief, 3 Mar 2004


New College Democrats

Attack Tool Kit

- Appears to be advertising; if the product is notable in any way it needs to be NPOVed. Warofdreams 14:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Richard Genovese

- was previously listed, got 2/3 majority to delete, was not deleted. I'll list it again until it is either deleted or there is a fixed definition of the criteria for deletion. It is absurd that any sysop can decide "2/3 is not a good enough consensus for me" and remove it from here without deleting it. --Wik 16:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

    • Keep but blank until it is proven that there is a such person. Anthony DiPierro 16:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • This is ridiculous. There are references provided on the page, and previous versions of the page show a great many more references. Other than the references provided, which you can certainly look up, what kind of "proof" are you looking for? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Who's Who has doubtful credibility in my mind. And I'm not even sure what edition is being referred to. Is it claimed that he's in every edition since 1982? The parfaite reference is written by you. That's original research, and isn't credible enough. The arte.net link doesn't even work, but doesn't seem credible. Exhibition catalogue is hosted on a free home page. Not credible at all. If the Who's Who reference turns out to be real, and it turns out to be a respected source, then I'd recommend that this be restored. But until then or some other verification comes along, I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia. Anyway, that's my suggestion, you don't have to like it. But if you're intending your comment as a keep vote please be specific so Wik doesn't bring this back here yet again. Anthony DiPierro 17:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • The Par*faite reference is not "written by me" in the sense that I am a contributor to Par*faite as is Genovese but I am not the editor. To describe as "original research" the fact that two men contributed to the same magazine is as bizarre a distortion of language as I've probably ever seen. The same thing could be said about the Richard Genovese page on Upland Trout, for example; Genovese contributed to Upland Trout and so did I and so did a number of others -- is Upland Trout thus my "original research"? If you think that an exhibition catalogue resides solely online it is just another characteristic of the recurrent problem I've seen in Wikipedia, that no matter what they say, people ignore offline sources, and demand that the "confirmation" for the existence of everything (which they demand in extravagant profusion when the topic is one they don't like) is their oracle, Google. Google can be helpful, but when it becomes the be-all and end-all, and Wikipedia is transformed into an eyclopedic rehash of information available through a Google search, the very value of Wikipedia comes into question. I am not hinting at a "keep" vote, by the way, just making some points. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • My apologies on Par*faite. I thought it was written solely by you. If it's available in print that's news to me, I have no idea where I could get it. You didn't answer my question abobut the Who's Who edition. I'd love to verify this, but I don't really have anything to go on. If Par*faite is available in print, where can I get it? I assume I could get a copy of Who's Who, but I'm not clear on the edition (and I might not be able to get 1982). Anthony DiPierro 17:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Again. Everyking 20:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-notable surrealist artist whose reason for having a page here is that he associated with prolific wikipedia contributor, Daniel C. Boyer. Maximus Rex 01:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. JDR
    • Keep b/c verifiable. I don't know what makes a 'notable' surrealist; the refs on the page satisfy me. (why waste time deleting verifiable pages when there is so much junk still out there?) +sj+ 11:02, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
      • However, if Genovese himself comes here and makes a case for deletion, change my vote to Delete.

William Hill Kelly Jr.

- needs to be moved to sep11. - Hephaestos|§ 18:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Delete and move to memorial site - Texture 18:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. Obviously non-notable 9/11 victims should be deleted on sight, as we have decided previously not to have them. --Wik 18:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wik, feel free to propose that on the candidates for speedy deletions talk page. Anthony DiPierro 18:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Anthony lost a vote to add this to a disambiguation page - so he instead writes an article. Personally I have better things to do than deal with this. Secretlondon 18:54, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC). See Talk:William Kelly for background - which also explains why it is still protected
    • Move to sep11 and delete here. -- Dissident 19:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete here. silsor 19:49, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • By the way, Kelly is one of the more notable 9/11 victims. He has a scholarship fund named after him. Anthony DiPierro 19:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • transwiki to 9/11 and delete. theresa knott 20:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • transkwiki it — Sverdrup (talk) 21:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • move to memorial and delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:36, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikimemorial and delete. Not famous except for 9/11. Scholarship appears related (set up as a result of 9/11). Most of the rest of the one external link is advert and hardly NPOV. Rossami 23:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to 9/11 wiki and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:00, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikimemorial & delete. moink 20:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Source

