Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickK (talk | contribs) at 21:57, 16 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This page got fubar'd in an edit conflict left unresolved by Dandrake at 19:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC), which deleted a number of edits. This wasn't discovered for a while, and a number of other edits accumulated. I reverted at 20:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC), and then I (very laboriously) went through, revision by revision, to add back in the edits that my revert, and the initial conflict, deleted.
As far as I can tell, all are back in EXCEPT two entries that appeared in Dandrake's edit, but were not by him (his own edit comment has be incorporated). These two comments I think may have been deleted by their authors and inadvertently pulled in by Dandrake. They are:
and
They ARE NOT incorporated in the text of the page below. If this was a mistake on my part, please, Fuzheado and Zandperl, add them back in. Otherwise indicate here that they should not be incorporated, and the second of you to do so remove this explanation.
Thanks. orthogonal 21:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Template:Communitypage Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls for polls on current deletion issues.

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

copyright violations -- images -- personal subpages -- redirects -- Wikipedia:Cleanup -- translations

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

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions


February 7

  • Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I feel really bad about this one. She's not an encyclopedia subject, but she certainly deserves to be remembered somewhere. Wikimorial and delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This was already listed in VfD back in May, 2003 (see Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell). I supported deletion, but there were not enough votes to delete. Kingturtle 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not encyclopaedic - are we to have a page on every kid who's ever comitted suicide? What makes Sarah different? Delete. (Also support move to Wikimemorial) PMC 23:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Isomorphic 01:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Twelve year old shooting herself with a firearm. Kinda spectacular. Enough for the news, enough for WP. See the that page's talk page for more argumentation. BL 03:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikimemorial and delete.--Jiang
    • move to wikimemorial and delete. Davodd 09:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

February 8

February 9

  • Cypherpunks anti-license - this entry seems entirely to describe one person's web page for a hypothetical "license" that doesn't seem to have ever been used anywhere else. The only references to it on Google are its Web page, the Wikipedia entry, mirrors thereof (some to an older wiki version), and a couple people's links lists. —Steven G. Johnson
    • Delete, please. Mrdice 04:32, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
    • Delete - fictional - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Um. I found quite a few non-WP-mirror hits. Keep. BL 03:58, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Such as? I found exactly two, one in Brazil & one other; this isn't enough to qualify for WP. Everything else was a WP copy or bookmark list. From reading the license, CPL is just a verbose way to say "public domain". Nothing to see here, folks: delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Shnorrer -- slang definition. No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary, and maybe send Wik along with it? Or are we allowed to do that? Pakaran. 04:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pakaran on both counts. Anthony DiPierro 04:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment about Karl Schnorrer moved to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 22:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Since when is "slang definition" a reason for deletion? Just as with the term shlemiel, a whole (sub-)culture is hiding behind shnorrer. Read Leo Rosten's book(s) before putting such words on VfD. And of course there is also a novel by Israel Zangwill entitled The King of Shnorrers. <KF> 12:36, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Wiktionary is the place for slang definitions - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Bmills 15:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, great arguments you've got here. I'm impressed. By the way, could you refer me/us to that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that slang has no place in Wikipedia? Because if that's true, I'll nominate Baseball slang. <KF> 18:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not the slang part that's a problem. It's the dictionary definition part. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Anthony DiPierro
      • Oh, that's fine with me. So let's nominate Baseball slang, which consists solely of dictionary definitions. <KF> 22:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Believe me, a cryptic reference to another page that contains lots and lots of ideas, guidelines, rules, etc. is not (let me repeat this: not) an argument. You seem to have three other "arguments" at your disposal which you use in a random fashion: "dictionary definition", "slang", and "encyclopaedic" (see Baseball slang below). <KF> 23:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Once again. Brash fighting on the delete page. Shnorrer is an entry entirely devoted to a definition of a word (let's ignore "slang" here). That violates the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" on the page that Anthony mentions above. Baseball slang is an encyclopedic entry that talks about how slang has affected American language, and then lists examples. Now, it is perhaps not the best written prose, but it is encyclopedic, not a straight dictionary entry. Move Shnorrer to wiki- dictionary, and delete. Lyellin 00:52, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I wasn't making an argument. The argument is already made at Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've never used "slang" as justification for a deletion. As for my use of "encyclopedic," I think regular contributors will know what I mean. If you don't, I encourage you to stick around for a while and see. There's a lot of shorthand notation that goes around on these pages. I'm sorry if I was brash. Anthony DiPierro 01:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Over time I think this could become an extremely encyclopedic article on a cultural archetype that has a lot more behind it than a simple dictionary definition. --Alex S 01:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. KF: The Baseball Slang article isn't very good, but falls into the "lists" category (which is my vote below). Tempshill 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: literary term. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No comment on deleting but if it does stay it should be spelled correctly: schnorrer, which gets about 44,000 Google hits compared to a few hundred for the unusual one in use in this article. Jamesday 04:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Important cultural term. 131.130.181.71 16:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleting this term could be seen as an anti-semitic act by some. Wikikiwi 21:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • MUD trees - an example but no content or explanation - Texture 17:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's also an exact copy from the site it lists in ext. links ("DikuMud Heirarchy (c)1995-2000 Derek Snider"). --Mrwojo 17:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for same reasons as above. Psychonaut 18:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Its fate should be the same as Dikumud. I vote to merge them. Mikkalai 02:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree: Dikumud should stay regardless, but it should be at DikuMUD instead (currently a duplicate substub). --Mrwojo 03:21, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I fail to see your logic. If dikumud stays, then its tree definitely belongs there, regardless external links. Mikkalai 16:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I fail to agree that the post should be deleted. I think it was a harsh decision to vote it down in the first place, when an edit may have been in order. Since "Dikumud" is not its derivatives, putting it on the Dikumud entry doesn't make sense. The "MUD Family Tree" entered into the public domain in 1993, and was posted on rec.games.mud.diku and is considered the public domain, and is NOT copyrighted to Derek Snider, as the page it is from indicates, as this was an adaptation from a previously released copy, which was copied and constructed. In fact, I believe the original tree changed hands many times before being "Claimed" (unlawfully) by Derek Snider, if that was his intent by putting (c)1994-2000 Derek Snider on his web page. Furthermore, a "MUD Family tree is not the same as the MUD itself, and would serve as a lineage / navigational tool for other entries. Ebube_Dike
        • Mikkalai, I disagreed with the idea that whatever happens to MUD trees should also happen to Dikumud since they aren't the same thing. Ebube_Dike, if a person makes changes to something in the PD then they hold the copyright to the changed version. I can't find the post you mention and you say its from the site the claims copyright. I've replaced the text with the copyright notice. --Mrwojo 07:51, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and Wikify. Lists and schematics in this form are not copyrightable, see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Are_lists_copyright? . If anyone complains, refactor the tree into a list and then Keep. Schematics like this should be wikified and used to index topics in the wikipedia. 80.126.238.189 12:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Hidden Worlds, Online creation - One is self promotion and the other only exists to reference the first - Texture 17:30, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Psychonaut 18:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Do not delete. Shows an important part of MU* history and the lineage of an idea's initial "inception" and is related to the acronym OLC. If you search google, you will notice many "OLC" sites. Ebube_Dike +
        • Do not delete. Nice online creation article, but just look in the page history to see some changes I made to it, to bring it up to Wikipedia's style standards. User:Zanimum
    • No vote, just wanted to point out the Online Creation duplicate article. --Mrwojo 04:54, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 10

