Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:57, 12 March 2004

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.
Please also use the "what links here" link in the sidebar for a page you think merits deletion, to get a sense of its context. Finally, explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.

This page is for listing articles that are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles you think merit a change in the deletion policy. In the second case, visit Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to discuss the policy change.

Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month: 12^th - 11^th - 10^th - 9^th - 8^th - 7^th - 6^th - 5^th

Jump to the end of the page and click on the lowest edit link to add a new candidate.

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

Decisions in progress

Ongoing discussions

All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at Talk:List of recipes/Delete (see also Wikien-l)
Unsolved problems in biology See Talk:Unsolved problems in biology
List of Europeans & List of EU people, see Talk:List of Europeans & Talk:List of EU people

March 6

Charles Edward Jones

See Talk:Charles Edward Jones Vfd header added on the 6th.

Concensus to delete after transwiki (I haven't learned this yet so I leave this for someone to complete.) - Texture 17:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Probably best to leave this run for a while yet. Most votes for delete were made before the article was expanded to include his space shuttle career. No consensus has emerged from more recent votes. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Staple (cooking)

Typical example of wiktionary term. Pfortuny 16:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Staple food, redirect, and then list Staple food here. Anthony DiPierro 17:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. These are not staple foods and should not be added to Staple food. They could be added as types of food to Food David Thrale 22:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 7

User:Ernst_Gruber

No User Contributions, WP is no Homepageprovider, BTW s.o is spamming ([[1]] and others) the german WP with contributions with this name (and other names, anonym. is blocked in the de:WP already), possible part if some sort of blog.network.--Nerd

Delete: no contributions except user page. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pro Audio Firewire800 HD

Delete, promotional. No obvious reason why this particular product rates an article of its own. Dpbsmith 03:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Anthony DiPierro 04:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge or delete. Unexpandable. +sj + 06:46, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
Delete - Dammit Jim, this is an Encyclopedia, not a product data sheet.PilotPrecise 11:08, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ruth Aylett

Vanity page. RickK 04:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What makes you think this is a vanity page? Anthony DiPierro 04:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, definitely. Everyking 05:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Weak vote for keep. moink 05:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - reaching professorhood and writing a popular-science book are in my opinion enough to keep. Andre Engels 10:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Author. Davodd 10:54, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. - Published. Established. PilotPrecise 07:09, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wright

See Talk:Daniel Wright for discussion -- Graham :)

Spum

Neologism. -- Decumanus 18:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Too new. moink 18:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So what? Keep. Everyking 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Second moink, delete. Fredrik 19:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; too new to be encyclopæedic. Psychonaut 19:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but I am the writer, so if I shoudn't vote, remove my vote? To keep the text I will transfer it to my user page anyway. Ellywa 20:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Borderline as far as being encyclopedic, but being well-written and well documented tips the balance in favor of keeping it. Dpbsmith 22:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unless we plan to include every single neologism. Quibble splatwock raraxial. --Imran 02:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 03:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary and delete. Rossami 17:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. We can restore it if it ever becomes more widely used. Average Earthman 18:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: WP is to document what exists, not stuff that might exist. If anyone remembers this neologism in 6 months, then it'll be time for an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vile and Ve

We have pages for Vili and Ve. After looking at the history, this page looks suspiciously like it was started as an advert for the musical duo mentioned. Google hasn't heard of them. I have already added the one piece of useful information here (that Lodur may be an alternate name for Vili) into the article on Vili. Isomorphic 18:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with delete of the viola players. Could someone check if those two gods actually did build Yggdrasil? I've merged that info, want to make sure it's accurate. Meelar 19:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I didn't move it because I couldn't tell if the article meant that Vile and Ve made Yggdrasil or that Odin made Yggdrasil. Isomorphic 20:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: stuff about viola players is personal promotion, stuff about Norse gods is redundant with other articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Homonymic

Dictionary definition. -- Graham :) 19:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete this page. This is an entry for a dictionary (Wiktionary), not an encyclopedia. Also homonym is not a synonym of homonymic. Homonym is the noun form of homonymic. -- Owen and Rob 19:44, 7 Mar 2004 (GMT)
Wiktionary and delete. Rossami 17:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

sexed up

Keep. (Has a vfd tag, but was not listed here until now.) The current content sucks, but it is a common term, and could become a useful article--how/when/where it originated would be interesting; also a reference to the phrase "sex sells". If nothing else, it could redirect to Hyperbole, with appropriate reference added to that article. Niteowlneils 23:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep with above suggestions.
It was a key phrase in the Hutton Inquiry which is why the content is why it is. Please add/amend. Secretlondon 23:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Neutral. IMO this is not a particularly useful contribution and never likely to be, but nor is there any persuasive case for deletion. Human knowledge? Borderline. A poor choice of article name at best. The material could perhaps be NPOVed and moved to an article on journalistic bias or similar by someone interested in the topic, with a redirect. Andrewa 23:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article definitely needs changing. It is becoming sexed up itself!
- I've removed the POV content, and expanded it. Could still use some work, but is an example of what it could become. Niteowlneils 23:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment : Neutral. As the original author I agree that it wasn't the most informative first entry I could've made to this place. The example was meant to be sexed up as a self reference, however I realised I should've expilicitly stated this and have tried to ammend it appropriately. Bad newbieness, sorry. easilyremembered 23:47 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but needs a bit more. Dysprosia 04:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Common term. --Johnleemk 07:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary. Common term but words, phrases and their use flow better in Wiktionary than they can here. Rossami 14:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary. Encyclopedia is about facts, not about words however idiomatic or neologismic they could be. Do you really want all these "beefed up", "screwed up", "dressed up" and hundreds of other ups here? Mikkalai 18:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. I would vote to delete all the ones you cite. However, none of them have been used as commonly or specifically by the news media for such a controversial, and specific news item. Niteowlneils 18:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have one's cake and eat it too

Delete. This article is too imprecise and cumbrsome to warrant inclusion.--Tappyea 23:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Weak vote to keep Owen&rob 23:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a common phrase, and it seems precise enough to me. Everyking 23:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless dictionary definintion. Tannin
Delete. Definition of cliche phrase. Mike Church 06:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Common phrase. --Johnleemk 07:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary and/or delete. Hard to expand. (I don't think dysprosia's expansion belongs as part of the article/entry, for instance)... +sj + 08:03, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
Wiktionary. It's a real phrase but definitions, phrases and their usage flow better in Wiktionary, not here. Rossami 14:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. It is more of a definition than anything else. Should be moved to Wiktionary. Jacob1207 17:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary. -- Dissident 17:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary, this is an idion, and not really suited for an encyclopedia. Fuzheado 00:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Phrases don't generally appear in dictionaries. Niteowlneils 18:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Its an explanation of a common phrase, and could be fleshed out with some history, famous uses of, etc.Theon 02:39, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. We have a List of English proverbs; but I wouldn't want a separate article for each of those. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:05, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary or delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 8

Temperance (disambiguation)

This page is redundant. It has been superseded by Temperance. To put 'disambiguation' in the title is unnecessary. Owen&rob 00:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- leave as redirect. --Jia ng 00:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is no need to have Temperance (disambiguation) since Temperance now contains the page and there is no need to have 'disambiguation' in the title (although there is, obviously, the disambiguation message at the bottom).
- It's important to say that titles that include "(disambiguation)" are anomolies, not the routine; the creating editor may be confused about that. --Jerzy (t) 01:26, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
Redirect. Niteowlneils 00:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirect. Anthony DiPierro 00:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pray tell me what is the reason to keep an artificial page to which no links are expected as a redirect? Like any bureaucracy, these XXX(disambiguation) pages start their own parasitic life. Mikkalai 18:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - agree with Mikkalai - Texture 18:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - agree with Mik. +sj +
Comment: At first this looked like a really big mess, but it's not, it's just that many people appear confused about correct procedures and/or the histories of the various pages. The position appears to be:
- The current Temperance page was moved from Temperance (disambiguation), quite correctly, preserving the history.
- The current Temperance (disambiguation) page was later created. It has always been a redirect, and has no significant history.
(continued) IMO there is no reason for having Temperance (disambiguation) as a redirect, but it should be listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, not here. Andrewa 06:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Grandfather's brother paradox

No hits from google. --Imran 18:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not the legitimate paradox - Texture 18:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Made up. Maximus Rex , 19:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -Seth Mahoney 07:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - my kids make up stuff than this David Thrale 08:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Can we please put this wherever really BAD articles go? I think there's a page for that sort of thing somewhere (Isn't it called Bad Jokes?), and if I ever saw a page that deserved to go on it The Grandfather's Brother Paradox does. -Litefantastic 12:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's not even a paradox, since there is only one possible end for the brother anyway. A paradox demands two conflicting results. Doovinator 13:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
wikipedia:bjaodn- Found the Bad Jokes page. Seriously, I think this should go there. And stay there, too. -Litefantastic 14:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doggabyte, Nonabyte