- originally listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, I am listing it here as a member of the Leo Wyatt/Charmed discussion above. I personally believe all these pages should be merged into one anyway. -- Graham  :) 19:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Keep. We have lots of other characters from fiction all through Wikipedia (Jean-Luc Picard, Bart Simpson, etc.). I don't see why these should be excluded. There's certainly more than enough information on them. Move to cleanup, though. RadicalBender 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the content, but the most famous use of the term is probably the hip hop magazine of the same name, so either the article at The Source should be on the magazine or a disambig page. Tuf-Kat 08:20, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


Geostationary orbit

Discussion moved to Talk:Geostationary orbit

Bill Van Auken

  • Probably deserves an article, but this is just an advert for his campaign. and now has a stub. Nomination withdrawn.Warofdreams 20:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Keep - advert - Texture 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I improved it significantly. Everyking 22:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Subject is clearly encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 00:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Unofficial Slogan

Has had the VFD notice since 19 Feb; Was listed here as Unofficial slogan (a page that did not exist), and removed a few hours later. Original listing comment: Mostly a duplicate of slogan subsection on Kerikeri. Redirecting would seem a bit strange because 'unofficial slogan' is a generic term. Idril 10:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 21:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Orphan. Duplicated. Mikkalai 22:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. same. Rossami 23:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article reads like original work/nonsense - Texture 23:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've deleted it. -- user:zanimum

Panalix

  • Looks like original research. The sole contributor is one of the names mentioned in the article, and he has signed it at the top.Graham  :) 22:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - original research - Texture 23:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - this looks like a whitepaper or something. Original Research. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - changed to make it look more like second source . Followed the style as on Menuet. --Adek336 12:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Note Adek336 is the author of this page, and is also the researcher mentioned within it. Graham  :) 12:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fixed. Anthony DiPierro 13:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Fixed how? It's still a research project and self promotion by a Wikipedia user. How is this fixed? -- Graham  :) 13:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, you're right. It still looks like original research. I'll withdraw my vote. Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It's still original research so I think we should delete. Perhaps in a few years, if it takes off, then yeas but not now. theresa knott 14:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I have plenty of 'software with little functionality'. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Esse Aequitas and NinePointFive Thesis

Zero and 16 google hits. Muriel 22:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the creator, I will remove the contents of the Article on Esse Aequitas, due to the lack of evidence, however, I ask that NinePointFive remain, since evidence of being valid exists on the web.Volition

The only evidence is at [4], which is not enough. Keep for a standard time, then delete, if more solid validity will not be shown. Mikkalai 23:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikibug here! http://web.archive.org/web/20030729181108/http://www.ninepointfive.com/index.html didn't resolve via [ ]. Mikkalai

NinePointFive looks like original research. Delete. Anthony DiPierro 23:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless validity proven. The 16 Google hits appear to have nothing to do with NinePointFive Thesis. The reference listed in the article is to a search in web.archive.org. No evidence here that the thesis has any currency. I'm not sure it has any historic value. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 23:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: original rsearch. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of past countries in Europe

Recommendation was "merge", not "delete". Discussion moved to Talk:List of past countries in Europe. Rossami 23:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 4

