Wikipedia:Archived deletion discussions/2004 May 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of many pages.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The results of these debates were to delete the relevant articles.

Please do not edit this page.

Expression engine[edit]

Wikispam. The PMachines website looks impressive, there are 90000-odd Google hits on "ExpressionEngine," they look legitimate, I think it's a real product... but this article is still wikispam. Dpbsmith 01:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm on the fence about this one. Yeah, it's an advert, but the product very well may be encyclopædic. Can't figure out how to vote on this one. blankfaze | &#9835 02:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 03:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article contains no reason to think this is encyclopedic, it's just a sales blurb. Andrewa 03:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Comment: it absolutely is not an advert. I'm a user on said application, and upon finding very little information on it around the internet, I added it to the wikipedia. please note that there is also a movable type entry, which is not considered spam. is this simply because MT is a free product? Juusan 08:57, 24 May 2004
  • Looks fairly notable, comparison to Movable Type seems reasonable. I think this article could be salvaged. No vote at this time. -- Cyrius| 06:47, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could need some work, but doesn't smell like a sales pitch to me (quite opposite actually). Abigail 11:28, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lean towards delete. If you start excluding unrelated products, the 90K starts dropping rapidly; "Expression Engine" -regular -advantage -tales is down to 15K. Movable Type, on the otherhand, get4 MILLION hits. I am fairly anti-Borg, and in a forum where NPOV doesn't matter, would shamelesly plug alternatives. However, this is a self-admittedly new product, whose currency in the marketplace seems yet unproved. I guess I see the question as being, does WP want to be leading edge, or bleeding edge. Niteowlneils 20:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not clear why it is encyclopedic. Andris 05:17, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: advert for a nonnotable product. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • What makes this product notable? At the moment, delete. Average Earthman 11:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Something is needed. Just hold all application reviews to a minimum standard whether open source or fee based. Specifically I turned to wikipedia for comparisons between MT, ExpressionEngine and Drupal. I did not see the original EE entry. My only question - is nothing better than something that is not perfect?

Kimberley Katherine Smith[edit]

Do we really need this G-Man 00:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think. Move to Kim Smith, I think, see rambling below. Article needs work, much too promotional. No, we don't really need it, but I don't think we need to delete it. My first reaction was that this was some rank amateur who couldn't afford the webspace for a resume, but I don't think that's true. Under the name "Kim Kay Smith" she does show up as a model of apparently some note. We need to figure out which is , an Australian site, has a non-sock-puppety article praising her as the next IT girl. She's been on the cover of Maxim, as documented on the not-its-own-domain fan site , several other magazines, assuming the magazine covers haven't been faked/Photoshopped and I don't think they are. Both sites say she (was) in the Victoria's Secret catalog, circa 2001. Whoa! "Kim Smith" Maxim yields a bunch of hits. 44,000 and most of them seem to be to her. The word "supermodel" seems to be being thrown around quite a bit. No, I'm not influenced at all by the fact that I find her pictures very attractive, no sir. Well, maybe just a little influenced. Oh, by the way, she's no relation. Dpbsmith 03:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Come ON! She wears a SIZE 9 SHOE. She was born in HOUSTON! She got plastered at a model search. How much more notable can you become? Well, she's not Becky Owen (nobody could ever ever ever be Becky (sob)) but she's OUR Kimmy. Delete. Denni 04:28, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
    • Dwindrim, you're starting to make me nervous.  :) RickK 04:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
      • You're safe, RickK. Wrong gender. And probably wrong shoe size too :p Denni 05:06, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
        • Never have I been so glad to be male and wear size 14s. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:38, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

I added the VfD header. RickK 04:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Easily notable enough, just by being on the cover of Maxim. Keep. Everyking 06:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Everyking. Keep. Rhymeless 07:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Guess what, her notability is irrelevant, because this is a copy/paste job from another site: [1]. Listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:35, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, good (my spine was developing curvature from too much bending over backwards). Dpbsmith 17:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


The word "circumfetishism" is not in the American Heritage dictionary, and it only gets two Google hits (as of this writing... Google will probably pick up the Wikipedia article and its mirrors soon!). I don't believe there is such a paraphilia; if there is, the burden of proof should be on the article contributor to convince us that it exists. I believe the article is hopelessly POV, and cannot be rendered neutral. (I read it as implying a discreditable motive to advocacy of circumcision).