Look dubious, with no clear evidence for their existence: the SI prefixes stop at Yocta, AFAIK. Also see other similarly named articles by the creator of these articles. -- The Anome 01:07, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wiktionary. Looks real, but it's nothing but a long-winded dictionary definition. Anthony DiPierro 01:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The only use I can find is wordplay (eg [2] ). -- The Anome 01:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html lists only yotta (10²⁴) through yocto (10^-24). Burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that the others are recognized. Dpbsmith 01:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) The external links cited on the main page are only references to the proposed binary prefixes, "kibibytes," etc. The talk page cites [3]. This URL retrieves a document, and the document does list doggabyte and nonabyte in the appendix, but the document is not about SI or other prefixes and gives no other references for their use. The articles on doggabyte and nonabyte IMHO absolutely must state that they are not SI prefixes and give the provenance for these words—who defined them, what organizations have accepted them, and where they are used. Dpbsmith 01:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and ask the original author to verify source. If the author is unable to do so, delete it. It looks, and may very well be, perfectly valid. I've heard a similar prefix used for very small numbers (Not nano, smaller). Metasquares 02:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The area of numeric nomenclature is not some obscure borderline science or political jargon of newspapers, and the terminology of this kind must be reasonably recognized before it is put in the encyclopedia. Mikkalai 03:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If these are kept the redirects should be undeleted. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dubious jargon definitions. Mike Church 06:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)]
Delete. Fake (if humorous) units with no backing from a recognized standard. +sj + 06:17, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
Proof or delete. I expect delete. Fredrik 10:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fake. They call me Mr. Metric here. Just more along the line of '10 cards = 1 dekacards' and '10e-9 booboos = 1 nanobooboo' Denni 01:44, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
Delete simply for the fact that Non- and dogga- are admittedly nonstandard SI prefixes, and so they would never be used in the context they are shown in. You might as well have a page for monkeybytes Theon 02:44, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete both: fabrications. Not listed at NIST: [4]. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I know all the prefixes, yotta-, zetta, exa-, peta-, tera-, giga-, mega-, kilo-, hecta-, deka-, deci-, centi-, milli-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-, atto-, zepto-, yocta-. Delete. I really should have copied that from somewhere... - Arthur George Carrick 03:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You forgot groucho-, chico-, harpo- and zeppo-. Sorry, I couldn't resist. -Litefantastic 14:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ibn Juzayy

New article w/ no real information, and "summary" ("Buff Guy") makes it sound like a vanity page. --zandperl 04:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Uh...[5]. Legit and important. To use a legal definition, "Keep, with prejudice." RadicalBender 05:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. +sj + 09:22, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
Keep if turned into a proper stub. Fredrik 15:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The single bit of information on the page is already included on the only page that links to this article. Jacob1207 17:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete - agree with Jacob1207~~ Changed to keep if redirected - Texture 17:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep and redirect to the author Ibn Battuta.~~ This could even be the classical case where keep and redirect is appropriate in fact, assuming nothing else is known about the subject, and given that there's already a reasonable article on the author. Many people who can't remember the author's name will remember this name. Andrewa 19:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~Keep.~~ Now a good stub. Andrewa 20:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Uncertain. Now a marginal stub, and a redirect may be more appropriate IMO, see Talk:Ibn Juzayy. Andrewa 20:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't redirect. That would strongly discourage creation of a new page. Anthony DiPierro 20:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I've already done it. I wasn't quite sure what the procedure is! I suggest you now either build a good stub, if suitable material exists, or list the redirect on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Andrewa 20:07, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meeve

Seems made-up or some sort of an inside joke. Only relevant google hit is an urbandictionary.com entry [6] with 1 vote, possibly from the same submitter. --Delirium 07:36, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I hope Meeve doesn't come after me for doubting his existence. Everyking 07:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. "Brains!..." Bad night of the living dead spoof - Texture 15:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like 99.9% pure nonsense to me, issuing from some space case's head. At best, it's contemporary fiction that will be forgotten in approximately 3.72 months. jaknouse 15:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - for the reasons given above - Niteowlneils 21:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Feo

Vanity page; not even a complete name (Daniel Feo Pizolante) see Talk:Daniel_Feo for discussion (further justfication)JimD 10:13, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

Delete. The initial edit makes it even clearer why this should be deleted. Maximus Rex , 10:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - for reasons given above - Texture 15:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - for reasons given above - Niteowlneils 21:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - drug lords aren't worth of deletion in and of themselves, however a Google search on "Daniel Feo Pizolante" returns 0 hits. Non-famous. --zandperl 00:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Press releases/How to send a press release

Do we really want to encourage people to spam newspapers and other agencies with our press release? This page invites anyone to send it anywhere; lots of newspapers are then bound to receive multiple copies. Additionally, it advises the reader to fake their From header... — Timwi 10:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well clearly if people are sending press releases wrongly, we need a how-to to tell them how to do it rightly! Thus this is clearly a content issue not a deletion issue. (NB we have a log so that newspapers should not receive multiple copies) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then certainly this page should link to that log. Even better yet, the log and the explanations should be on the same page, and that page here should be deleted. — Timwi 13:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Newspapers don't necessarily consider this spam, or at least it's useful spam--they have to find news somehow. Besides, how is it "faking" your from header? You're sending it out on behalf of Wikimedia PR, at their request. Meelar 21:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep if improved. Having a how-to PR article is probably desirable, but should have more detailed info about avoiding overuse/spam (IE recommend checking the logbook before sending anything). And it shouldn't tell people to fake the header. Niteowlneils 21:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kalfwgrim

Delete - can't find a viking by this name - no reference to his fame/importance - Texture 14:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. — Timwi 14:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yahoo/google finds nothing. Niteowlneils 20:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The letter W does not occur in standardized Old Norse texts. Likely fictional: delete. Smerdis of Tlön 21:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- thanks for the sharp eyes, Smerdis. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chico McMurtrie Chico MacMurtrie

Just a quote, nothing else. — Timwi 16:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete (reaffirmed - vanity) - the email included leans it toward vanity - Texture 16:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I removed the email. Anthony DiPierro 17:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Google search turns up only his website and a few brief mentions of only local or niche interest. Jacob1207 17:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Try searching for "Chico MacMurtrie". Anthony DiPierro 23:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Del. --Wik 17:32, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
No vote, but if decision is delete, remove name from list of "famous roboticists" on robots page (which was added today by the same anonymous user). Rossami 18:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as stub. He had a solo showing at the Tech museum, and has permanent artwork in San Fran. (there are other "local" articles) Niteowlneils 20:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Chico MacMurtrie. Was already linked from Electronic art. Anthony DiPierro 23:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DAIM

Delete - vanity for graffiti artist - includes tag names of his "crews". - Texture 16:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 17:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. Not verifiable.~~ Keep. Verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 17:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This has no place in an encyclopedia. Why would anyone look it up?
Delete. Not encyclopedic. moink 18:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Everyking 20:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mixed feelings. Article as is sucks. And I don't know if wikipedia wants to promote graffitti artists. On the other hand, among such artists, he apparently is one of the more notable. A Yahoo search for famous graffiti artists daim finds 119 hits. Searching for just daim gets 135,000 hits, tho' many are for other uses of the word, but it includes magazine interviews of him, and places his work has been shown. Maybe a stub or a disambig page, as Daim Zainuddin was apparently a powerful political figure in Mayalasia. Niteowlneils 20:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Should it be spelled in all caps like that? Anthony DiPierro 23:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Apparently famous. Meelar 20:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity page for a petty criminal. --Hcheney 22:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Majority of votes on VfU were to undelete. Angela . (this is not a vote)
Keep. Widely read author. Certainly passes "audience of 5000" test. Meelar 20:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, definitely. Everyking 20:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. - Arthur George Carrick 20:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Looks legitimate to me. Jwrosenzweig 21:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Was this deleted for being a copyright infingement? [7] Anthony DiPierro 21:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Don't think so, but since it apparently is: ~~delete~~ rather, rewrite. Fredrik 21:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - The original contributor wrote in last time, claiming to be the original author. Meelar 00:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: vanity, insignificant. Once sold an article to the Orlando Sentinal -- I'm suitably impressed. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. Doovinator 16:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Absolute Nonsense

Might be worth to be incorporated into Spam, but no reason to have this orphan IMHO. andy 21:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Used to bypass e-mail filtering, so should be merged with some article about e-mail filtering. Bayesian filter doesn't exist yet, perhaps a stub should be created there and this content merged with it. Fredrik 21:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Anthony DiPierro 23:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge into spam and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge into spam Quinwound 02:52, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Neofire