Torah Cosmos

RadicalBender 19:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Tin-foil hat stuff, incoherent, insignificant, and uncontextualized. -- Nunh-huh 00:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Delete. RickK 02:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep an eye on Octaeteris. Mikkalai 03:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete original research.(I am using the term research very loosely) Also check "what links here" . The author has put a link on Torah wich needs to go tootheresa knott 13:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • must stay. you are hindering science. your personal knowledge or belief into the torah may not be the border for whole science. go and study the torah cosmos for details. further, if you dont stop insulting me i teach you lawyers - last warning - researcher of torah cosmos - Sihan
    • By the way, you were reverted because you altered others' responses, regardless of trivial insults. Don't do it again.
    • i did believe insults must be removed, sorry will not happen again. but please stop that religious motivated organised vandalism. we do serious science here.
      • Scientists are happier when they discover that criticism of their results is not a personal insult.- Nunh-huh 23:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately wikipedia replies ARE personal insult. just habe a look around.Sihan 00:00, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • Delete - Based on what I am hearing this is just an advert for the site - Texture 20:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually you are not "hearing" anything. You illusion.Sihan 00:00, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • Delete - The worst kind and most transparent kind of astronomical hokum. Octaeteris should be deleted too.--Decumanus 20:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You prove you are without understanding by requesting octaeteris to be deleted. Anybody else has brought no proof for delete-claim at all. It's just mood, envy and semi-religious fanatism. Sihan 00:00, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
      • I changed my vote on octaetris. It's listed in the Wolfram site [5]. You had contaminated the page on it with your own edits. An archaic term, to be sure, but inclusion at Weisstein's site is good enough for me. Can't say the same about your stuff. Sorry, but it doesn't belong here. -- Decumanus 14:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. -- Cyan 00:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. -Rholton 02:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Seriously delete -Seth Mahoney 19:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Syntax 01:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Drew

  • We don't need pages on first names. moink 02:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is used as a disambiguation page. RickK 02:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 19:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if it becomes a redir to various Drews. Davodd 00:51, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)


Gangsta Boo

  • unimportant. moink 03:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. She has articles at Rolling Stone and Ultimate Band List, and there's no reason we shouldn't be at least as comprehensive as them. Meelar 03:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Just a note: the page Three 6 Mafia, written almost exclusively by the same user, is quite good. Let's give these the benefit of the doubt. Meelar 04:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 04:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Meelar. -- Cyan 04:51, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat 08:15, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Member of a national-label recording act; Important enough. Jgm 15:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Than

  • Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:49, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information on contested issues of English usage is valuable and encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded with etymologies, reworded. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Charles Edward Jones

  • Another September 11 death. Adam Bishop 06:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Retired colonel. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 13:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Did he do anything of note before he retired, or is he only noteworthy because of 9/11? If the latter is the case then delete. theresa knott 14:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • He was a colonel. That's noteworthy. Anthony DiPierro 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • As a veteran, I appreciate your patriotism, but I disagree. Being a colonel alone is not noteworthy. Rossami 15:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Keep, after adding detail. I don't think being a Colonel is noteworthy enough. But being an astronaut, albeit one who didn't get into space (his shuttle mission was cancelled after the Challenger disaster) is noteworthy.Average Earthman 19:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, just to clarify, it has nothing to do with patriotism. I'd say the same thing if he were an Iraqi colonel. Anthony DiPierro 18:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • "He was scheduled to be a crew member of a Space Shuttle flight in 1986." Anthony DiPierro 21:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 13:29, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to sep11 if not already there - Texture 14:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 17:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to sept 11th wiki and delete. Secretlondon 20:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to 9/11 wiki & delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move and delete. -- Dissident 23:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Climate Research

  • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • agreed but this is no reason to delete. The page needs to be expanded, so that the news story becomes a small snippet. Suggest move to cleanup. theresa knott 08:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Starting point for an article. Anthony DiPierro 13:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • An empty/blank link is also a starting point for an article. We can't encourage dumping news items into blank articles. If an article is junk, it should be deleted. Add the blank link to requested articles and provided there a link to the news story. Kingturtle 19:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah but this starting point is actually useful. Anthony DiPierro 22:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a snippet from news. Besides, it is about the magazine Climate Research, not about climate research, so one should start from Climate research (disambiguation). THAT would be a valid starting point. Mikkalai 19:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: valid topic. No disambig needed at this time (forget about the magazine). Wile E. Heresiarch 23:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep what? Did you take peek inside? And why forget about the magazine? The contents are about it. Let's better keep an empty page. Mikkalai 01:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Revised article -- pls review your vote (if you care). I have erased the abstract from the magazine and replaced it with what I hope is a valid stub. It's a large, complex, & interesting topic. I hope someone can do more with it. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tencel

  • This one is also Wiktionary-bound. Denelson83 08:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I said above, I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:50, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