  • Newlyweds - Wikitionary. jengod 02:31, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition. Anthony DiPierro 03:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Before something is deleted because it belongs on another project it should go through the m:transwiki system. As Newlyweds is not on the Transwiki log, vote to undelete so we can see the contents are. Gentgeen 11:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Temporarily undeleted. Maybe it could be redirected to Marriage. Angela. 17:42, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Marriage, I guess. Or Wiktionary. Tempshill 19:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Interwiki redirects are bad, as they are very hard to find. Gentgeen 21:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • redirect to marriage is not interwiki. --Jiang 23:45, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • All the "what links here" links are referring to the MTV show Newlyweds, so I've turned it into a stub about that. Keep stub. --Delirium 03:34, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid stub. Davodd 18:38, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Williams Communications - company advert - "...For More information visit the WilTel Communications web site at www.WilTel.com and the Government Solutions web site at www.WilTelgov.com or call 1-866.WilTel.1" - Texture 16:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I was originally going to say keep and rework until I discovered that they aren't these guys (which is actually a large and reasonably important company). So, delete. RadicalBender 16:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Bmills 16:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Move to WilTel Communications. List on cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 23:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 04:11, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Practice - attempted dictionary definition - and I don't think it's accurate - Texture 19:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can still remember the lecture in school about the difference between "Practise" and "Practice"... dictionary definition (and no it's not terribly accurate) so delete. -- Graham  :) 19:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Lots of philosophy in that one keep. BL 04:11, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Surely whether it's philosophy or not it's a dictionary definition and belongs in wiktionary? -- Graham  :) 14:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote Keep, but work on. Its linked to from many pages and is an interesting philosophical subject or can be if worked on. I'll try something... sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 11

  • Junkno, supposedly a form of music (which some find "quite annoying to listen to"). No relevent google hits [1]. Maximus Rex 08:14, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and list on cleanup. Relevant google hits. Anthony DiPierro 21:21, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, no relevant google hits (for "junkno", "junk no", "junk techno", maybe proof that Croove is real), no verifiable evidence I can find of encyclopedic worth, so delete or change into a redirect to junkanoo (which is also spelled junkano, and is not an unlikely misspelling IMO). Tuf-Kat
    • Delete: idiosyncratic. Try googling for "junkno" and "ez2dj" -- this should turn up 20000000000 - MYSTIC DREAM 9903, the one song in the world that is called "junkno" (on the ez2dj song list at least). Doesn't appear to be a misspelling. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Indian beadwork Not Wikipedia material SD6-Agent 12:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, advertizing. The real article on this subject should go at Native American beadwork or Shoshone beadwork. Gentgeen 12:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Text is copied from here. Normally I'd post on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements but I suspect that it has been posted here by the copyright owner as an ad. Suggest fast-track deletion. Bmills 12:31, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 6,400 hits. Keep. BL 04:16, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • From that comment, you didn't even look at the article. The page is not about Indian beadwork but is a copy of a page that sells Native American beadwork, including prices for items currently for sale. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a place to conduct buisness. Gentgeen 04:38, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but there should be a Native American Beadwork page. Of coarse thats if someone wants to write it. :~) sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. As much as I'd like to get something useful out of that text, it looks hopeless. Anthony DiPierro 05:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Medical Scientism -- idiosyncratic -- The Anome 17:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Idiosyncratic. Anthony DiPierro 17:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or redirect to scientism. It's self-promotion for his web site and his writings, which form the vast majority of search engine results for the word pair, other than those which are from us. Jamesday 20:18, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • A valid discussion of medical scientism could exist, but that's not it. Redirect to scientism, which could do with a paragraph discussing scientism in medicine, certainly. --No-One Jones (talk) 21:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect. Then put on your hard hats. Bmills 12:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and treat it as a stub article. -- 209.158.197.2 16:18, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The above IP is almost certainly Mr-Natural-Health [a banned user]. It belongs to the city of Richmond, where NH lives, and its only contributions have been votes for deletion that just happened to agree with MNH. ---No-One Jones 16:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not well developed yet, but a great start. R Gunther 16:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • From the pattern of their activity, this user may also be a Mr NH sock puppet. Bmills 09:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lots of hits here too. BL 04:16, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to scientism. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • Goodwin, Hester Genealogical stub about non-famous person, but my main objection is the title. Deb 19:01, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Delete. Wikikiwi 20:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Title is fixed. Keep. Famous. Anthony DiPierro 21:13, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Famous for doing what? Or being what? Onebyone 23:19, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonfamous. --Wik 21:15, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous. Mrdice 21:23, 2004 Feb 11 (UTC)
    • Delete as not famous. The article does not indicate why this person is in any way noteworthy. --No-One Jones (talk) 21:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • How can you, Tony, say she's famous? Not a single page links to Hester Goodwin, and none of the names in her own article has an entry. Who is she? Don't be so damn monosyllabic! Wikikiwi 21:34, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Same way y'all can say she's not famous. It's a pure guess. I just happen to treat articles as innocent until proven guitly. Anthony DiPierro 04:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I hate to tell you, but you have the wrong attitude. First, it's not innocent vs guilty; it's famous vs not famous. You can't prove someone is not famous - it's a basic principle of logic that it's impossible to prove a negative. In other words, you can only prove someone is famous; you cannot prove they aren't. Which means you have to assume someone is nonfamous until proven otherwise. →Raul654 04:49, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • As you are voting to delete or not delete an article it is guilty vs. not guilty. It's better to keep 1000 nonfamous articles then it is to delete just one famous one. That's why articles should be considered innocent until proven guilty. As for not being able to prove someone is not famous, that's a good argument for why fame should be irrelevant. Finally, I don't have to assume anything. Anthony DiPierro 17:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonfamous. This is somebody's genealogy project. See [2] DJ Clayworth 21:40, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous. Secretlondon 21:53, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, no proof of anything resembling noteworthyness. - snoyes 21:59, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, shouldn't have to be famous, but must at least be notable in context of something. Cool Hand Luke 01:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous, or, at least, nobody has produced any evidence that she is. Doesn't pass the Google test. Dpbsmith 02:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not an encylopaedic subject. The onus in on anyone saying she is famous to prove it. Bmills 12:42, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Fails to state any information that could colourably be interpreted as basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Article could be revised so such information is included but until they my vote is to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Author has not made the effort to provide even the basic info available through Google. I'm sure Hester was a very nice person. I'm equally sure her contribution to humanity was more humble than noteworthy.Denni 22:54, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • List of topics related to current Polish territories related to -- pointless, unathorised disclaimer, inciting hate. I shall not reverse inserted disclaimers on referenced pages, as I don't want edit wars in all referenced pages. Przepla 21:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whatever anyone may think about the disclaimer (and I think it is in line with ordinary WP practice, and also a step in the right direction), the page itself is a valid list of topics. Charles Matthews 21:45, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The disclaimer and the page itself are a good step towards solving the constant edit wars for these pages. Jor 21:51, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I know there are edit wars on those pages. But I object on topic based factual accuracy disclaimers. For instance Szczecin page had reached consensus, and yet it has been listed as disputed solely on fact that it is within scope of article. Besides, correct me if I am wrong, main namespace is not intended for disclaimers. If this would be permitted, why don't insert such disclaimers in all God based articles, since they are also often changed. I object to very idea of generic topic based disclaimers to disputed pages. Przepla 22:02, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • In that case remove the disclaimer and link it from See also. The article itself is useful still for the same reasons. Jor 22:07, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I already stated my opinion. I understand that I may be wrong and that is the reason I put here to consult community. I still think that factual accuracy should be resolved separately for each article. Even Israel/Palestine conflict pages does not have such disclaimer.Przepla 22:19, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I agree with Przepla that we do not need such a disclaimer. This page is not helpful at all. Recently there was some progress towards more NPOV in some of the articles, and I don't know why we should need this disclaimer now. Delete. -- Baldhur 08:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Removed text in article requesting text be added to other polish articles and reference to talk page (not appropriate for the article itself) - This appears to be trying to be some kind of meta-page - I assume we are not going to try to create meta pages for each controvertial issue but are going to use existing talk pages. - Texture 15:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete 1st the authors of this page are complete ignorants. They put the disclaimer on the areas, which never been a part of moden Germany. The main issue with thie page, is that the cities are currently Polish and are not subject of any international dispute. Why people of those cities should be denied right to express their view on the history of their cities? Cautious 17:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Can I make the point that it would be good for Wikipedia to resolve all the differences about articles in this area before May 1, when Poland accedes to the EU? And that this will require discussion with all Wikipedians interested in these matters? Simply calling for deletions doesn't help this process.Charles Matthews 17:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Good index page keep.BL 04:16, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or rename the page. Let say Polish_German view points. Do not include any disclaimers. Disno 10:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 12