Vanity. Delete. RadicalBender 22:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Seconded andy 22:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - the very definition of vanity. Whether he created it or not, it is not important or famous enough to be more than a vanity posting. - Texture 22:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - It's the biography of a website. There are many other articles devoted to websites. I guess you should delete all biographies and band articles too because they're considered vanity? Bonfire2k4 22:20, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ex post facto delete. Vanity page. --Hcheney 22:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see how it's vanity. Doesn't that mean it was created by the owner of the website? Anthony DiPierro 22:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Vanity also means 'something useless or unimportant', and if it was written by a friend, it's almost the same thing as if he had written it himself anyway. Delete. Fredrik 23:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I've never heard the word vanity used in that way. In any case, this article certainly isn't useless or unimportant. Anthony DiPierro 23:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - "My jewelry is a vanity, nothing more" is a correct usage. Meelar 00:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - "Lack of usefulness, worth, or effect; worthlessness." Learn something new every day. Anthony DiPierro 03:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - How is this article useful or important? It's about a weblog, one of tens of thousands; and at that, one which isn't in any way remarkable. Fredrik 23:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - It tells you about the weblog. Also the webmaster. That's a lot more useful than many of the other pages on here. What's useful about Mount Hope, New York? What's important about Carlisle Floyd? Does anyone care about the Grand Duchess Tatiana of Russia or Raymond Lambert? Anthony DiPierro 23:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I think this is pure vanity as well. I can't see how it is significant or useful to anyone (other then the blogger himself of course)... --Vikingstad 00:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yahoo only finds 19 hits for neofire.net, most from the site itself, or an article about a "rubberband ball" on the site that doesn't seem to exist anymore. If we keep this, why not the other 36,000,000 sites? Niteowlneils 00:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- maybe it's not indexed on search engines to a large extent, but it has a decent fan base and gets 500+ hits daily. not totally impressive, but its updated more than most websites, and gets more traffic too. --Bonfire2k4 01:27, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
  - Wow. 500+ hits is the standard for Wikipedia? I'm gonna go add my site now, too. ;-) RadicalBender 02:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Im just saying that its not some geocities page that gets 5 hits a month. That's all. --Bonfire2k4 02:41, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: vanity, insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- (Dont delete, its more then a web log, its actully got real and good information. This is the 25th version of it and is MUCH more dedicated then the 100000's of other web logs, and FYI, the rubberband ball is mine, (http://www.freewebs.com/xeroinsanity89/rbb.htm). The only reason it still shows up for neofire is because he did a layout for me awhile back, so ya, dont diss my rubberband ball.) --Xeroinsanity89 01:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Yet another entry for Vanitwiki JimD 02:44, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
Delete - Quinwound 02:50, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Bkonrad 03:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. RickK 04:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe those who voted to keep The Best Page in the Universe article would like to handle this one, and the many more that will follow now that the precendent is set. Discussion is archived at Talk:The Best Page in the Universe/Delete. Andrewa 05:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The Best Page in the Universe is in Alexa's top 5000 (gets at least 100,000 unique visits per day) and is, most importantly, widely known. I agree that the article on it is pretty poor, though. Fredrik 07:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - This argument was answered long ago, see the archived discussion. Andrewa 20:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe we would if we didn't have to spend so much time trying to get you to not delete it. Anthony DiPierro 13:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. Doovinator 16:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. David Thrale 08:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Horst Helle

Delete - this is a resume including email, address, and phone number - vanity - Texture 22:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to de: and let them handle it ;-) — Timwi 22:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. --Ryan and/or Mero 02:05, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Morning care

? — Timwi 23:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Comedy but absolutely useless. --Tappyea 00:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and clean up: the term returns many hits on Google. Otherwise, move to Wikipedia:Still more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --zandperl 00:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and move to Bad Jokes. What Zandperl says. Denni 01:55, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
Combine with nursing, maybe? --Ryan and/or Mero 02:03, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed: merge into more relevant topic JimD 02:32, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
Delete. "Morning care" is not a term commonly used in nursing. Most of the google hits refer to morning sessions of child care. The phrase has some limited use in academic circles in the context of care for patients suffering dementia, but not enough in my opinion to justify a separate article. Also, article is an orphan. Rossami 05:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I'd have said delete but for Rossami's comment above, but if that's true then it does deserve an article IMO. List on cleanup, or better still, someone who knows this stuff fix it! Andrewa 20:03, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 9

List of Concentration Camps for Poles

Moved to Talk:List of concentration camps for Poles.. VFD notice removed as no longer applicable, since the page is totally different now. Mikkalai

Stale flames

User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism, User:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism, User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKology, User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKs big lie, User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia, User:EntmootsOfTrolls/sign, Wikipedia:Community case RK, User talk:RK/ban Archive, User talk:RK/ban Archive2, User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/on applying Sharia to RK, Wikipedia:Case User:RK, Wikipedia case user:RK, User talk:RK/ban, Wikipedia:Community case RK action, User:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban RK, Wikipedia talk:Community case RK, User:MyRedDice/Wikipedians attacked by RK, User talk:MyRedDice/Wikipedians attacked by RK

User referred to is no longer active of his own choice. Pages currently serve no purpose. Martin 00:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep user-space subpages. Delete Wikipedia: pages.~~ — Sverdrup 00:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The user-space subpages were by a banned user and are deletable on that basis. Martin 01:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The pages have no purpose, and wikipedia should be clean of past intrigues. — Sverdrup 17:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I believe that the range of IP addresses used by this person are stil blocked, so we need to keep these around until that changes. Jamesday 17:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Amerime

I've been an American anime fan for three or four years now and I've never heard this term used before (although I do recognize the trend the article talks about). Returns 49 results on Google. RadicalBender 00:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete: the anime fans I know have never heard of nor used the term; also even if the usage was more widespread it sounds like a wiktionary entry.JimD 02:25, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Theory of conduct

This does not look anything like an encyclopedia article. It is a very long, rambling piece which has been in Wikipedia for over two years. Google has 196 hits for "theory of conduct" [8] (Google says "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 196 already displayed", e.g. duplicate pages, Google itself has 615 becomes 196 once it removes duplicates). Out of these, many of the pages are from Wikipedia or the Wikipedia database. All of Google's top hits are back to this page, or clones of it. This does not seem to be something. I considered taking this 1093 line, 11155 word piece and breaking it down into about 10 lines, but there really is not much out there on theory of conduct (196 Google entries, most of them from the Wikipedia database, many of them just using the phrase randomly in a sentence). This looks like a candidate for deletion. Mikimoto 01:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not neutral, unwikified, RAMBLE. --Ryan and/or Mero 01:59, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - reasons above - Texture 02:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: As above. JimD 02:30, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Keep and wikify. I'll work on it myself, though we'll have to wait a week or so. -Seth Mahoney 07:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This page was written by Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger (the other founder is Jimmy Wales), a philosopher at Ohio State, as a handout to students in philosophy classes that he taught there. It needs to be adapted to Wikipedia format and perhaps NPOVed. Michael Hardy 20:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Cleanup issue. See User:Larry Sanger/Larrys text for background. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:02, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms of Islam

This has no facts / stuff to back up point; it might make WP sound anti-Islam. It's just a stub, and I think it doesn't have a chance to become NPOV. --Ryan and/or Mero 01:56, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - you weren't kidding when you said no content - Texture 02:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't have a problem with a page dedicated to criticism (and rebuttal) per se, but the page preceding the criticism is unnecessary and biased. This page can be created when there's substance to put there. -- Matty j 05:49, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- It's only three days old at present. If it isn't expanded into something useful within a couple of weeks, I agree it should be deleted. MK 07:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Hopelessly POV. --Hcheney 03:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Delete. If theres critsism of Islam then put it on the [[Islam page itself. Saul Taylor 09:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: More here than meets the eye. The original article listed Islam hates criticism as one criticism, and certainly in some Islamic countries 'criticising the Koran' is a criminal offence. We already have good articles on arguments for and against belief in God. Is the nature of Islam such that we can't have a good article on the suggested problems with it? Food for thought? Andrewa 20:23, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Early parser, Early Parser, Early Algorithm Early algorithm

All have titles spelt incorrectly (should be Earley).
- ~~Umm...Move the articles?~~ - Arthur George Carrick 02:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Ah, now I see they're redirects. Keep. - Arthur George Carrick 02:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Have turned all four into redirects to Earley parser, keep as redirects -- Graham :) 02:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - even as redirect - do not perpetuate incorrect spellings. People come to an encyclopedia to find the correct information. This will go further and show up on google as valid spellings when other sites use the incorrect redirects. - Texture 02:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I disagree. Common misspellings being redirects discourages mirror articles being created under the incorrect spelling. -- Graham :) 02:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - If I'd heard about these from, say, a math prof, I would go to Early parser first, note the actual title, and realize my mistake. Meelar 03:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Keep. After they're redirected, the redirected article clearly has the correst spelling on its title. This will help people who enter the misspelling into a search engine. --Jia ng
  - The best thing would be to let the database handle misspellings automatically. But since it (currently) doesn't, I don't mind these. Fredrik 07:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Keep for all reasons stated above. Elf 00:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neep

Delete - dictdef - fictional I think - Texture 02:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The noun is a common word in the north of England, where my other half comes from. delete anyway, its still a dicdef Graham :) 02:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed. Keep as redirect. Remove from VfD after transwiking. Anthony DiPierro 13:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isabeau

Delete - First name definition as masculen or feminine - Texture 03:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Such things don't belong here even if the spellings were correct. Michael Hardy 20:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep (probably as redirect to People named Isabeau). 84,000 hits, including some reasonably well-noted. Niteowlneils 19:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It'll be a useful disambiguation page when given more than the hour between creation and VfD listing to expand. Jamesday 17:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: useless as a disambiguation & not interesting as a collection. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

infared spectroscopy

Spelling mistake Bensaccount 04:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as a redirect. If you misspelled it someone else might as well. theresa knott 10:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Important redirect. And if you want a good laugh, follow the link from Infra-red spectroscopy to Infra-red (unless someone fixes it meantime). Andrewa 19:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Infra-red spectroscopy now redirects to infrared spectroscopy. I've never seen it spelled as two words outside wikipedia. Edit: Oops, now I see the point, it's spelled INFAred. Forget that I mentioned it. :) Edit: Well, no one links to INFAred and, so count me as a vote for DELETE -- Hankwang 09:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as the redirect it now is. Jamesday 17:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Q3Map2