  • I think this is a bit hopeless. There is one who refers stars by name - intersting - but others are: shortest verse in the new testament and the likes. Muriel 13:25, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Could some of it be useful in making an encyclopedia. I guess. Neutral. Anthony DiPierro 13:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it is quite interesting. I agree that shortest verse isn't that fascinating for me, but it may be for someone else. The bit about pi=3 though should be in an encylopedia. theresa knott 14:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. very interesting and very encyclopaedic. Optim 14:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote - I found them interesting but it isn't yet an article. - Texture 14:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Texture. By the way, is "list" an appropriate title for this kind of article? I'm under the impression that "list" should only be used for lists where the entries are links. Fredrik 14:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe the interested parts could give the article a better look. I like the concept, i just think the listed items of no particular interest. Muriel 14:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Biblical superlatives are encyclopedic. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:47, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 17:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; interesting. Kwertii 19:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; interesting, has the potential to become much more (if linked from the appropriate places). Catherine 19:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Something. This page shouldn't be kept in it's current unencyclopedic form. If it was refactored and broken into seperate articles some of the material could be kept. However some of the statement are only true for specific translations of the bible and thus are rather meaningless. --Imran 23:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could at least be useful when writing other articles. --Seth Mahoney 19:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Content-free Space Shuttle pages

  • All pages like STS-61-B, STS-61-C, STS-55, STS-56 etc which incorporate the Space Shuttle mission template but have no actual content whatsoever. Evercat 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It helps people add content, but it is misleading because those with no information appear as blue links and not red. But, in fact, if the template was not ready, I would never add the crew list for STS-55, as I did just now. Optim 14:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the exact equivalent of species articles consisting solely of an empty taxobox, which I trust would never be allowed. Evercat 14:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Im responsible for putting these templates up, and the idea is to help people like Optim out. I believe they add value because the provide a starting poiint for people and they will standardize the look of Space shuttle missions, which helps overall comprehension as well as improving look and feel. I do not believe that they detract from the ability to add information to the Wiki any more than stub pages do. The template provides a link to summaries of space shuttle missions that are in the public domain, so that content can be easily and quickly added, or if somone is just searching for information they can find it Theon 14:37, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. If there only was an ever so short stub text in addition to the blank template, it would be ok, and I recommend all who wish to ease the adding of additional content to put in atleast two sentences as a starter. — Sverdrup (talk) 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Changed to keep, as I it trust all of them will fill up at least to stubs now. I don't like vfd being a place to bring sub-stubs into attention to be fixed though. — Sverdrup (talk) 20:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless filled with contents soon - just filling the table and list the crew would be enough to keep them. andy
      • I agree that even minimal content would probably be enough. Evercat 14:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I can agree with the minimal content decision, but how much is enough? would just a list of crew be enough?Theon 14:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • I am adding crew lists. I hope it's enough to make people understand why we need the templates. If there was no template, I would never make those contributions. Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
    • Keep as stub or merge and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Ugh. Absolutely do not merge. The current situation is better than a merge. Evercat 14:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed w/ Evercat Theon 14:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • No! do not merge! Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just a matter of adding basic content (crew etc) - basically copy & paste from NASA's pages - to make stubs of them. Fredrik 15:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. They are useful. However, somebody should go to List of space shuttle missions and mark the pages with no content with a star (*). Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Creating a useful framework for information is just as valuable, and the results worth keeping, as information itself. In any event, there is implied information (ie. "STS-61-C" was a Space Shuttle Mission") that is equivalent to a stub. I suppose Theon could add this sentence or something similar if it makes deletionists happy, but I don't really see what it adds. Jgm 15:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Alright. I myself will try to add some details to most some of these pages, either today or tomorrow. Evercat 16:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - will try to complete all the mission patches - Texture 17:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Decumanus 20:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Rlandmann 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