Note: full text of the page is:

Circumfetishism' is a paraphilia in which the circumfetishists receive sexual pleasure from sexual mutilation.
See also: Intactivism

Dpbsmith 02:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is true that very few people are interested in the philosophy of circumfetishism, but many discuss circumfetish and circumfetishists:
CircList.Com is a site devoted exclusively to circumfetishism, mostly against nonconsenting minors. If anyone does not believe that some people receive sexual pleasure from genital mutilation, just read the often pædophiliac circumfetishistic pornography at CircList.Com. After reading the pornography by circumfetishists for circumfetishists, you will agree that circumfetishism is real.
I believe that I have met the burden of proof about the existence of circumfetishism. CircList.Com is very compelling evidence that circumfetishism is a true paraphilia. Keep ?alabio 03:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Usage of a term on a couple of message boards does not a perversion make. Delete, it's not even an encyclopedic article. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:36, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
¿Would you consider the men at CircList.Com as having a a paraphilia? Occasionally, they hire intact male prostitutes for and watch while masturbating and engaging in sexual activity as they circumcise him. ¿Would you consider this normal behavior? Some of the stories on CircList.Com involve children.
Members of CircList.Com often go out of their way to observe religious and secular medically unnecessary circumcisions of unconsenting minors. I suspect that their motives are prurient.
You may not like the term circumfetishism, but it seems obvious that some paraphilia exists here. ¿Do you agree? ¿If you agree, what would you call the paraphilia? ?alabio 04:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Irrespective of this debate, we don't make up terms on the Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not personal research), we use terms that already exist. Dysprosia 04:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows only 2 hits, a Yahoo discussion group and a topic in a circumcision discussion group in Father Magazine. The site mentioned above does not contain pornographic material except in the mind of the beholder. It does not have any paedophilic content except, again, in the mind of the beholder. While there may be some hint of paraphilia, it is no more notable than those who prefer shaved genitals or those who enjoy special-edition vibrating toys. I suggest ?alabio ought to be more concerned about his own mindset than those who share their thoughts and stories on this web page, which seems to be his real issue here. Denni 04:47, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
> The site mentioned above does not contain pornographic material except in the mind of the beholder has headlines in it like "After a Lifetime of Desire, UK Man Gets Circumcision of His Dreams". This seems pornographic to me.
And what might qualify that as pornography? That he's happy? That he dreams? That he maybe looks like his mates?
> It does not have any paedophilic content except, again, in the mind of the beholder contains a a story with pictures of adults mutilating the genitals of children.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. The boy is getting the same circumcision every boy his age gets, and the procedure is done by one of his village versed in such things. Seriously, you are displaying an incredible lack of cultural sensitivity.
> While there may be some hint of paraphilia, it is no more notable than those who prefer shaved genitals or those who enjoy special-edition vibrating toys.
Psychosurgery although unethical is not much different than an haircut.
How, um, ah, whatever of you to decide that psychosurgery is unethical. Did you know that, to some, haircuts are unethical? Did you know that that comment was a complete non-sequiteur to the one which it followed?
> I suggest ?alabio ought to be more concerned about his own mindset than those who share their thoughts and stories on this web page, which seems to be his real issue here.
Ad Hominem attacks are not nice. ?alabio 05:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Neither is linking exactly the same word five times in the space of a few sentences. It's a little tin-foil hattish, and anywhere else, I'd expect to see THE CAPITALS OF DOOM. Quite frankly, ?alabio (may I call you??), your style and presentation are very, very unusual, and I always find that suspicious. Maybe you're just here to jive us a little. Okay, good clean fun, I can handle that. Or maybe it's that your user history shows you to be a very, very naughty boy on other pages, and one who seems to take an, um special interest in pages to do with sexuality. Nowwhymightthatbe---hmmmm...Denni
  • Delete. No evidence it is encyclopedic. Looking at the edit summary for the first version of this article, which reads Circumfetshists hurt babies, I suspect it's a subtle contribution to the debate over male circumcision. As such it makes sense, but however much I might agree with this POV, this is not the place for such propaganda. Andrewa 23:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Whether it stays in Wikipedia or not, circumfetishism is real. One has only to open one's eyes to see all the people around the world; male, female and intersexed whose genitals and sexual response are truncated for life by senseless genital reduction surgery performed against their will and when no consent is possible. The people who commit these crimes are circumfetishists. Keep. - 03:17, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Anon who's only edit is this comment. Sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:22, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah, but an untruncated sockpuppet! Denni 08:09, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
  • Delete ASAP. Unencyclopedic and disingenuous. -- The Anome 08:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The glossary in my Intactivism pages, gives this definition (and has done for several years):
circumfetishism: Deriving sexual pleasure from the act of circumcision (hence also "circumfetishist"). Circumfetishism involves fantasies of power and control, which may be ritualistically acted out (so it should be distinguished from just eroticising the circumcised penis, as many women and gay men may do just for want of knowing any other). They may be active (sadistic) fantasies of circumcising, or passive (machochistic) fantasies of being circumcised, and the rituals, when they occur, of course involve both. Circumfetishists have at least one website and three clubs.
There are certainly a significant number of people of both persuasions. For example, letters to Forum magazine talk of using fantasies of the wife circumcising the husband (not carried out) for arousal, even going so far as to lay out a knife on the bedside table. A writer on alt.circumcision challenged all comers to wrestling matches, the winner to circumcise the loser - in front of the audience. Such people need a name.
Whether Circlist is pornographic is neither here nor there; it is certainly run by and for people with such a fetish/paraphilia.
The definition might be improved without the controversial word "mutilation" though in any other context, that would be the most appropriate word. Hugh7 10:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Where did the word and its definition originate? Did they originate on your website? If not, can you cite a dictionary or other respected reference source that contains it? Dpbsmith 12:43, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
User Hugh7 has made exactly one edit at the time I write this, the previous comment. Sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|&#9998 17:46, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless someone cites something a good bit more credible than what's shown up so far, delete. Rossami 22:00, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this entry should be deleted just because it's a relatively new coinage. It describes a paraphilia which, IMO, has been shown to exist to a reasonable standard. I think it can and should be improved from it's present state as a stub and deleting it isn't the way to do that.