The first paragraph is a copyvio from [9], and the rest reads like a user's manual. Move to Wikibooks? RickK 04:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete (or move to Books), Wikipedia is not a computer manual. Fuzheado 04:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I was new to Wikipedia... we were interested in setting up a Wiki for Q3Map2 users, though... what is wrong with it being in the wikipedia? Rgoer 05:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You might try Wikibooks, at http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page, where you book texts are encouraged. RickK 05:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Thanks, I've posted it at wikibooks.org. Feel free to delete Q3Map2 from the wikipedia in that case, and Cheers! Sorry for any confusion (on my part). Rgoer 05:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Mumbai PIN

Um, what? RickK 04:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
They're postal codes (se PIN) and should be transwikied to Wikisource and deleted from Wikipedia. -- Seth Ilys 05:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as list. Anthony DiPierro 13:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a geographic index for relating places in Bombay. Jamesday 23:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If we're going to keep it, could somebody explain WHAT it is, and format it? RickK 02:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - This is a wiki and I expect more of that will happen in the fullness of time. Geocoding is still a very nascent project here, so I'm unsurprised to find stubby items. Three people have worked on it since it was created on the 8th, so I expect that we'll see further improvement. Jamesday 17:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to wikisource and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Washita River

Somebody's school project. RickK 05:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Original research (school or not). Mikkalai 05:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Mikkalai, original research. --Flockmeal 05:27, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oof. Delete, with the hopes that someone will recreate this later. If this ends up being deleted, somebody please move this to requested articles. RadicalBender 05:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's what I was planning to do. I have been working on a related article about the Colorado War of 1864-1865 and was going to create this page as part of it. -- Decumanus 05:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This needs major rewriting, but I don't think it actually constitutes "original research" except in the tone and the judgements. If you strip off the writer's opinions, the three sources listed are all independently verifiable, so the facts are fine. Unless, of course, it's felt that it would be easier to start from scratch. Isomorphic 05:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Comparison of three sources is original research. The author points out certain contradictions and uncertainties, hence the facts are NOT so fine. Starting from scratch is not easier, but more reliable in this case.Mikkalai 07:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Worked on a rewrite. MK 08:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is a valid work-in-progress topic and better most of the stubs we keep. It just needs an overhaul for prose style and format. Davodd 00:24, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, valid work in progress. Move to clean up list. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Will get wikipedia article shape over time. — Sverdrup 19:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Coming along nicely. Andrewa 19:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of people by reported IQ

Dubious pseudoscientific claims. Mike Church 05:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This appeared in Discovery magazine a few issues back, and was thoroughly slagged by its readers. I'd also want to check this for copyvio. Denni 05:46, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
Delete for said reasons. Fredrik 09:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article has been through VfD before and kept. The article has not got worse since then. However note that the reasons for proposed deletion this time round are not valid. Note it is "List of people by reported IQ" NOT "List of people by IQ". The interest here is not the actual values, which are obviously suspect, but the fact that these people have been chosen to have had their IQ discussed. The article goes to great lengths to point this out. Did you guys read the article? Denni, did Discovery present the list as fact, or the manner in which we are. Obviously keep, and urge more thought and research before commenting at VfD. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- At the very least, the article should contain sources. Fredrik 11:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Agreed. And I have no problem with it if someone moves the uncited entries to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 15:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep assuming claims are backed up with respectable sources. By the way, when are we going to start re-adding those social security numbers? Anthony DiPierro 12:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
dead is pure moonshine.Doovinator 13:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Made it into two lists, one of the estimated. -- user:zanimum
- Remove estimates or cite and attribute. POV. Anthony DiPierro 15:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. IQ is measured by different standards in different times, people who take IQ tests have different results at different times, and estimates of IQ of people who have been long dead is pure moonshine.Doovinator 13:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. IQ == BS in general, and the list of IQ's for historical persons is simply a fantasy. Inclusion in WP implies there's something solid here when there isn't. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hardly verifiable. +sj + 23:35, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Keep. It's interesting and the "reported IQ" claims are verifiable, even if the IQs themselves aren't. Jamesday 17:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Islamic accounting

unencyclopedic. --Hemanshu 05:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Partially disagree. The topic is valid, the stub sucks. See [10] Mikkalai 07:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 13:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid topic, but stub misses the mark because it neglects the central difference between Islamic accounting and GAAP - the implications of interest. Post to Clean-up. (I'll try to work on it this weekend.) Rossami 21:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: valid topic. Needs attention from a knowledgeable person. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs expansion beyond that done in the one minute between creation and VfD listing, not deletion. Jamesday 17:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Move to clean-up. Niteowlneils 01:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Armistice with Austria

wikisource and delete if not converted into article in 5 days. --Jia ng 06:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - wikisource - Texture 15:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though it does need cleanup reworking. The wiki will take care of that in time. Jamesday 17:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to wikisource and delete. Interesting document. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

27th Material Squadron

wikisource and delete if not converted into article in 5 days. --Jia ng 06:02, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - wikisource - Texture 15:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

LingoBank, Lingo Bank, Each one, Eachone

Advertising. Isomorphic 08:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I added the last 3; delete all. --Jia ng 08:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 13:41, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - adverts - Texture 15:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete all: adverts. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Turtles all the way down

Cute anecdote, but not an encyclopedia entry. Fuzheado 08:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree. 'Turtles all the way down' is the whole basis for Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of books, which have, according to the cover of one I just bought, 20 million readers worldwide. At least some of those would like to see this, I'd imiagine. - Litefantastic 12:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This phrase gets 3700 Google hits; this seems to be the best description of it: [11] 144.138.194.137 13:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge with creation myth and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 15:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep but rename... to what I don't know. moink 14:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, done a bit more clean-up, can anyone talk about Discworld? -- user:zanimum
Merge with creation myth. By the way, this scenario is not part of the Discworld cosmos. Great A'tuin, the star turtle swims through the cosmos. There are no other turtles to be "all the way down". Rossami
Keep. The anecdote a) is well known and b) has significance outside creation myths (and is nothing to do with Discworld). DJClayworth 15:59, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Wrong. Terry Pratchett's web site is www.turtlesalltheway.com, and there is actually an anecdote about it in his book Small Gods (see here). It may not be an overwhelming theme, but it is there (and I am entirely aware that A'tuin swims through the cosmos, but the people live on top and don't know that for sure). Just a thought. - Litefantastic, not logged in
This anecdote about the physical state of the universe, which clearly no-one believes, and is used as a tool for allegory, is only loosely related to creation belief (where creation myth redirects) which is about stories of the creation of the universe which some people do believe in. The redirect is obviously inappropiate. The article is fine to keep as is though. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The story about the turtles is told in a different way by Russell himself, if I remember correctly, somewhere in A brief history of western philosophy. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Might come to better use in the context of something else, but the article as-is isn't that bad. Keep. Fredrik 16:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree that in its original form the article wasn't very encyclopedic. But it isn't just a foolish story, nor is it just the basis fo a sci-fi novel. It has importance both as a Hindu myth and as an urban legend. I've put some work into it (so of course, now I don't want it deleted!) but it could use more help. Slrubenstein
Keep - definitely! Ludraman 11:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. An enjoyable read, from which one can learn something of value. Too bad the same can't be said for some articles in Wikipedia over which there is no dispute. Denni 17:28, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Keep. There is actually a popular NLP book entitled the same which is inspired by this story. It's actually one of my favourite books: ChrisG 17:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Physics doesn't need to be a boring subject and this is a useful part of our coverage of the topic. Jamesday 17:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Nice article. Dpbsmith 22:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Acklin

Advertising for company. Muriel 12:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. Delete unless demonstrated that this company is somehow important. Fredrik 16:03, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Cleanup.~~ Keep. Not advertisement. Anthony DiPierro 13:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What improvements do you suggest for making it look less like an advertisement? You cant just say Cleanup! Muriel 14:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - What are you claiming makes it look like an advertisement? Delete that. You can't just say Advertisement! Anthony DiPierro 14:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - I removed a conversation that User:Wile E. Heresiarch had with himself here and completely off topic, and not signed. Muriel 16:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It would make a pitiful stub, and I'm not sure of how important this company is. Fredrik 14:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - If you're not sure, then you shouldn't vote delete. As for it making a pitiful stub, it looks like the vast majority (over 2/3) of the article could be kept. Remove a few POV terms like "highly skilled" and "In order to maintain its level of expertise". It's really not that bad. Anthony DiPierro 14:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - True, I shouldn't. Vote changed. Fredrik 16:03, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert. Took a while for me to decide on this. As interested as I am in Agent technology this doesn't further information about the topic but only about a company that has not done anything significant in the field. - Texture 15:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. --Hcheney 03:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

mandrake_(disambiguation)

Unneccesary redir to the Mandrake page, which does the disambiguing just fine. Sietse 14:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. It doesn't strike me as an unnecessary redirection. Average Earthman 14:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - but why isn't this listed on RfD? - Texture 15:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to RfD. Anthony DiPierro 15:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think we should have this for all disambiguation pages. It allows one to explicitly link to the disambiguation page. This way one can easily check that there are no accidental links to the disambiguation page. Anthony DiPierro 15:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't care. It was my mistake that this redirect was created as I did work in wrong ordering. I helped someone (see Village Pump) to disambiguate Mandrake - I saved the disambiguation in that article space first, and then moved it to Madrake itself. I did not delete the redirect myself (with my admin powers) as I thought a redirect more doesn't harm. andy 17:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seven Deadly Sins (board game)

Not to be elitist, but does this game really warrant an Wikipedia entry? The text of this article is the exact same description as the article on BoardGameGeek. The tone seems like advertising. I don't think that the game is groundbreaking or significant enough for a Wikipedia article. Yekrats 15:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and POV fix. Mike Church 16:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Minor, but encyclopedic. Meelar 19:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vixx