====Desenrascanso==== Desenrascanço

  • Gets no google hits except Wikipedia derivatives. Made up? DJ Clayworth 15:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the word is a portugese one? The page is seriously POV though.If we keep we need to NPOV it. This is not a vote either way.theresa knott 15:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • You are right dear Theresa, thats the most wonderful of the Portuguese virtues, the one who keeps saving us for the last 900 years! Muriel
    • Despite the true definition and the tender way in which is expressed, delete, not encyclopaediac. Muriel 15:57, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It needs cleanup. VfD is not cleanup. Optim 16:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a real portugese word for "crisis management". Delete because it is not in use in English. (I did not find it in any of the dictionaries I checked.) However if keep, move to Wiktionary (after thorough NPOV). Rossami 16:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If I understand well, it's not just a word. Also, Agora is not used in English but no-one ever voted to deleted it AFAIK. Would you? Optim 16:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Agora is in use in English. Evidence - it was listed in the very first dictionary I checked. From evidence available to me, Desenrascanso is just a word. Rossami
    • I suggest merge with Culture of Portugal Muriel 16:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I would suggest to start a Culture of Portugal article with this info, i.e. move it there. :) Optim 16:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The correct spelling returns several other hits on Google, actually. Fredrik 16:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ornamentation and crime

  • Original research from 1908 DJ Clayworth 15:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, incoherent (hence nonsense). Dpbsmith 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I did move it to Ormamentation and crime, I mean Ornamention and crime, I mean Ornimentatation and crime, but only because I could'nt stand its' mispeling.)
  • There may be some merit to this page, but I can't see it. Mark Richards 21:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am still trying to understand it - Texture 21:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 21:16, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bizzarre. If this isn't patent nonsense, nothing is. Meelar 21:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Archaic is the best way of putting it. Secretlondon 22:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ethical fitnessism

  • Original research, only 1 google hit. -- Graham  :) 16:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I can't decide if it is an advertisement for the concept or what but it has no support - Texture 19:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not an advert - it claims to be about Dawkins - and quotes his work. Doesn't count as original research as it is clearly published. But - has anyone got the book to verify? I haven't. Secretlondon 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If it's about Dawkin's parts of it should be merged with Richard Dawkins, I don't think it deserves a page of it's own with one Google hit. I don't think Dawkins actually uses the term "ethical fitnessism", but he may have mentioned "ethical fitness". --Lexor|Talk 03:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to something like Ethics and evolutionary psychology and keep. I'm fairly familiar with Dawkins' popular writings, and but for the idiosyncratic title it seems a fair statement of one ethical calculus based on sociobiology. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paddywagon

  • Orphaned slang term, little chance of improvement. -- Graham  :) 16:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary? I think the use of this slang term has outgrown its racist meaning; and is now generically used to indicate a police car (as seen in public enemy lyrics). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:59, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I rewrote with a slightly fuller explanation--still a stub, but could maybe be expanded. Meelar 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe this could be redirected to Police car or something of the kind? Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

McFly

  • Little-known band. Article was created by Anthony sockpuppet just so he could put a mention of his fork on there. --Wik 16:04, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC) +
  • Delete. Muriel 16:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or redirect to Back To The Future, if the cultural reference is strong enough. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:52, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I guess someone alread has done so... These vfd conversations are always confusing, because people keep changing the articles while they are under discussion. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:54, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirected to Marty McFly. Keep as redirect. Anthony DiPierro 16:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delte - Page does not appear to be a redirect - seems to have morphed from a vanity/advert to the little known band and possibly to a redirect and back to an article - delete this mess and let someone else start over without bias - Texture 17:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It was a redirect but wik kept reverting it. Anthony DiPierro 17:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep until unprotected. Anthony DiPierro 17:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • On the request for page protection you want the page deleted and here you vote to keep it? - Texture 17:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I also understood the same thing... Strange. Maybe Anthony needs some sleep? :) or he just changed his mind? Optim 18:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • That was before I realized it should be a redirect. Anthony DiPierro 18:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-famous. Moncrief, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, due to not being notable. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seditty (3d/0k)

  • to Wiktionary? DJ Clayworth 18:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like outright trolling to me. I can't find the word in google define or in dictionary.com. I'm guessing it's a pun on someone's name or something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I presume this is a personal attack on someone. Secretlondon 22:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Google actually turns up plenty of uses with this meaning [6], so I'm guessing its recent slang. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stellated earflaps (4d/2k)