  • Fragarach. Can anyone find any record of this thing existing other than on gaming sites? RickK 03:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (Updated article). Non-gaming site references (2 of many) appended to article (cos I can't get them to work in here) Syntax 04:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 04:27, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Culture of Turkey - mostly some POV rambles, not much worthwhile info there. Dori | Talk 03:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete.Bmills 13:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. An article being bad isn't a reason to delete. There should clearly be an article at this name. Improve, don't delete. Isomorphic 01:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There is culture in turkey. Keep. BL 04:27, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Move to clean up list. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete if not improved by Feb 19. --Jiang
    • Merge back into Turkey -- not enough yet for a sep. article. Davodd 09:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Qibla al-Qudsiyya. Can anybody find any proof of the existence of these people other than a site that gets its information from Wikipedia? RickK 04:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can confirm the existence of some Jews of Medina who converted to Islam in 622, but not under this name or any variant Romanizations thereof -- and I find no evidence whatsoever that they formed a distinct sect of Islam. I don't know; it seems like an odd thing to make up, so defer for now. --No-One Jones (talk) 05:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How to make Biodiesel Not an encylopaedic subject. Wikibooks? Bmills 12:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic subject. Anthony DiPierro 14:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to appropriate location unless it is updated to be more than the mere recipe it is now. - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • m:transwiki this and all how-tos to wikibooks. Gentgeen 14:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikibooks and delete. --Jiang
    • Delete -keep, put under Biodiesel.or make sure to link to from biodiesel. This is an extemely relevant item for present day and historical existence. sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ars (no giggling at the back, please) Dictionary def of a Latin word. Bmills 13:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: a word with a lot of peculiar uses. Not many Latin words deserve WP articles; this is one of them. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tror, Seskef - patent nonsense, claiming that Thor was the son of Priam. Unless this needs context as fiction based on a work I am not familiar with, delete it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Ridiculous cryptohistory (I think it's serious --- this is probably the source). Delete with extreme prejudice. ---No-One Jones 14:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete nonsense.Bmills 15:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Misuse of the Internet - attempt to recreate Very Irresponsible Material on the Internet (listed above) under another name - Texture 17:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • [add The Way the Internet is used or abused to the above] This is silly. Do we need an article on misuse of the telephone saying how people sometimes use the telephone for phone sex and drug dealing, and oh isn't that terrible, fortunately we're not like that? Or what about an article on misuse of the postal service, describing how people send pornography through the mail, and also letter bombs, how dreadful, tsk tsk? Delete this article and any further clones or reincarnations thereof. ---No-One Jones 17:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I know it looks silly. Please read the article on Moral panic. Moral panics are just about this type of silliness.Barbara Shack 17:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • My point was not that the concern over pornography on the Internet and suchlike is silly (though most of it is :-), but that having an article that basically says "Some people worry about this stuff, and maybe their worries are justified, but maybe not" doesn't inform or educate the reader about abuses of the Internet. The place to document concern over Internet pornography and Armin Meiwes is in those articles, not in a vague editorial. ---No-One Jones 17:32, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge salvagable content into Internet and redirect delete as history has been moved to Public concern over the Internet. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article is a POV rant. I don't see it as fixable other than moving it into a "misuse of technology" article if one exists. HectorRodriguez 17:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't give Anthony ideas - that would be just as POV not matter how it is written because the title and context is POV to begin with. - Texture 17:59, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Agree that the title is POV. That's why I recommended moving to Internet and redirecting. Anthony DiPierro 19:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I think all these (even as redirects) need deletion. They are not appropriate since they, even as redirects, are POV titles. Got confused about your intent to move to Internet when you started updating the POV articles. - Texture 19:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • What is POV about the current article? Anthony DiPierro 19:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • The title is POV. Misuse of the internet imples that the internet has "right" and "wrong" uses. If moved to "Concerns about Internet usage" or something, I'd support keeping it. The only other problem I could find with the reworked article is the use of the hand wavy term "abounds", which is somewhat POV. ShaneKing 03:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • How can the word misuse NOT be pov? It implies that there is a particular way that we should be using the net. Delete. Mrdice 18:03, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
    • Delete: inherent POV. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move this poll to redirects for deletion, as the page is merely a redirect. Anthony DiPierro 07:36, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Avipodopteryx -- completely made-up. --No-One Jones 18:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verified. Anthony DiPierro 19:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Can't find the word outside unless it's misspelled. Reading the entry--clearly bogus.Elf 20:15, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Patent nonsense, delete immediately. I live in So. Indiana and we have no Wha Bowl or Orange Tutu Thing. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, no doubt. --WormRunner 01:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does not exist - pure fabrication. --MPF 02:39, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. More SmartBee fiction. RickK 03:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Complete Nonsense, Even if it is amusing. Sailorcattious 03:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Talk:Rebeca Martínez just some guy with some studies (I presume), talking of what an outarage or whatever, was the killing of this baby. --Antonio Obscure reality Martin
    • delete, the article is taking shape but this talk page is just a rant about doctors killing twins fabiform | talk 09:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - The talk page you suggest deleting discusses possible selfish motives on the part of the doctors but I do not find it worthy of deletion under any existing guidelines. I had questions myself when I heard that the fully formed head (if not the body) of a siamese twin was going to be severed, and thus killed for a reason other than to save the life of the other twin. Rather than delete the text, it should be discussed. Give that person a reason why you don't agree with their evaluation of the surgery. - Texture 15:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Obviously we should keep the article page, and how can we delete the talk page for a valid article page? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Talk pages are essential to what goes on here. Kingturtle 08:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 13