Ixbalam 00:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • With the number of sock puppets taking part here, someone must be getting really cold toes. Denni 01:12, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
    • Cold somethings, anyway. -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:27, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

First things firstly, I have no sockpuppets. I despair, I commented about circumfetishists trying to censor reality on WikiPedia.Org. Three of my friends decided to help. the American Jerry Wayne Norton is the IP-address, Ixbalamis I believe a Newyorker, while Hugh Young is a Newzealander. If anything else, intactivists want to keep the article.

I wanted to avoid graphic images, but if any doubts that circumfetishists is a paraphilia, one should see Sexually Mutilated Child. Sexually Mutilated Child documents what circumfetishists do to boys girls and intersexuals. As an example, this is a picture about a circumfetishist fellating an infant whom the circumfetishist just mutilated. ¿Is mutilating and fellating infants normal? ¿Is this a paraphilia? ¿Do you wish to allow people with this paraphilia to move around our society invisibly, choosing their victims at will, or do you believe that we should expose them for what they are?

Circumfetishists like to reshade society in their own image:

Up until about three thousand years ago, Jews did not sexually mutilate. Then circumfetishists rewrote the story about Abraham. Sexual mutilation violates six Jewish laws:

  1. It causes unnecessary pain.
  2. It is against Jewish law to attack others unprovoked.
  3. It marks, mutilates, the body.
  4. Theft is against Jewish law.
  5. It is a homosexual act.
  6. It violates the Sabbath.