Entire content is "Fleshy outer-ear, somewhat similar to a paper doily. Some believe an indicator of inter-breeding", is an orphan, andhas no history. --the Epopt 19:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. The author does have a brief history, in particular, of articles about birth defects. Obvously, he stumbled upon a piece of information not readily abailable elsewhere and (correctly, IMO) decided to put it here. Now it hits the google. I suggest to try and link it to somewhere visible, so that experts could reach and fix the stub. Mikkalai 19:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Delete. Hmmm. Only google hits seem to come from Wikipedia derivatives. If this is a real medical condition, perhaps it is under a different name/spelling? -- Decumanus 21:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything either. I tried various combinations of "earlobe," "ear," "morphology," "stellated," etc. Dpbsmith 23:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) Keep and hopefully someday merge with an article on earlobe shapes and the inheritance thereof. The inheritance of earlobe shapes is a recognized topic in genetics courses and someone (not I) could write a very decent article about it. Dpbsmith 21:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no such condition (or anything like it) in MEDLINE Hugh2414 21:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not a health problem; just an anatomic trait. Mikkalai 01:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can find nothing either. I've searched for earlobes as well - I presume earflaps is colloquial. I presume a joke, I'm afraid. Secretlondon 22:12, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The author was no joker. Mikkalai 01:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like a joke to me. I can't find any hits, except sites that copy wikipedia. Maximus Rex 01:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't find either, but I urge you to delete it only after a qualified conclusion of a cynologist. It easy to prove the existence. Not so for non-existence, especially in rare areas of knowledge. Mikkalai 01:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Just an exercise, try to find semitulip ear or fiddle-fronted dog. Mikkalai 01:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • semi-tulip ear, fiddle fronted dog. Maximus Rex 01:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • How many google hits, pray tell me? These are not very frequent words to find at every Encarta and Barnes and Noble. Mikkalai 03:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • One google hit (a scan from a published book) is better than zero, which is what stellated earflaps gives right now, if you take out the Wikipedia contributions. I'm perfectly willing to change my vote if one verifiable piece of evidence can be presented that this condition actually exists, beyond the reputation of the original author.-- Decumanus 14:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Prone (4d/1k)

Dicdef moink 20:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. dicdefs should be speedily deleted. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwikied to wiktionary and *then* deleted, surely? Secretlondon 22:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes- sorry, i guess there might need to be a new category - "candidates for speedy transwikification"- this could include recipes and dicdefs (although I wasn't part of the recipe discussion, i don't know how that finally ended up, so I might be wrong). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dont even think about it. First, see encyclopedia. Next see compendium. Next see talk:compendium. Next see definition. And finally talk:definition. Bensaccount 18:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Is that a vote to keep, or to delete?
  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 20:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to wiktionary Rossami 21:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Nikon products