  • Formula fiction — Substub, dictionary definition (and not a particularly good one). There could be a good article about formula fiction, but this one has shown no signs of becoming one; it has not changed since Jan. 2003. Dpbsmith 00:23, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub. Anthony DiPierro 00:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect and merge with Genre fiction, which already covers similar territory more thoroughly. Smerdis of Tlön 02:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why wouldn't it be good in the future? BL 04:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have tried to expand this, and distinguish it from genre fiction. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • "Formula fiction" and "genre fiction" are still not quite right. Might be heading in right direction. Elf 20:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's improving. Keep. Karada 23:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Won't this always be an essay? How could this become an encyclopedia reoprt? All genres have formulas. A good Wikipedia entry would identify formulas in genres, under each genre. Wetman 23:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Recent edits are going in the right direction. "Beatniks Wandering the Midwest" -- hey, wait a minute! I resemble that comment! Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Al Gore Platform. Wikipedia is not a website for political campaigns. RickK 03:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Also note the copy at Al Gore's opinions
    • Very useful content. Merge into Al Gore article. →Raul654 04:05, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Describing a political campaign is very encyclopedic. Keep. BL 04:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not a description of a political campaign. It's a collection of quotes. Read it.--Jiang
    • Keep. If you're not allowed to list a politician's policies, then you can't really write a very good article about them for an encyclopedia! ShaneKing 04:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Please read the article before voting. We did not "write" that article. Al Gore did. His views may be (and indeed are) mentioned as part of his biography at Al Gore. A collection of quotations is inappropriate.--Jiang
    • Delete, it is not even a platform. He never ran on issues like gay marriage or the Iraq war. Also wikipedia is not a collection of quotes, which this article is. - SimonP 07:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, see wikipedia:what wikipedia is not.--Jiang
    • Delete both. Ask yourself, "What is it we're trying to make here?" Bmills 09:38, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • What is wrong with having a page that shows Gore's platform? I would rather have quotes that describe his stands than someone else try to characterize them for him. Plus, if you look at the Howard Dean page, where they show his views, they are also quotes. So what is the big deal? Everytime I take time to do something about Al Gore, the same people throw a fit everytime. But what I do is not something out of the ordinary, it comes from other Wiki pages, but they have no problem with them. I think you are on the wrong side of the issue here and the people's voice has spoken. This page provides a first hand look at how Al Gore stands on the major issues, and again, it is him speaking for himself, which is better because of clarity. So please leave it. ChrisDJackson
        • The difference of course being that Dean's opinions are not given a page to themselves but are placed in a context (his life) as befits an encyclopaedia. Bmills 12:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • The Dean page has quotes under views, just as this page does. Now if you want to merge it with the main article, go ahead, but I don't see what the problem is. ChrisDJackson
    • m:Transwiki to Wikiquote:Transwiki:Al Gore. Gentgeen 12:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: useful material on an important person. A collection of quotes is a pretty crappy article, but the article needs to be there and it's better than nothing. Encourage someone to put some analysis into it. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about it now, I have done more work on the Gore page and added a views section that does not have quotes, but statements on how he stands. But there is already one person bringing up a rip about that. I just don't see why you all are so intent on bugging me on everything I do with this page. It is redundant and I would like it to stop because I am only trying to help. [[[User|ChrisDJackson]]]
  • History of heterosexuality Mere speculation, not a shred of evidence bar a biblical quote or two, which could just as well go into history of religion or some such. Probably beyond help. Tannin 09:17, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Secretlondon 09:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Mostly empty headings, and some of what is there is tedious and tendentious. seglea 09:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Page history indicates that this article was created to make a point. Bmills 11:20, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: headings are almost an exact copy of headings in History of homosexuality, it does appear this article only serves as a POV exercise. -- Graham  :) 14:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete heavily POV article. The least that could be said about this is it should be History of term "heterosexuality" but even in that case it would need substantial revision. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. It's a stalking horse (though not nearly as ridiculous as List of heterosexuals. Delete. --No-One Jones 22:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)-- reformatted by Jerzy 23:14, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)** Keep stalking horse, a real term. Secretlondon 22:53, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. unless it is changed to a more serious article on the history of the concept of "heterosexuality" Davodd 09:50, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah! Ah! Ah! They met, they got married, they had little children and they lived happily ever after. Boring! Delete. Muriel 13:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It complements History of homosexuality. Keep. Exploding Boy 14:00, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree. History of homosexuality is a growing account of the culture, beliefs and opinions of or directed towards an oppressed minority over the last few thousand years. This is already complemented by history in general, which is traditionally heterosexist in its viewpoint. For a similar account of heterosexual people in the same time period, open any history textbook, it's there. -- Graham  :) 14:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whole books are written on the history of sexuality, this would help some ppl see thier sexual past (and how it relates to other orientations). This topic is as valid as homosexuality history. Giving an account of the culture, beliefs and opinions as specifically relating around heterosexuality (not the standard history textbook line, which does not focus on sexuality) is needed (especially about "opinions of" or "directed towards" other orientations (not just homosexuals, but bi and transgender individuals) ... this article would be informative in such a light; ie. how wrongs have been commited, how things have changed, and what is occuring today concerning heterosexuality). The History of homosexuality is as "heavily POV article" and "makes a point", so this isn't anything different. As to being an exact copy of headings ... don't reinvent the wheel (and as it grows it can change headings). To solve the problem of empty headings, place a stub msg. History of homosexuality is a "covering that serves to conceal intentions" as much as this heterosexuality history article. The History of homosexuality can also compare contrast to the history of heterosexuality. As for interesting articles, "They met, they spent time together, then they died" is not interesting, IMO ... in contrast to "They met, they got married, they had little children and then they died". If this is deleted, the homosexual one should be too. All for now </end rant> ... JDR 21:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Contains just a little meaningful material; should be transformed into a balanced History of sexuality. - Seth Ilys 14:42, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. List on pages needing attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Michael Moore and US foreign policy - irredeemable POV. Secretlondon 09:22, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Put anything of value in Bowling for Columbine before deleting. theresa knott 11:02, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The current version of the page does not strike me as overly POV, but the content seems to belong more properly directly in Bowling for Columbine (which is not yet so large an article that the two can't be combined). This page title is wrong for the topic, though. Merge then delete. Rossami 14:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - POV - Texture 14:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. HectorRodriguez 23:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge back into state terrorism and redirect. The list is cited and attributed, which makes it NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 06:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into state terrorism and delete. Politics is (are?) important, the connection with Michael Moore is not. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) (new vote below)
      • "merge into article and delete is not a valid option (except for public domain text) because it destroys the information on authorship of the content." Wikipedia:Deletion policy
    • Just for context: I created this article after pulling it out of state terrorism because Moore's random (fictitious) list had no place there, both because it does not on the whole pertain to terrorism at all, and his long list of opinions is not suitable encyclopedic material for a subject as broad as state terrorism, belonging instead under some "Michael Moore" head. Thus, this article was a compromise to keep it at all. I agree it is worthless and should be destroyed, but anyone else who favors this should also propose how to keep the peace after doing so. -- VV 10:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete See my case at Talk:Michael Moore and US foreign policy. 172 12:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into Bowling for Columbine and redirect. 172 has made a very convincing case. --No-One Jones 12:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into a Michael Moore page and redirect. I agree with 172. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • OmniVoid while this looks sensible, even professional, it gets exactly zero google hits, which it not what you expect from a new network protocol that has any reasonable chance of being used. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - added VfD message on page - delete unless someone can provide a single link or reference to provie its existence. - Texture 18:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. You know, I'd say this article is a worthy candidate for Still more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Denelson83 19:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Either "original research" or a prank. Dpbsmith 20:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looked unlikely when I first mentioned it on cleanup. Elf 20:40, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's no RFC for it or any other standards track, looks like original research. Jor
  • St Gregorys - fictional. The third largest channel island is either Sark or Alderney. There is no St Gregory's. Secretlondon 19:38, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless perhaps we're in an alternate universe? Sounds believable, dunnit! Elf 20:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • He does mention it is volcanic, so maybe it just rose up out of the depts… Get rid of it. Jor 21:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fictional. Googling "Svenby" turns up no tourist information. Dpbsmith 23:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think I recognise the writing style of a previous troll. Karada 23:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 14