This band apparently has never recorded an album, and has simply played a few small shows in Wisconsin. Google records thousands of hits for the word "vixx", but having sorted through them, I was unable to find one site that mentioned this band. I have to assume it's a vanity page. Jwrosenzweig 16:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Unless there is more information included here, my vote is to delete. Particularly, the as-yet-unreleased album should be purged from the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Fredrik 16:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete vanity page. Meelar 19:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity, insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Add insult to injury

Delete - dictionary definition - Texture 16:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary material? - Fredrik 16:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is usual to redirect proverbs to List of English proverbs (or appropiate language of origin) because there is rarely much to say about them. This isn't really a proverb though... is there a similar appropiate list? Also it may need to be transwikied to wikiquote? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete or improve: it is not even definition, or explanation. The article doesn't go beyond rephrasing the expression in 11 times more words (and not necessarily more clear ones than the phrase itself). Mikkalai 16:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This should be moved to Wiktionary unless more can be said about it. Mikkalai is right; there needs to be more substance to this article if it is to be kept in Wikipedia (e.g. origins, historical usage, etc.)
More can probably added to make it acceptable. In its current state it is a dicdef, and should be moved or deleted. Ludraman 11:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
i added another meaning (an album). Muriel 08:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Myths over the GDR

Discussion at Talk:Myths over the GDR

List of Södermanland Governors

This appears to be a legitimate, if unfinished and just about useless page. It doesn't even have a Swedish translation, which is rather embarassing since it's about Sweden. Only one of the links is finished, the one for the most recent governor. I have no idea how big Södermanland county is, but this page is pretty much dead in the water (my apollogies to the Swedes). - Litefantastic 17:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The information isn't useless, but doesn't warrant a separate article. Create stub at Södermanland County Administrative Board and move content there. And you can read in the Södermanland County article about how big the county is ;) Fredrik 17:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Right you are. I pasted together the Admin. page out of the governors' page (which can be deleted now, I think) and the main page. - Litefantastic 17:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - The entry is a list of governors, nothing more nothing less. The article is also properly named as it is nothing more than a list at present. It might be, and maybe ought to be, moved to the County Administrative Board entry when a proper such entry is in fact created. But if and when it is to be moved, it should be moved in a fashion that preserves the edit history and not by a cut and paste that doesn't even reference the original entry. At present I can only suggest that the current entry at Södermanland County Administrative Board is deleted. -- Mic 18:18, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Why was it listed? There's no case made for deletion in terms of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Population, just BTW, is 255,890 according to the Södermanland County article linked to from the page in question. Andrewa 19:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's indeed unfinished, as "Governor" should be wikified to link to List_of_County_Governors_of_Sweden. As this can be found through the page footer, it's a minor point though. -- User:Docu

Södermanland County Administrative Board

Stub inproperly created by a cut and paste job from List of Södermanland Governors where the "List of Södermanland Governors" has been added to "Votes for deletion" (see above). If the entry is to be moved it should be moved in a way where the edit history is preserved. A move should also include a comprehensive sollution for all similar articles. A good place to discuss this is at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Swedish counties. -- Mic 18:18, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with all of the above. Actually, is there any reason this couldn't be a speedy delete? Andrewa 20:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that it is a speedy deletion candidate under technical reason 2, remerging histories after a cut-and-paste move? - Texture 20:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I think that case 9, Deleting an image which is an exact copy of something else, redundant, and unused, is a better match. But it's more a matter of commonsense. If this isn't a speedy deletion candidate under current policies, we should change the policies IMO. Perhaps I should have spelled all that out in the first place. Andrewa 11:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Case 9 requires that it be: an image, an image which is an exact duplicate of another image and an image which is unused. This isn't an image, so it can't meet those conditions. Jamesday 17:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree. Fredrik 20:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Foreign-born Japanese

I'm not sure about this one. Legitimate, yes, but it's only got four people listed, and it doesn't look like it's going to pan out any more. -Litefantastic 17:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Wrong :-) Mikkalai 20:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Valid list, even if short. Possibly move to List of foreign-born Japanese people moink 17:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Much can be discussed about foreign-born Japanese, things like the acquisition of citizenship. I oppose to the move as well because it is not all about a list. -- Taku 17:40, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A list of foreign-born Japanese mauled by bears may be next. If people spent all the time creating and improving articles as they do making up these lists...imagine the possibilities. Everyking 20:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You are probably not aware that Japanese citizenship is probably the most difficult one to acquire for a foreigner, and people who did so are quite remarkable by definition, even not being mauled by bears. Mikkalai 20:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I have to agree that more people have probably been mauled by bears than foreigners gaining citizenship. However, why does that warrant an article? We don't list those mauled by bears or even struck by lightning. - Texture 20:41, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm happy to see articles on these people, but we don't need a list. Everyking 20:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. (almost forgot to vote myself) But I don't think it should be renamed to "List of ...". Instead, it should be transformed into an article about gaining the Japanese citizenship. Many of us have heard it is hard, but we don't know how exactly hard. Mikkalai 21:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- See, e.g., Britishness test. Mikkalai 21:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- But if this was done, it wouldn't really be the same article anymore. It wouldn't be a list of foreign-born Japanese; it'd be an article about the travails of gaining Japanese citizenship (which would be a good article, of course). So isn't that really a vote for "delete"? Everyking 21:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - These persons could be provided as examples. Fredrik 21:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Well, I say if you change the title, change the content, and change the whole focus of the article, it ain't the same article you started with. Everyking 00:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Sir, please be more precise: the article is NOT called "List of...". You are fighting windmills. The title by itself doesn't preclude elaboration, with possible renaming later, when the scope clarifies, as it ofthen happens in Wikipedia. Mikkalai 01:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep and dont move. --Jia ng
This VfD debate has some interesting info which isn't in the article. The article should be kept if something could be added outlining why Japanese citizenship for foreigners is exceptional, followed by the list of people. David Thrale 09:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is much better than the article I found a few days ago. I change my vote to 'keep'. -Litefantastic 21:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quatrième Internationale Posadiste

This page has no working wikilinks and is only linked to by one page. It's about a trotskyist political party, or it would be if it wasn't mostly phantom links. - Litefantastic 17:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Run Google search and you will see 8 hits. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Eight hits isn't generally used to convince people not to delete something, although at this point I think the general consensus is 'keep' so I'll be quiet now. -Litefantastic 12:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Even the world's millions of Trotskyist organizations deserve proper representation here. Everyking 20:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's about a Trotskyist international - an international organisation made up of trotskyist parties. The affiliates of this one have yet to be written. I consider these pages to be useful, as a tool for categorisation if nothing else. Secretlondon 20:22, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sri Sri

I have NO idea what to make of this. It's about a poet, it's about two lines long, it turns up 35,000 hits on Google (the topic, not the page) and is linked to something like 75 pages on Wikipedia. The only problem is that 74 of those pages are Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles and the other one is someone's user name. What am I supposed to /do/ with this? - Litefantastic 17:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Looks legitimate, at least. IMDb entry, biography. Apparently decently popular; I suggest un-orphaning it somehow rather than deleting it. Fredrik 18:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Move to the Telugu poet's full name - Srirangam Srinivasa Rao. Many or most of the google links are not for him, but to a completely different double use of the honorific Sri (e.g. Sri Sri Ravi Sankar) Imc 21:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - moved and made disambig. Jay 08:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. IT's not useless.
- Keep: significant artist. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep; Expanded the article; Influential poet from that part of the globe. Kesava 06:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blind transmission

This is one extrememly dense quote from some sort of federal regs. page, which is also the only thing linking to it. It even says it's been copied out of that page, so if we delete this we won't lose whatever information is in it. - Litefantastic 17:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Federal Standard 1037C appears to be an index of [12]. The content was copied from the site, not the article. Fredrik 17:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Keep. Changed it a bit. --Palapala 21:51, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

John Paul Jackson

Looks like an advert. Secretlondon 19:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Could use some editing (for NPOV among other things) but there is some marginal importance to this guy in terms of the institute he foundee. So keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. jengod 20:13, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Everyking 20:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - "Interpret my dream" indeed - Texture 01:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertising. --Hcheney 03:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Strip the Advertising and keep the page jdriscoll 20:19, 10Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: advert, vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. might as well fix the page though.
- delete, vanity --Jia ng

Cobb Place

About some shopping mall...do we really need articles about shopping malls? (Well, I can predict there will now be at least two "keeps".) Also, it's an orphan, because what could possibly link to it? Adam Bishop 20:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert - reads like a brochure for the mall. Is there a map on the back? - Texture 20:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete.~~ changed my mind.Mikkalai 20:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- there's one. The last shopping mall vote we had came out pretty solidly in favor of keeping, if I recall correctly. Everyking 20:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Lean towards keep. There are other articles on various malls, so why exclude this one. As for what could link to it, see Shopping mall. Also, it is more detailed than many other articles.Niteowlneils 20:59, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Malls are local landmarks, as per Ontario Mills. Meelar 21:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ...often used by private pilots. (I could be a troll if I want.) --Palapala 22:19, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
Keep. It's not an advert. Mall adverts never say what stores used to be there. It looks bad for business. RadicalBender 21:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm neutral, with a slight tilt towards keeping it for the reason Meelar stated. Fredrik 21:16, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unless there's something more interesting than it just being a mall. Who cares what stores came and left a mall? Yekrats 21:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. shopping_mall has a list of malls so the article has potential to not be an orphan. Richard cocks 02:34, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- Decumanus 04:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Proofread