Including sub-page Nikon D70. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Egil 22:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: It is. Also keep the "subpage". Optim 22:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 22:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • We have many similar articles. I will have to vfd all of them in case of deletion. I dont understand why we keep a list of all software products or a list of IBM products and we delete a list on Nikon products. Are we funded by IBM? :) We need to be fair. Optim 22:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Secretlondon 22:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: WP is not a product catalog -- impossible maintenance task. I'm comfortable with deleting the existing product lists. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. While I don't oppose this article on principle, unless it is made more substantial it misleads readers and as such is not NPOV. --Imran 23:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not the entire Web. This is the sort of material for which corporate websites are ideal—comprehensive, and up-to-date. In many cases, material available on the web has value added to it by being selected for incorporation into Wikipedia and rewritten into an encyclopedia article. But in the case of a corporation's current product line, not only is no value added, but some value is subtracted by incorporating the material into Wikipedia. An historic overview of Nikon products, on the other hand, would be quite worthy of inclusion. Dpbsmith 23:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redir to Nikon - not substantial enough for its own article yet. This probably could have been done without VFD listing. Davodd 01:00, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) counted as redir -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A) No reason to keep it here: those who need product catalog, go to the source. Those who need independent reviews or best prices, go to the corresponding sites. B) This is slippery slope. Imagine what will happen if some marketroids will learn that WP sports their competitor's catalog... Similarly hunt down other similar marketing catalogs in the WP. --Humus sapiens 04:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, keep. As is. I don't see what the big deal is. RadicalBender 04:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided. IMO it would be cool to have a good list of Nikon products, and not just the current ones. That's where the corporate websites tend to let us down, eg the Paiste cymbal site lists only currently manufactured models, not even ones that were current a week ago and will still be in the shops for the next 2-3 years! That's the most extreme example I know. But, the Nikon article itself is a stub, and if this were merged in I'm not sure the redirect would be useful. Andrewa 06:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) not counted -- Optim 09:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep D70 article. Obviously useful, verfiable, extendable content. Only reason proposed for deletion is the claim that Wikipedia is not a product catalog - it clearly is (amongst other things). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) not counted (ambiguous) Optim 11:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k -- Optim·.· 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What is ambiguous about the word "KEEP"? What is ambiguous about "useful, verfiable, extendable conent"? If these new tallies are to be kept, they need to be accurate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Answered on your talk page. Optim·.· 17:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • List of Nikon products redirected to Nikon and merged. Keep redirect. Best presentation at this time and for the forseeable future is to present a single cohesive article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as redir Optim 11:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both. I don't love lists, but this is clearly useful, verifiable, and a heck of a lot more handy than loads of other lists we've decided to keep. Sam Spade 10:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k Optim 11:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redir to Nikon and merge - Texture 15:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as redir -- Optim·.· 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect List of Nikon products to Nikon. A decision should be taken here and someone needs to notify User:Vespristiano (who seems to be catologuing his gadget collection!). There was a similar decision on List of Sony products and Sony PictureStation DPP-EX50. See also List of Olympus products and Olympus C-770 Movie, List of Matsushita products and Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1, List of Sony Ericsson products and Sony Ericsson P900 etc etc etc. This guy works hard and has been commended for his work on Star Trek episodes, so a simple pointer towards some kind of policy would help stop these re-appearing on Vfd. akaDruid 16:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as redir -- Optim·.· 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Everyking 20:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 5

Kilian Knote (12d/1k)

undeleted as it was deleted out of process without being here five days. Angela. 02:00, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • if Kilian has a page, i want one too. Muriel 16:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; purely a vanity page; no meaningful Google hits. Added VfD notice. -- Seth Ilys 16:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonfamous. Maroux 20:46, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, "job wanted" ad. Lupo 10:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You already have a page. Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not in the wikispace! Muriel 11:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no value. 80.202.80.207 05:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable individual. Maximus Rex 05:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page theresa knott 10:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a significant person. Average Earthman 17:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

September 2004, et. al.

  • No content. RickK 02:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d -- Optim 09:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Also October 2004 RickK 02:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) not counted -- Optim 09:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • November 2004, December 2004, May 2004, June 2004, July 2004, August 2004. RickK 02:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) not counted -- Optim 09:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to current events until we've passed the months in question.Average Earthman 09:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • no, it will make it impossible to move the current events to the page when the time comes. del --Jiang 20:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - why keep until passed? They serve no purpose beyond a link to other months created by the same user. No content whatsoever. - Texture 15:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ding Scale (8d/0k)

Gets no Google hits. Made up or original research. Maximus Rex 05:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. April Fool Day joke. Mikkalai 09:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim·.· 12:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke and a bad one. No Google hits (although it's hard to tell because of many hits on words like "grading scale" that have been line-broken and hyphenated!). Dpbsmith 13:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Decumanus 15:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Urm, delete. Bad joke. Besides, 1/0 is undefined, not infinity. -Seth Mahoney 19:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. That's just tasteless. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:27, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - tasteless

Bate Boiko and Briquet (1d,0k)

Move to Wiktionary. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cali Ruchala

Journalist (not especially famous). Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 14:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony, please stop insulting other people for raising legitimate questions. This is a very borderline article -- I'd say this person is just on the edge of being encyclopedia worthy, but Cali's magazines seem professional enough that it tips me over into "keep", barely. Jwrosenzweig 17:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've removed what could be seen as an insult. Sorry. Anthony DiPierro 17:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CardRealm (2d,0k)

Internet card game: we are not advertising. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as it stands - could easily be included in list of card games - Texture 15:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cattleboat (2d,0k)