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


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

February 15

  • Predestination (Calvinism). This page is essentially a polemic against the doctrine rather than an imformative definition of it. Regardless of my opinion of the doctrine, i would expect as a researcher, to find a posiotive definition of the doctrine with links to arguments against it. notsnhoj
    • Should probably be listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup, not here. RickK 04:56, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The article was created with a practical purpose in mind, which has since been satisfied. Its essay form probably qualifies it for deletion. However, it was written more than a year ago, and has been linked from several other articles. Rewriting may be a less messy route. Mkmcconn 07:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, this should not be here. Sam Spade 15:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but truncate to a near-stub. The article topic is highly appropriate. The two opening quotations from Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith are a good start for such an article. But even the sentences introducing quotations need to be rewritten to remove the POV stuff about "bluntness." The rest is very non-neutral, and is "original research." I am strongly tempted to rewrite the opening "The doctrine of predestination, as formulated by Calvin, is: 'Predestination [etc.]' It appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith in this form: "By the decree [etc]." and move ALL the rest of it to the Talk page. The above would then constitute the entire article (until the time that someone more knowledgable about Calvinism than I should choose to add to it). Dpbsmith 00:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Sounds good, do it. Andrewa 02:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of porn stars who died from unknown reasons - one of a series which raises the questions: 1) Do we need a list of any porn stars, living or dead? 2) Do we need lists of anybody's causes of death? Lee M 05:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • And beyond that, is this going to give rise to inevitable lists of "porn stars who died in car crashes," "porn stars who died from falling into open manholes," "porn stars who died in curling iron tragedies"....? Delete! Exploding Boy 05:39, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • "porn stars who died from falling into open manholes"? Those would be the gay porn-stars? orthogonal 10:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • YES WE NEED! DELETING THIS WILL DESTROY MY SERIES OF DEAD PORNSTARS : List of dead porn stars - DELETING MY HARD WORK IS HARASSMENT OF NEW USERZ! KEEP! Anticapitalist3 05:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with keeping a List of porn stars. We probably don't need all of these multiple lists, though. RickK 05:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete the various entries with lists of various ways in which the porn stars died (accidentally, from drugs, etc), but keep a general list of porn stars. Moncrief 05:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 06:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We wouldn't have this kind of list for other "types" of people, (Goths, vegetarians, truck drivers, and so on, ad nauseum...) so why for porn stars? PMC 07:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. JDR 10:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • We don't need all these lists, and it's not harassment. Nobody, new user or long-time Wikipedian, has the automatic right to have their writing included if it's not encyclopedic. If you're concerned about losing your work, save it to your hard drive. (That's a good idea anyway; backups are good, and no server is 100 percent reliable.) Vicki Rosenzweig 14:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, this one is just too silly Sam Spade 14:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to wikipedia: namespace. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, in my humble-or-otherwise opinion and from my personal POV, this is just not encyclopedic. A list of porn stars with brief bios would be OK. Dpbsmith 00:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 10:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, plaese. Muriel 13:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of dead porn stars - It's creepy, and it's unnecessary. A list of porn stars with a note beside each name giving cause of death (if no longer with us) would surely suffice. Delete. Exploding Boy 05:42, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • NO! THIS IS EXTREME UNJUSTIFIED HARASEMENT! KEEP! Anticapitalist3 05:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Exploding is exactly right. One all-encompasing list of porn stars with a column for cause of death (if they are departed) should more than suffice. Merge all the relavant lists there. →Raul654 05:46, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 06:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We wouldn't have this kind of list for other "types" of people, (Goths, vegetarians, truck drivers, and so on, ad nauseum...) so why for porn stars? PMC 07:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. WINP. JDR 10:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, wiki is not paperSam Spade 15:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to wikipedia: namespace. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, merge with List of erotic actors. -- Seth Ilys 17:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - if it stands I'll create lists of dead actors, dead CEOs, dead disciples, dead founding fathers, dead vikings, and any other category that certainly doesn't need to exist - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, in my humble-or-otherwise opinion and from my personal POV, this is just not encyclopedic. A list of porn stars with brief bios would be OK. Dpbsmith 00:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 10:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, plaese. Muriel 13:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of porn stars thought to be dead - One of the new "porn star" entries. I have no problem with information about porn stars, but this is a particularly useless entry. WHEN were they thought to be dead? Who thought they were dead? Are any of them dead now? None of these questions are answered. Presumably a porn star who three people thought was dead in 1977 but who was fine but then later did die in 1986 could be on this list. Delete. Moncrief, 05:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AT THE EXTERNAL LINK! U VFDED THE ARTICXLE JUST SOME MINUTES AFTER I CREATED IT! THIS IS HARASSMENT! I STILL HAVE WORK TO DO AND I WILL WRITE ARTICLES FOR EVERY PORN STAR LISTED! Anticapitalist3 05:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • There's certainly no problem with that, so long as you use proper case and the articles are NPOV. RickK 05:56, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's certainly better than List of porn stars thought to be dead that turned out not to be, which we also have. RickK 05:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • it's not harassment and there's no need to yell (hint: turn off your capslock button). Even if -- especially if -- you write articles for each and every porn star listed, there still doesn't need to be more than one List of porn stars. Delete. Exploding Boy 06:01, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • THERE IS NO POLICY ON ALL CAPS CASE - PROPER CASE FOR ME IS ALL CAPS - IT LOOOKS BETTER! Anticapitalist3 06:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Well you might think so, but I'm letting you know that a lot of people take offense to all caps posts because they're perceived as yelling. Anyway, what's next? List of porn stars who ought to be dead? List of porn stars who've broken toes? List of porn stars by cock size? This is bordering on the ridiculous. Exploding Boy
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 06:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We wouldn't have this kind of list for other "types" of people, (Goths, vegetarians, truck drivers, and so on, ad nauseum...) so why for porn stars? PMC 07:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. JDR 10:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, again, too silly. Sam Spade 14:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to wikipedia: namespace. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and merge names with List of erotic actors - Seth Ilys 17:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, in my humble-or-otherwise opinion and from my personal POV, this is just not encyclopedic. A list of porn stars with brief bios would be OK. Dpbsmith 00:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 10:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, plaese. Muriel 13:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of porn stars thought to be dead who turned out not to be - Delete for many reasons above. Moncrief, 05:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • THIS IS NOT MINE - IT'S User:Wetman'S Anticapitalist3 05:58, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 06:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Can we just amalgate this as "List of porn stars who~" series? I vote that all such lists, except for one main "list of porn stars" should be deleted. Exploding Boy 05:55, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've just discovered that there is already a List of erotic actors. We don't need any other lists at all. My vote is to delete all pages in List of porn stars category. Exploding Boy 06:15, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We wouldn't have this kind of list for other "types" of people, (Goths, vegetarians, truck drivers, and so on, ad nauseum...) so why for porn stars? PMC 07:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. JDR 10:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, again w the silliness Sam Spade 14:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to wikipedia: namespace. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, merge with List of erotic actors (which should contain birth/death dates when known. Details on each person's non-death can be included in bio articles. - Seth Ilys 17:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, in my humble-or-otherwise opinion and from my personal POV, this is just not encyclopedic. A list of porn stars with brief bios would be OK. Dpbsmith 00:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 10:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, plaese. Muriel 13:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of porn movies which contain incest scenes. Oy. And in too much detail. RickK 06:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • KEEP. AN ENCYCLOPIDIA NEEDS DETAIL Anticapitalist3 06:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 06:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. PMC 07:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. JDR