This could be salvageable, but it is more of a "how-to" than an encyclopedia article... and it looks suspiciously like a copyvio. ugen64 21:30, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's fixed now... Fredrik 21:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect - Texture 01:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Josh Cooper

Vanity page. Might survive if seriously cleaned up. — Timwi 23:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not a vanity page. It's a page about a Canadian political candidate. Jamesday 23:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - ~~A badly written article, so a cleanup matter~~. I should've re-read it before writing this. The article looks fine now. Fredrik 00:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - looks like the recent group of politian additions - Texture 01:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Valid ency. topic. Davodd 01:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

March 10

I come to bring a sword

I'm not convinced that an article interpreting a paraphrase of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Book of Matthew, all without a single attributed viewpoint, is a wise addition to Wikipedia. Contains many "facts" (such as this being "the most quoted" phrase, etc. that have no basis. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Important saying of Christ but the article title is not a quote and even if it were I doubt that this is a good title for an article on, say, different views of this saying, analysis by different POVs, the context of the saying, &c. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article in its present version is something other than encyclopedic, but let's try to rehabilitate it before we seriously consider deletion. I can fix it up a little, but I haven't the resources to do the real work. This much I know: There is an ongoing debate about the passage, and there are undoubtedly sources that could be cited on the various viewpoints described. Someone just has to find them.

If we keep hitting it and nothing happens, then yes, it should go. But it's too early to decide that. - Sara 01:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Somehow I don't think a philosophy of "write first, get facts later" will produce anything of value. It certainly hasn't so far. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Well said. - Texture 01:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 01:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. If kept, move to the most familiar and quoted version, the KJV rendition of the Bible title: I came not to send peace, but a sword. There surely must be somewhere this can be merged to. Smerdis of Tlön 16:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe Wikipedia should contain an exposition of every Bible verse, or even every major bible verse. The current article is biased towards a non-standard interpretation. Most of this stuff is probably better discussed in Pacifism or Christian pacifism. No vote yet. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being the central author of the article, I do have an opinion - I agree with some of the criticisms - yes, it is rather poorly titled (as often are the quotations, tranlsations, and transliterations - this was Aramaic to begin with, kids). I do think it has a place here, and would characterise some of the above people as holding the view that Wikipedia be purged by some secular divine right, of all religiously-contextualized works. Take a look at our articles on other religions? There is nothing wrong or NPOV for using biblespeak in an article about a well-documented term in human culture, as long as its reasonably describes the general context. I might also add that someone with a name like Nuh-uhh, might be prejudiced toward disagreement rather than consensus. -SV(talk) 23:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You have no basis for that personal attack. -- Nunh-huh 23:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: significant. Article needs heavy clean up & reworking, including citations. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but rename to a stubby part of a larger article on Christian views on war and peace. Davodd 07:24, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hacker's Manifesto

I don't know what's this... --Yacht 02:28, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. Madness.~~ Apparently it's famous madness, so wikisource. Everyking 03:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've seen this before, somewhere on the web -- it's a source document, not (obviously) an encyclopedic article. - Sara 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; source text. An article about the Manifesto should be kept. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikisource. This piece was written by a "The Mentor" shortly after his arrest nearly 20 years ago. It is translated in dozens of languages. It is history. It deserves an article, with text in wikisource. Mikkalai 04:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Mikkalai. --Palapala 08:22, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Wikisource. Agree with Mikkalai Rossami 15:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mikkalai is right - I remember reading this document when it was first published, and thinking to myself that the government was just back up to its old fascist tricks again... (Perhaps a short para could be added to the beginning of this article to provide some background for readers stumbling across it and to prevent recurring trips to VfD.) Denni 18:01, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Delete. As of the writing of this POV, this is not an article for Wikipedia; it is a source for Wikisource. A copy has been kept on Wikisource:Hacker's Manifesto. --Maio 02:54, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Rewritten into a brief stub, refferring to wikisource. Mikkalai 21:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecily Adams

Famous for being a wife mother and sister? RickK 03:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If she were merely a wife or a mother or a sister, she wouldn't be of much interest. But she was all three -- connected to notable people in several directions, as it were -- and she has a few accomplishments of her own. Any individual aspect of her life is rather minor, but together they add up to something. Sara 04:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- marginally famous by association. Everyking 03:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. done little of note herself. --Jia ng
Keep. - Sara 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. Or add all her children and grandchildren and her dog Wibble and her cat Shanty by the same association.~~ Mikkalai 04:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We have a page on Laura Bush and Chelsea Clinton. Meelar 05:33, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Both performed offical state duties in the capacity of First Lady. As such, both are public figures. What did Cecily Adams do? --Jiang 08:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, Chelsea never had official duties. Nor did Buddy, Clinton's labrador retriever. Meelar 17:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Chelsea acted in her mother's place one or twice. The dog is marginal but certainly is well known. In light of evidence below, I withdraw my vote. --Jia ng 19:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. David Thrale 09:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[13] - not a particularly impressive filmography, but one nevertheless. Undecided, probably keep. Fredrik 09:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Casting director for a number of network programmes and a small acting resume. Those who are saying she is significant because of her relatives are missing this. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. I have one cousin who's an astronaut and another who was once a TV star. My great uncle was a pretty important scientist. Can I have an article? moink 17:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~. Keep if, as people are saying, she's important in her own right.
Keep. Adams is known among Star Trek fans for her portrayal of Ishka, a.k.a. Moogie, Quark's mother, a recurring character on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. She's made a number of appearances on other TV shows as well; I expect actors of a similar calibre have made it to Wikipedia. I think the problem with this article wasn't that Adams wasn't famous so much as that it neglected to mention why she was famous. I've since expanded the article somewhat. Psychonaut 18:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You convinced me. I withdraw the nomination. :) RickK 02:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. See Carolyn Bessette Kennedy for a keeper for reasons of association alone. At least Cecily was well-known for some of her own history. Maybe someone should add a picture. - Bevo 18:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Valid topic: notable actor. Article is unclear; should go to cleanup. Davodd 01:38, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Moogie! Notable enough. Cool Hand Luke 03:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep the biography of this actor. Jamesday 18:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Church of Neo Cigol

No content. RickK 03:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- "Oliver K. Seet" comes up with one Google hit, to a high school. Apparently a high school student. RickK 04:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can turn up some evidence that it exists. I couldn't, aside from that inactive Yahoo group it's linked to. Everyking 03:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Yacht 04:22, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not putting in a vote yet -- looked on the website and it seems to be more of a small private club than a religious organization per se. But I'm withholding judgement until I find out more. Sara 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. The article states nothing particularly informative about this alleged religion, anyway. Fredrik 08:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I created the page, I only put it there because one of my friends suggested it, from what I can tell from your comments, it shouldn't be here, so I support your claims for deletion. User:Daggath 12:03 P.M., 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Conservative Order

There is no such thing as "The Conservative Order". While the information in this article is correct, it uses an utterly unheard of term, and implies a much greater degree of coherence to the policies of the powers after 1814 than actually existed. At any rate, an article on, say, the Holy Alliance would be more productive. john 05:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- As used in the title of this article, this page should not exist. Hardens an interpretation of a specific period into a capitalized and formalized thing. At the least needs to be subtly reworked. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Muslim Mosque

Content is simply A black Muslim group formed by Malcolm X after he left the Nation of Islam -- Khym Chanur 07:09, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. VfD is not clean up. Saul Taylor 07:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Seconded. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Please state your reason for deletion when listing an article :-) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Uncertain. Arguably a sub-stub, and therefore deletable. Andrewa 10:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I'll wager W1 that this stub gets expanded within 24 hours. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. - Sara 17:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. But rename to Muslim Mosque, Inc. See http://foia.fbi.gov/malcolmx.htm
Keep stub. Historically important in the U.S. Davodd 01:41, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Someone appears not to have done a Google search on "Malcom X" and "Nation of Islam" before listing this here. Jamesday 18:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Override

Ancient page, contains two dictionary definitions. -- J-V Heiskanen 11:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If not expanded, delete. Ludraman 12:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary. Fredrik 19:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I altered the article to be about a notable short film directed by Danny Glover. Davodd 01:28, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- and I added the object oriented programming meaning. Keep. Jay 18:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's no longer a dictionary definition. Jamesday 18:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Open Sores

Defunct talk page - Nilmerg 13:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NOB

Delete - advert - example: "As NOB Cross Media Facilities, the ‘new’ NOB, we will continue to provide..." - Texture 15:12, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik 16:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pearly Kings and Queens

Short, nonsensical, unstructured. Suggest deletion. Psychonaut 18:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I was going to list it here as well. - Texture 18:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Good topic, now an on-topic stub. Needs a photo! See Talk:Pearly Kings and Queens for possible name change. Andrewa 19:33, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm guessing I arrived on the scene after a rewrite, but it seems sensible, structured, and possibly historically and culturally interesting now. Keep. --Seth Mahoney 20:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's been rewritten and now describes a London tradition. Jamesday 18:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Very much keep. I meant to create this article myself ages ago. Mintguy (T) 03:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Terrist