Slang - wikyionary. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 15:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lewis Sanders, Justin Sanders (3d/0k)

Non famous vanity. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete both - looks like a new user who doesn't realize this is inappropriate - Texture 17:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree looks like newbie expt. theresa knott 17:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FOXHOUND

Contentless, doesn't seem expandable to me. Possibly merge with Metal Gear though? Anyone know enough about this? Jwrosenzweig 19:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I do. I'll do the merge. -- Cyan 20:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge complete. Redirect or delete at your leisure. -- Cyan 20:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Angelwings and Finerthings

Was originally at dead end pages - "A debut novel from some guy who creates RPGs. Should it be here at all? --Phil 10:55, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC) " I say no. --Jiang 19:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • It was copied from amazon.com and is a copyvio... --Jiang
  • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 21:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Last Words of Dutch Shultz

A gangster's incoherent death-bed rambles. Source text; doubt it could be made into a reasonable article. -- Infrogmation 20:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - source text - cannot be expanded - Texture 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Offer it to wikisource & delete. moink 20:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dutch Schultz, wikisource, and delete. Anthony DiPierro 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Harri Porten

Not famous. moink 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Famous. Anthony DiPierro 21:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirect to KPPP - if all developers are famous we're in for a lot of new pages - Texture 21:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Harri Porten is one of the more famous developers. Anthony DiPierro 21:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Beyond creating KPPP name something famous he did. If you can, add it to the article and place a note here that the article was updated. - Texture 21:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Do your own research. VfD is not cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 21:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • By this response, I gather that he is not famous. - Texture 21:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • According to Linux Today his claim to fame was adding JavaScript support in Konqueror. Anthony DiPierro 21:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
              • According to the article, he implemented JavaScript in some other product, called "Lynx Konqueror", which is not the default browser of KDE. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:30, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
              • That's not fame, that's a job. Not that tough a one either. Tell me he was the first to add Java to any linux platform and you might have fame. - Texture 21:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • "Claim to Fame" were not my words. And java has nothing to do with javascript. Anthony DiPierro 21:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That would be like redirecting Marc Andreesen to Netscape. Completely unacceptable. Anthony DiPierro 21:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 21:39, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • info: Google search returns 3270 links for "Harri Porten" and Yahoo search returns 1160. Some of them: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Optim·.· 21:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Developers are more useful than singers. Singers are more famous simply because they *have to* make noise as part of their job description. Mikkalai 22:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not famous No Guru 22:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Lynx Konqueror", the product that he developed, returns less than 200 hits on Google. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:28, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 22:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: insignificant. "If all developers are famous we're in for a lot of new pages" -- yup. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lexigenesis

Dicdef moink 21:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think a good linguistics article could be written around that. Everyking 22:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Tagged it for speedy deletion - It isn't a real word in dictionary.com - same text as Metalexigenesis below. - Texture 23:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This should not have been deleted; it got a few Google hits, including a linguistics paper, so it must be a real term, although apparently a very obscure one. Everyking 00:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. This should have been kept for a while. There are lots of specialty words that don't show up in dictionary.com - I have that problem all the time. --Seth Mahoney 01:56, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Simargl

Author seems to have no idea what the topic is. Me neither. moink 23:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Correction: author does know *what* the topic is, but he doesn't know the topic. Mikkalai 00:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Metalexigenesis

Dicdef, not expandable. moink 23:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Tagged it for speedy deletion - It isn't a real word in dictionary.com - Texture 23:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Same as above - should have been kept, until a linguist came around to verify. -Seth Mahoney 01:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 6

WE LOVE YOU

Vanity page Jooler 01:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Same as Eiknom. ugen64 03:11, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Davide Mana

Vanity. Move to User:Davide Mana. moink 01:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More Customer experience management


Eiknom

May have been vanity, blanked by author. moink 01:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I deleted it, as it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion anyway, and it was blanked by the author. ugen64 03:09, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Beekeeping leading practices

  • I created it. I don't have the content knowledge to finish the page and based on the length of time unedited, no one else has interest. Rossami 02:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Some information is better than none. Everyking 02:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looks pretty cool. -- Decumanus 02:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'll try to get some more on it. Pollinator 02:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2646934"