    • Delete. Exploding Boy 14:02, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, this is clearly more valid/accurate Sam Spade 14:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to wikipedia: namespace. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, or incorporate as on offshopt of other articles on erotic art/pornography. -- Seth Ilys 17:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - who is going to verify this information? - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, in my humble-or-otherwise opinion and from my personal POV, this is just not encyclopedic. A list of porn stars with brief bios would be OK. Dpbsmith 00:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 10:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del, plaese. Muriel 13:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of porn stars who died from AIDS. See all posts above. Once again, there is already a List of erotic actors. Exploding Boy 06:21, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - UtherSRG 06:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We wouldn't have this kind of list for other "types" of people, (Goths, vegetarians, truck drivers, and so on, ad nauseum...) so why for porn stars? PMC 07:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is the only one of the porn star lists that makes some sense, since the list criteria AIDS (maybe it should be renamed into HIV though) is closely related to the pornstar profession. A list of goths by cock size? No! A list of goths that died from makeup gun accidents? Yes! CYvH 09:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why for porn stars? Because they fuck for thier employment. JDR
    • Keep, or incorporate somehow into List of HIV-positive individuals; but verify the information. This is data I can easily imagine someone looking for... - Seth Ilys 14:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • At very least the title of this list is inaccurate: people do not die "from" AIDS, they die of opportunistic infections and diseases that occur as a result of having a weakened immune system. A more appropriate title would be "Erotic actors who have died of AIDS-related causes."
      • With respect to 'died of aids' vs 'died of opportunistic infections caused by aids' - while you are correct, I think you are splitting hairs needlessly. →Raul654 14:41, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • keep, this might actually be of some research value, etc... Sam Spade 14:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Re: "died from AIDS," it's not strictly accurate and it's not very good English either, which is why I suggested "Erotic actors who have died of AIDS-related causes" (if indeed we are to have such a list at all). Exploding Boy 14:57, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but thats not something anyone is likely to type into a search engine. Porn stars who have died from AIDS comes much more readilly to the tongue (or fingertips) Sam Spade 15:03, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • ...which is what redirect pages are for, isn't it? After all, if one really needs to know which porn star (is that synonymous with erotic actor to begin with?) died of AIDS, then surely one would need one's information to be as specific as possible? Was it cancer? Pneumonia? ...? Exploding Boy 15:11, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that the account which created this page is a (now banned) reincarnation of a number of banned vandal accounts. This article should be summarily deleted, something I would already have done had this not been listed here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Where can I go to argue against the policy of summarilly deleting/reverting articles written/edited by banned users? Sam Spade 15:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to wikipedia: namespace. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - merge into and AIDS page. - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, in my humble-or-otherwise opinion and from my personal POV, this is just not encyclopedic. A list of porn stars with brief bios would be OK. Dpbsmith 00:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete with extreme prejudice. Changed my mind. This could be encyclopedic. Keep, pending further review. Kosebamse 10:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of porn stars who died accidentally Exploding Boy 06:22, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius! Wipe out all these ridiculous porn star lists. --No-One Jones 06:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. List of accidentally killed popstars wouldn't be removed either. Mrdice 06:58, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
      • Delete. Changed my mind, after seeing the number of lists Mrdice 06:59, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
    • Delete the whole series (merge back into one list). Agree too many overly detailed list topics. Elf 07:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We wouldn't have this kind of list for other "types" of people, (Goths, vegetarians, truck drivers, and so on, ad nauseum...) so why for porn stars? PMC 07:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • For a simple reason: people are interested in actors, politicians, and celebrities. It's often asked, is so-n-so still alive? And where do you go to answer that question? A reference work, hopefully. Most of these actors meet or surpass the 5K distribution threshold.-- ~ender, 2004-02-15 03:49:MST
    • Delete the whole series. These are absurd, but any useful content could be merged with the aforementioned erotic actos list. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete series after merging - but distinguish between porn star and erotic actors.-- ~ender, 2004-02-15 03:49:MST
    • Keep. JDR
    • Delete, I don't see a need for this one (I admit this is getting pretty arbitrary, why is AIDS ok and accidental death not? Please come to the Talk to discuss guidelines) Sam Spade 14:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can at least see more encyclopaedic value for the former given that erotic actors do have sex for a living, and their numbers were rather hard hit in the early years. Exploding Boy 14:59, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that the account which created this page is a (now banned) reincarnation of a number of banned vandal accounts. This article should be summarily deleted, something I would already have done had this not been listed here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:12, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to wikipedia: namespace. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, merge with List of erotic actors. Details can go on bio pages. - Seth Ilys 17:52, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete before we have list of B actors who died accidentally, list of CEOs who died accidentally, list of founding fathers who died accidentally, heck, how about list of CEOs who died of natural causes? - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, in my humble-or-otherwise opinion and from my personal POV, this is just not encyclopedic. A list of porn stars with brief bios would be OK. Dpbsmith 00:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 10:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bakta -- prank article by some students probably. See its talk page for more. Jay 11:10, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, Complete nonsense. None of the 'philosophers' can be found with google nor in the 'Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy'.Andries 17:31, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree with Andries -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Gag-O-Rama - a not very famous web-comic. - SimonP 15:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, not important enough. -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not verifiable. No original research. Anthony DiPierro 20:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Diego Marani - hopelessly POV. Each sentence portrays Marani and Europanto as an attack on Esperanto and Esperantists. I really can't see anything in there to salvage except "Diego Marani...is the inventor of...Europanto". At least part of the article looks like it was created by one of the parties involved in the edit war at Europanto. --cprompt 17:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Billy Dee Williams - Vanity page. --cprompt 17:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, certainly not famous -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Famous enough to have 8 odd pages linking to him [3], assuming it's the same person. Mintguy (T) 18:25, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is the same person. --cprompt 19:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Billy Dee Williams played Lando in Star Wars. The birth dates are the same. silsor 19:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I rewrote this into a page on the Star Wars actor; I think the previous version was about someone entirely different. Should be fine now, keep. Meelar 20:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Because of Meelar's edit, I withdraw my request to delete. Keep. --cprompt 00:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. If for no other reason, the famous Colt 45 Malt Liquor commercials. Fuzheado 07:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the bio of this star of Brian's Song, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Batman (1989 movie). Davodd 18:53, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Zarraffa's Coffee - little more than an advert. Is this actually well known in Australia? -- Ams80 18:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More than an advert. Anthony DiPierro 20:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. I removed what I thought made it, "like an advert," so now it's less like an advert but more like a stub. (I considered removing the silly sentence explaining that it sells coffee). I see no compelling reason to keep it but no harm in keeping it. Dpbsmith 01:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Odd, the corporate website is strangely silent on matters such as annual revenue, number of stores, etc. It was founded by someone from Seattle, by the way. The article was created by an anon who has contributed two substantial articles on Education in Australia and HECS. Dpbsmith 01:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know if Zarraffa's is famous, but I know of it. I think many people living in Brisbane would be aware of it. So I think it's fine to keep. ShaneKing 02:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of Sony products - are we going to have a (incomplete, and never likely to be complete) product catalogue for every manufacturer? -- Ams80 18:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not? We are building an incomplete, and never likely to be complete encyclopaedia. Mintguy (T) 18:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to another namespace or keep. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 18:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I created this article for the purpose of being able to write an article about the printer listed there, without having to make it an orphan. I suppose I could have looked for/created a list of computer printer models. But if the list is deleted, the article would become an orphan. —Vespristiano 19:47, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
      • And that article deserves to be deleted as well.
    • There's a List of IBM products too. If IBM's ok, then Sony's ok. Agree with Mintguy that incompleteness is not a criteria for deletion. Jay 08:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment - Could this could be altered to a list of important/notable Sony products, such as the Walkman, Playstation, Betamax, Aibo? Linking to only products worthy of further discussion. Average Earthman 20:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rheta Grimsley Johnson - orphan, non article, short story -- Infrogmation 20:57, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - either original work, copvio, or vanity page - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a press release. Press on and release it from Wiki. Delete orthogonal 10:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 16