Essentially POV. Straw man. Article by its own admission says that there is no stated ideology "terrist" but fails to really make other claim for significance. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. +sj + 23:31, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Delete. Invented term. RickK 02:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. What links here and a Google search shows that it's not a term invented here but is in real use. Needs to include examples of terrists and their acts, though. Our description of the point of view held by terrists seems to be NPOV. Jamesday 05:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- A Google search turns up WP mirrors and misspellings of "terrorist". The what-links-here shows a number of articles in WP, which on closer examination all had the link to terrist pasted in by an anonymous 142.77.xxx.xxx (the original author of terrist), except for one change (ELF) which was due to User:Maximus Rex. Delete: term not in general circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just pasted in the vfd header -- article didn't have one before. Oops! Wile E. Heresiarch 06:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lemon party

Delete - orphan - advert for a web site? - Texture 19:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The site is already listed on shock site. Make a redirect. Fredrik 19:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I merged in the one bit of info--agree, redirect. Meelar 06:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Engenharia de Software

Wrong language, should be in pt:... I would move it there, but I am a new user and transwiki seems rather complicated... Jorge Stolfi 20:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'd transwiki it, but pt: doesn't seem to have a transwiki log (or atleast a redirect from transwiki), so I don't know where to log this. Gentgeen 10:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dichotomy

Dictionary definition which is unlikely to ever be expanded. Should be wiktionaried and deleted. Stewart Adcock 22:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. unlikely why? it's linked to from many pages. (and no, I'm not just saying this because it's one of the things I hate) It's a central concept in eastern mysticism and western philosophy, including a long-standing place of honor in the Socratic tradition. move to Cleanup and expand. +sj + 11:52, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Delete. Let me propose simple litmus test- if the article looks wrong without "(noun)" and a pronounciation key in front of it, then it's probably a candidate for speedy transwikification. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:11, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary and delete. (We can always move those links across to Wiktionary:dichotomy.) Rossami 15:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Images of Athens

User:Optim has departed Wikipedia and appears to have taken his photos of Athens with him. This page is now an eyesore and should be deleted. I have many photos of Athens myself, but not ones that could replace Optim's. In any case I don't really approve of "photo album" articles. Adam 23:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. refer to the top of the Village pump. Those images are on the old servers. --Jia ng 01:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Can we get some more pictures of said city? A lot of work went into this page; it'd be a shame to throw it away. -Litefantastic 14:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Someone sometime will restore the images from the old servers. (I hope)— Sverdrup 21:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Restore images assuming proper permission was given, meantime be patient. Andrewa 23:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 11

Twenteens

Anyone even heard of Neil Ingebrigtsen? and google doesn't have relevant matches for twenteens. Looks like a vanity page.
Dic def. of a neologism. Delete. Davodd 01:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. RickK 03:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Looks like someone trying to get their word accepted as a descriptive of some decade in the future. Absolute nonsense: delete Graham :) 16:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Germany

First sight is good, but is just yet another re-statement of opinions of User:Nico / Expellees agenda. Pattern of developement of many articles about territories near German-Polish-Czech border:

heavy POVed article with controversial title created
weeks of disputes, protections, and/or edit wars
article reaches more NPOV state, consesus
or - article turned into redirect
Nico creates new article

Please read articles and history of Oder-Neisse line, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Heimatvertriebene, Federation of Expellees, Expulsion of Germans after World War II and many redirects to them before voting. 81.27.192.19 00:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The description of the areas involved and the beliefs of those whose view this represents appears to be accurate and appropriate. Their views aren't NPOV, of course, but this description of those views seems to be. Jamesday 18:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Learning the Cyrillic alphabet

I'm undecided as to what to do with this page, but it should definitely be deleted from here. Either merge with Cyrillic alphabet or move to Wikibooks. moink 01:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
move to wikibooks and delete. --Jia ng

Faraday Effect

Lacks substantial content. Is 4 words enough for an article? - Mark 01:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It isn't even correct. Stewart Adcock 01:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: valid topic. I've replaced the mistaken text with a valid stub. I move for early removal from VfD. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree. Should never have been listed, rather sub-stub should have been fixed or listed on cleanup. BTW, it was more than 4 words (just). Andrewa 20:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Actually I think it's fine that it was listed here. The article got a lot of attention and now it looks really good. Everybody's happy. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Critical link between light and electromagnetism in 19th century. Entry seems correct now. I will be adding more about relevance in radio transmission. Faraday effect modulators used in some scientific instruments.AJim 16:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. AJim is right... --Palapala 17:48, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Keep. It's fine now, though expansion would be good. Jamesday 18:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dastar

Wikipedia is not a Punjabi to English dictionary. moink 01:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete unles it is re-written to be about the company in this important SCOTUS case: Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. -- Davodd 02:12, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Treasure-trove

Dicdef. moink 02:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though it needs significant expansion to cover thehistory o the concept and well known examples. There's plenty of material for this encyclopedia article. Note also that it's linked from the list of encyclopedia topics. Jamesday 18:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lockergnome forums

Vanity. moink 02:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Famous. Move to cleanup for wikif'n, keep. +sj + 11:43, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Seems famous enough, but the article is an advertisement. Cleanup. Fredrik 11:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This is a famous place. Jamesday 18:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:John Highway

I'm not so much agitating deletion here as wondering what the policy is. This was created in November as John Highway, a vanity page, by this user. It was going to be deleted a couple of weeks ago, but I moved it to the user namespace instead. The user has made no other contributions, and I tried to contact them (user talk and "email this user") to no avail. In the user namespace, it's still a vanity page. Do we allow this sort of thing? Or do we say that Wikipedia is not a homepage? Or does it really matter? -- Toby Bartels 02:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. For WP policies on acceptable user page content, refer to : Wikipedia:User page -- Davodd 02:24, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. Thanks for the link, but that actually doesn't address the matter. The proposal for deletion there is only about requests to delete one's own pages (on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions). And there is nothing there about fake users (as John Highway seems to be). I suspect that this has come up before, but I don't know; I'm mostly interested in putting right something that I interfered in, rather than pushing some particular outcome. -- Toby Bartels 02:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would say keep as long as he's a registered user. I deleted the trailing redirects from the main namespace. --Jia ng 21:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. High time to think about idle time expiration policy for user accounts. I bet there are hundreds of them as of now. I can recall at least six met during my edits. Mikkalai 22:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uncouth

Dicdef. moink 02:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

42_BELOW

Advertising Richard cocks 03:23, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. List on cleanup. Notable brands are valid WP topics: Snickers, Big Mac. -- Davodd 03:29, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. List on cleanup. Small but growing company that is apparently popular with celebrities (which may mean it turns out to be a fad). Niteowlneils 03:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and move to cleanup. --Monsieur Mero 04:09, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Moriori 07:48, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Turner Fenton Cross Country Team

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. RickK 03:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Wiki is not paper. It's been merged with its parent. Plus 11 straight championships isn't childs play, really, and its not news. The article merely commented on the most recent win in the dynasty. -- user:zanimum

Sinukus

Self-promotional orphan? Pdxgoat 08:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

429 google hits for Sinukus, probably not enough for inclusion, but this could just be moved to cleanup insted, whether the person warrants inclusion Richard cocks 08:56, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
delete, self-promo --Jia ng

Keiran McKay

google gets only two hits here. --Yacht 08:39, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Not significant enough on his own. Perhaps merge with the caving school linked to in the page. Average Earthman 13:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete, vanity. --Jia ng 21:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VentureLodge

Well, not much to say, 152 google hits. --Yacht 08:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
The same user created VentureLodge, Lisa Ross (already deleted) and Keiran McKay, given the relativly low profile all of these things I'd say they weren't encyclopedia worthy.
Keep. Of regional interest; sounds like something useful to know if planning a visit in the area.Doovinator 13:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. non-notable.--Jia ng 21:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sic!

Might be a redirect to Sic, but I do not think the ! deserves it. Pfortuny 13:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, actually the expression used in books etc. is sic!, so I looked for sic! on wikipedia, didn't find it and somewhat translated the stuff from the german version (you can find 'sic!' there)
Keep, but wikify and move to Sic (which is a redirect to SIC right now). Good information, more than what is on the disam page for SIC. I've never seen it used with the ! though, so I think Sic is a better home for it. Sic! can just redirect to it. —Frecklefoot 18:07, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be deleted, as it's based on a misunderstanding of what is and isn't the standard use of the term. Rarely found with an exclamation mark in my experience. Deb 18:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - But what's wrong with just redirecting to Sic, the more common use of the term? —Frecklefoot 18:24, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete I don't think it's a good idea to have essentially the same definition in at least three different locations: SIC, List of Latin phrases#S and this page. It is nice to have some illustrations of usage, but that is more of a Wiktionary entry than encyclopedic. If anything this page should redirect to the list of Latin phrases. Bkonrad 18:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Notorious juicer

Vanity. Fredrik 13:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It helps if you add the {{subst:vfd}} tag to the article so that users know it's been listed: I just added the tag and listed the page again at the bottom of here, and only then saw that you'd already listed it. Anyway delete, they're nonfamous and they get no google hits. -- Graham :) 15:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I forgot to do that. Fredrik 16:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero Google hits. —Frecklefoot 18:28, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete--no google, no UBL, no Rolling Stone, no fame.

Freenet Help Site

Huh? User:CrapBeater made it. -- user:zanimum
- It just moved, was FreeNet, not Freenet.