  • all subpages of Aozora Bunko (e.g.Aozora Bunko: A) -- index of another site. they don't make sense. TY 08:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete these index pages. A maintenance nightmare anyway. Users are better off visiting the Aozora Bunko website directly. Lupo 13:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, this is a useful index for stimulating articles in English on classic works of Japanese literature. Keep. -- The Anome 13:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Enemy Within from the article: '"The Enemy Within" is the named used, in leiu of a better alternative, for the unnamed pilot episode for the American continuation of "Doctor Who"' (and the series wasn't picked up). A page for every failed pilot? I know that Dr. Who is a cult favorite, but really. orthogonal 09:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm not a huge Dr Who fan, but this sort of info is interesting and useful. It's not just a failed pilot, it's a failed attempt to take a popular British show to America. That to me makes it a worthy entry, as it's not like it's just some obscure show that didn't make it, but something people would want to find out about. That said, the article itself needs work. ShaneKing 12:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Has a bunch of good info it'd be a shame to waste. zandperl 19:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • William Kelly, Sr. (politician). Just a one-liner duplicating the info given in the extlink. Seems to be not noteworthy at all. (I had thought the creator of that article wanted to flesh it out, but apparently not...) Delete. Lupo 12:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This seems to be a cleanup request, rather than a deletion request. Anthony DiPierro 15:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • It's My Body - Wikipedia is not pornopedia! Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Pleas note that this is NOT User:Angela, and this listing is this sock puppet's first posting. RickK 20:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless anyone can flesh these out, delete them. However, if someone can provide some actual info, they should stay. Articles about porn movies are fine, if they have content, and unfortunately these don't. Keep the porn articles. They are being fleshed out, so it's fine now. ShaneKing 12:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No useful content, and I cannot see this developing into something useful. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. useful content. 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's been expanded three times so far in just a few hours and is likely to be further expanded by those who do not agree that the Wikipedia should contain content intended only for children. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Won't somebody think of the children! *hem* Where's the line? Does the average skin flick (a few famous exceptions aside, of course) fall above the fuzzy threshold of noteworthiness? I would say that it does not, any more than does the average local garage band, so delete any that have no demonstrable claim to fame. (This applies to all the others, too, but I don't think copying it half a dozen times is really necessary.) --No-One Jones 14:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Doesn't the rule say it only has to be well known in its subject area, not generally well known? In which case, you'd have to ask an expert on porn whether this one is notable, because I have no idea. ShaneKing 14:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, if some porn expert can indicate whether any of these films are noteworthy among the terminally hairy-palmed (with the necessary references of course), then I would say keep. Otherwise delete. --No-One Jones 14:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I was going to suggest a suitable candidate for performing such verification, but didn't think it polite. ;) ShaneKing 14:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This particular article looks like it's getting fleshed out (no pun intended). Also, I'd like to say that "inappropriate for children" is NOT a reason to delete something, else we'd get rid of fuck, female circumcision, etc. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Nothing wrong with listing porn movies. I vote to keep on all of the porn movies listed below. RickK 20:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep all the porn flicks. Take this is as my vote to keep all of them listed on this page. There is no reason to delete them, any more than there would be a reason to delete a non-porn flic. RickK 20:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • (note by orthogonal 21:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC): there are two apparently redundant RickK entires because teh first was deleted by an edit conflict caused by Dandrake. In the interest of fidelity to what was actually written here, I am leaving both entries; RicKK is not trying to stuff the ballot box, as it were.)


  • Tracy Lords - for Gods sake, please! Wikipedia is read by children! Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Who reads WP is irrelevant, but this has no useful content and I think it is unlikely to ever acquire any. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • useful for porn research. Keep. 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Adding more detail is the best way to get these kept - please do.:) Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Anjela, the Wikipedia does not have children as it's sole audience, though we do not (yet) have a system for filtering ccontent suitable for the varying views of what children of various ages in various countries and of various religious and social beliefs may see. If you'd like to try to work out how to implement such a system, please feel free to do so, since we clearly will need it eventually. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Such a system already exists. It's generally marketed under the brand names parent and/or guardian (in other words, it's a human problem, not a technological one). ShaneKing 14:46, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Porn stubs can grow (see It's My Body, etc.) Keep. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The question is not whether it can grow, but should it. Copyright violations can grow... original works can grow... all sorts of things we don't want here could grow but are deleted because they are inappropriate. It isn't like you can't get the "blow by blow" at another porno review site. - Texture 17:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, this is nonsense, she wasn't in a movie called "Tracy Lords," she was just credited at that time under that spelling of her name. I suspect the rest of the articles 141 has created are also nonsense. Adam Bishop 20:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, when this article was first created, I went to imdb to look to see if this movie actually existed, and it is listed there, so unless the listing at imdb is wrong, this is a real movie. RickK 20:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • You're right...sorry, I looked there too but I didn't see it the first time. Adam Bishop 20:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Future Voyeur - do we need info on every single porn flick out there?? Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we don't. Delete. No useful content. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • yes we do. Keep. 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Electric Blue 28 - unmoral article, contains reference to unnatural love. Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Morality is not an issue. Nevertheless, delete: no useful content. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. you keep stupid lists and you want delete movie articles? 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Boogie Boy - please no more porn spam. Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. surely it will expand 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This would appear to be utterly spurious, as according to the appropriate article, Traci Lords stopped "acting" in porn in 1985. --No-One Jones 14:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Despite the original poster's claim, this is NOT a porn flick. Keep. RickK 21:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Blade (pornographic movie) - porn spam. Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. let the stubs grow 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not a pornopedia. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This would appear to be utterly spurious, as according to the appropriate article, Traci Lords stopped "acting" in porn in 1985. --No-One Jones 14:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh. Oh. Yeah. OH! YEAH! Yes! OH! Omigod! YEAH! DELETE! DELETE! DELETE! Ohhhhh, yeah. Wow. You were great. Delete. orthogonal 18:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, possibly with every other article this guy has created. This one, at least, is complete nonsense. Traci Lords is in the (non-porn) movie Blade (the Wesley Snipes one). Adam Bishop 20:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • In this case, I agree. This is not a porn movie. It's been redirected, but I've listed it on the redirects for deletion as it's incorrect to call it a porn movie. RickK 21:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cum spitting - another contribution by user:141. Delete.
    • Keep. The content is salvagable, and can potentially be worthwhile. Probably needs to be moved to a more appropriate name though. ShaneKing 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - we don't need a separate article for each variation - Texture 14:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This cannot be called a sexual practice. If anything it should be integrated into the below, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. Exploding Boy 14:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I see little academic merit in this. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This might be a section in oral sex, but it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Delete. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. it doesn't matter who wrote it. You should judge by the content, not by the contributor. Please don't bite the newcomers. 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. At the utmost, might deserve a minor mention if the "swallowing" stuff gets merged into oral sex. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with oral sex and redirect, or keep. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge. Mikkalai 18:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the we change all titles with the slang word "cum" in them to "semen". Note: this is not a content vote, but a format vote. Davodd 19:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to felatio. RickK 21:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cum swallowing -- and yet another contribution by user:141.
    • Keep. The content is salvagable, and can potentially be worthwhile. Probably needs to be moved to a more appropriate name though. ShaneKing 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - we don't need a separate article for each variation - Texture 14:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely needs a better name if it's going to stay, as well as some major NPOV and accuracy work. Exploding Boy 14:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I see little academic merit in this. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This might be a section in oral sex, but it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Delete. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's actually mentioned in the fellatio section of that article Exploding Boy 14:30, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. it doesn't matter who wrote it. You should judge by the content, not by the contributor. Please don't bite the newcomers. 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Some newcomers bring a mistake or two. Some newcomers bring boatloads of unwanted and inappropriate baggage. - Texture 14:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, move whatever is deemed salvageable to oral sex. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to oral sex, or keep. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge. Mikkalai 18:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the we change all titles with the slang word "cum" in them to "semen". Note: this is not a content vote, but a format vote. Davodd 19:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to felatio. RickK 21:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Pact with the devil - dictionary definition - and arguably inaccurate - example given: "cum swallowing in 1700s" - Are we really to believe there is any documented proof of this claim? - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not a pornopedia. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs serious help, but is article-worthy -- something examining the various legends regarding pacts with the devil could certainly be written. Keep. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • keep 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • old school gangster - do we really need this?
    • I don't think so—for me, it's close to being nonsense. Delete. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --cprompt 15:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition. Anthony DiPierro 17:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Institutionalism - I'm not sure if this is an original work or a copyright violation but there are clear cut-and-paste errors. - Texture 17:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Creating user has blanked page, so this is probably ready for deletion - Texture 17:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Also appears to be a copyvio. - snoyes 17:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Resort. This belongs in Wiktionary. Denelson83 17:49, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wait. 8:42 minutes after creation it's on VfD?! Give it time, most great novels weren't written overnight. zandperl 19:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • What Would Brian Boitano Do? - Anthony irrelevance. --Wik 17:52, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Somewhat well-known and of marginal significance, but enough to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this but put the info back in WWJD where it was originally. The song doesn't deserve its own article, but then this article wouldn't have been created if someone (bet you can't guess who) hadn't been reverting the WWJD article. Isomorphic 18:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Agree with Daniel, plus this is a stub which can be improved. Anthony DiPierro 18:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • My vote was deleted. Please don't delete votes that aren't yours. RadicalBender 20:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Old vote:
    • Merge with the Music heading of South Park. RadicalBender 18:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose [i.e., Keep], until some reason is given for its deletion. Dandrake 19:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wik only listed it here because Anthony created it, and Wik is on a war against Anthony. RickK 19:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • But then we should probably question why Anthony created it...the content should probably be moved to the South Park movie article, and then WWBBD redirected there. Adam Bishop 20:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Scotchtoberfest - doesn't merit its own article IMO. Dori | Talk 18:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but needs cleaning up. Apparently this has become a real event since invention by the makers of the Simpsons... -- Graham  :) 18:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2416505"