Millcreek

Article made by vandal/troll user Henry Cheney. I was able to find the school existed, but no other information was available. --Hcheney 15:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep, list on cleanup. Irrespective of who created it the school exists. -- Graham :) 16:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Haven't we decided we don't want to create articles on every little obscure school in the world? It exists, perhaps, but if it's not famous, I vote to the delete the bugger. —Frecklefoot 18:30, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 18:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete Stewart Adcock 23:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as disambig page (or as redir to disambig page Mill Creek). Millcreek gets almost 200,000 hits, and "Mill Creek" gets almost 600,000. It's the name of a city in Washington State, among other things. Neutral on whether this particular school should appear on such a page. Niteowlneils 01:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why Cows Moo (book)

Could not independently verify if this book was ever published. There is also a 1998 book Why Cows Moo by Catherine Ripley and Scot Ritchie, which does not appear to be particularly notable. --Hcheney 16:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It exists, but I think we need the information in the article to be verified as the edition I found was printed by a different comapny, with no date and a different number of pages. The person who wrote the article is still an active wikipedian so it's probably worth dropping them a note on their user page. --Imran 17:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael Jeffrey

A one-line reference to a character in a movie. Linked to by only two pages: 1973 in music and Governors of Western Australia . -Litefantastic 16:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Now a disambig page. A very common mispelling of the name of Michael Jeffery, a Google search finds it in more Australian Government sites than get it right! But there seem to be several others who may eventually get articles (my list is not complete) who really do have this name. Andrewa 19:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Much better. I think we can keep this now. -Litefantastic 21:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Marc Perkins

A orphan vanity page about a 16-year old. -- Seth Ilys 17:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing but vanity.Average Earthman 17:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't delete. He's a legendary wrestler in Connecticut, but as it is high school wrestling, you probably wouldn't know about him unless you live within the state.
Keep and wifiky. Alleges colorable basis for inclusion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Texture 18:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. vanity page.
Keep. With a record like that, he must be locally famous, assuming it's true. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Google on "Marc Perkins" wrestling gets five hits, not very "legendary." Dpbsmith 22:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless verified/sourced. No hits for "Outstanding Wrestler Award" "marc perkins", nor "Jim Bean Service Award". And "legendary" when born in 1988? Niteowlneils 00:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. [[User:RickK|RickK (Talk)]] 03:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity. Is it my imagination or do we get a lot of biographical articles about people born in the eighties? Wile E. Heresiarch 07:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Archaeology of the Americas

Borderline speedy deletion, just a list of links. -- Graham :) | Talk 20:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redir to Archeology of the Americas (possibly merge). Niteowlneils 00:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Basha and Bashadeelio

Delete - These seem like a vendetta against Italian Somaliland. References to defecating, masturbating, felatio, filthy, degenerate and being kicked for annoying other gods. All this and it says it is an Ashanti royal name derived from all that. Can anyone substantiate this questionable fairy tale? - Texture 21:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What a horrible piece of trash. Delete. -Litefantastic 21:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, undelete if substantiated, which I'm guessing is unlikely. Needs NPOVing even if substantiated, which is one reason I'm guessing it is pure trash. And I note that the original author has now blanked Basha. If substantiated and kept, Bashadeelio should become a redirect. Andrewa 23:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Yeah to the above. Delete, although I'm not usre it's necessarily speedy delete. ugen64 00:47, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Note also that Italian Somaliland is nonsense of a similar sort. Everyking 02:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Racemization

Dictionary definition Graham :) | Talk 21:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There's scope for an interesting article here. Stewart Adcock 23:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Decumanus 23:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: substantial topic in physical chemistry iirc. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doubleplusungood

Dicdef of a fake word. I'm sure we're all fans of Nineteen Eighty-Four here, but we already have articles on Newspeak and doublethink. Besides, we can't define every possible word in Newspeak, i'm pretty sure the rules for the grammar are limitless. NOTE: if this vote passes, we should also unlink all the words in Newspeak to discourage people from creating new articles for these words. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and redirect to newspeak, where it is already described. Probably the most memorable word of Newspeak, and one that is discussed at length in Nineteen Eighty-Four (the novel, not the Wikipedia article), so a useful redirect. Andrewa 23:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just made it into a redirect. ugen64 00:46, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Zittrain

Appears nonfamous -- Graham :) | Talk 22:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Probably keep. Yahoo has 18,000 hits for "Jonathan Zittrain", and over 100,000 for the "Berkman Center". Niteowlneils 00:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Just barely important enough. moink 01:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Breaking up

Very NPOV and I don't think it can be cleaned up. moink 22:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Moink meant POV probably. Jay 08:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fuzheado 00:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or send to wikitonary. Saul Taylor 05:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article doesn't even define the concept, for those (whoever they may be) who are unfamiliar with it. I think a psychological impacts/reasons for breaking up might be an interesting article, though. Perhaps the author has some ambition? -- Matty j 05:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Blueball

Made up? No google hits. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. At the very least a popular myth/rumor. someone should do some research and expand the stub.
- No vote. Not made up. Should probably be blue balls if it gets kept. Whether or not an article on this phenomenon can be more than a slang definition is another question.moink 01:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Not made-up, just misspelled. As mentioned above, the content, if kept, should be at blue balls. A commonly used term (at least here in the US--dunno about other English-speaking countries), but as far as I know, little backed by science. If a "blue balls" article is created, this should probably redir to it (especially in case this phrasing is used in other countries for the same concept), so we don't go thru this again. Niteowlneils 00:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Real, well documented, significant to the afflicted, reference at Talk:Blueball. Send to Cleanup --Jerzy (t) 01:25, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)
- Keep. Wrong name but real subject. -- Matty j 05:55, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Luis oliver

Nothing in the article indicates that he's at all significant. Orphan. moink 23:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Probably keep, if improved. This guy may not be notable, but there have been at least two politicians with that first and last name--maybe a disambig page? Niteowlneils 00:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 12

Nosemania

Idiosyncratic and nonsensical twaddle. --67.71.77.190 00:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. It appears to be real, but of no real significance. -- Seth Ilys 00:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Bunk. moink 01:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The "homepage of Nosemania" is hosted on a free server and hasn't been updated since 1997. Meelar 02:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Choc pértolier

The entire article consists of the fact that a particular professor has no comment on the oil crisis. (I translated into English this French-language silliness. Waste of my time...) -- Jmabel 06:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete, seems to be pretty useless information -- chris_73 08:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 ====[[Daniel Wright]]====
 See [[Talk:Daniel Wright]] for discussion -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham  :)]]
-====[[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever]]====
-*All this does is promote lame edit wars. It rewards instigators of edit wars with publicity. This does not help us fight edit wars; it encourages them. We should not be glorifying such behavior. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 17:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Note: this has already been listed on Vfd once before, and was kept and taken off listing without reaching the full five days. My vote is to delete for the above reasons. -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham  :)]] 17:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Delete. -- [[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 17:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Delete. I agree with Kingturtle. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 17:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Keep. We may not like them, but edit wars are an important aspect of the sociology of Wikipedia. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 17:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Keep.  They remind us all that we can get caught up in silly trivia and forget to see the wider view.  I don't think we're glorifying edit warriors, if anything, we're mocking them.  [[User:Moink|moink]] 18:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Keep.  Nothing new to add. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 18:09, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
-*Keep. Been through here and survived. No reason not to delete. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 18:11, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
-*Delete. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]] 20:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Keep. It is clearly labeled as whimsical, and is as good a thermometer as the [[wikiholic]] test of what goes on here. While Wikipedia is not a joke (quoth [[User:Angela|Angela]]), neither should it take itself so seriously that it self-puckers. [[User:Dwindrim|Denni]] 22:28, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
-*Keep - This is no different than the bad jokes and deleted nonsense page. I don't think the existence of these pages will encourage future occurances. When I look at the examples of deleted nonsense or lame edit wars it dosnt make me want to start doing it. [[User:Mydogategodshat|mydogategodshat]] 23:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Move to Meta. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 01:50, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
-*Keep. It's not like we're overdosed with humour here. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 04:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Keep.  Not glorification, and as DJC notes, a little more humour wouldn't be a bad thing.  If this moves to meta, bad jokes and deleted nonsense should also move there.  [[User:Sj|+sj]][[User Talk:Sj|+]] 07:58, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
-*Keep. Humorous and educational.[[User:Doovinator|Doovinator]] 21:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Comment: Why not start an edit war with that very page, and then funnel all lame edit wars that occur in the future to that page.  That way we can sequester them away from the rest of the wiki.[[User:Theon|Theon]] 02:48, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
-* It has an odd selection - some would say almost POV- why are non of Anthony's edit wars listed for example, but nearly all of them are Wik's? I'd really hate to be demonised by the in crowd - but alas I can see it coming. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 20:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-**If that's your only complaint about the page, there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever&action=edit an easy way to remedy it]. . . --[[User:67.69.189.129|67.69.189.129]] 20:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Expandable, verfiable, interesting... shame we aren't talking about an article :). Meta is intended for this stuff so let's move it... and yes Bad Jokes... should be there too... Bad Jokes is older than meta perhaps explaining why it hasn't been moved yet. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 23:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-*Move to Meta. It's obviously of use to many Wikipedians, but it doesn't belong in the article namespace. That's exactly why we have the Meta. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-* Keep. Fellow Wikipedians, this is a ''satirical'' piece that will hopefully bring some much needed sanity to those that are most involved in the ''real'' edit wars. ;-) [[User:Elf-friend|Elf-friend]] 00:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)