Mohammed never mentioned circumcision, yet circumfetishist have most moslems believing that the Qoran requires sexual mutilation.

In the United States of America, circumfetishists made Americans believe that masturbation causes blindness and insanity, and the best way for preventing masturbation is genital mutilation.

Notice that in the Mideast, sexually mutilated Americans, Jews, and Moslems have nothing better to do than kill each other.

Circumfetishist have also convinced some Australian Aboriginies, Filipinos, Oceanians, and Africans that sexual mutilation is good.

Circumfetishism is an insidious threat to the children of the world.

?alabio 05:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow, "Circumfetishism is an insidious threat to the children of the world"... that convinces me... Delete - (What? No one thinks smoking is the "insidious threat" anymore? How about "Rock and roll"?) - Tεxτurε 05:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe that we have seen plenty of evidence that circumfetishism exists.

Some of you do not like the way I write, I am an intactivist and an Esperantist. When I first tried to log into the WikiPedia.Org, the system changed my handle to ?alabio. It should be Ŭalabio. Ŭalabio is Esperantic version of wallaby. If I knew that WikiPedia.Org could not handle UTF-8, I would have set up an account as Walabio, which is a transliteration of Ŭalabio.

?alabio 03:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"Circumfetishism" is a new word to describe something that has been noted since Biblical times, namely, that some people have a sexual involvement in circumcision.

Examples from the Bible

1 King Saul accused his son Jonathan of having a shameful relationship with David (1 Samuel 20:30). He tried to get David killed (1 Sam. 18:25). His method was to set him the task of collecting 100 Philistine foreskins as a dowry for his daughter(1 Sam. 18: 25). The fact that King Saul chose such a macabre task and his accusation that David and Jonathan had a shameful relationship is strong evidence that the dowry was sexual bait that Saul chose because he thought it would appeal to David's sexual tastes.

2 In the New Testament, the apostle Paul accused circumcision enthusiasts in the early church of a carnal involvement in circumcision (Galatians 5:13).

Perhaps you should consider editing circumcision, then, rather than creating new articles with made-up names? -- The Anome 08:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Made-up words do not make for good Wikipedia articles. -- ElBenevolente 15:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. The personal agenda here is so thick that the burden lies overwhelmingly on the retentionists to prove significant use elsewhere. --Jerzy(t) 04:08, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

Dumbarton Harp F.C.[edit]

Vanity. Satori 18:52, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. All of 14 hits on google, and those I visited weren't relevant. Thue 19:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Quite vanity. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:05, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity... -- jaredwf 20:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not delete the personal stuff and leave the club stuff as a stub? RickK 22:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Because it's the first step down the slippery slope leading to articles about Little League teams. -- Cyrius| 22:29, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Not sure it's vanity: may just be a question. But turning it into an article means turning it into a vanity article. --Jerzy(t) 04:58, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

The Black and White Space Marine on the Black and White Bike[edit]

Orphan. Sourcetext (possible copyvio). 4 hits for "There once was this Black and White Space Marine on a Black and White bike". Niteowlneils 19:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. With only 4 google hits it is not notable enough. Thue 22:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

...The Press![edit]

Article about an as-yet unreleased musical show. No notables involved. Advert ?

  • Delete - TB 10:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it ever gets released it might be included, but it isn't appropriate now. Thue 12:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


Dictionary definition. And wrong at that, because "guff" actually means "nonsense" and not "fart" as the article states. Thue 12:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Bad Jokes. Delete. - David Gerard 18:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • It can mean fart. delete, and anyone to rewrite for Wiktionary? Duncharris 19:13, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • It can mean fart where, exactly? Delete. Niteowlneils 20:00, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, provisionally. Googling on "guff fart" yields 954 hits, mostly looking relevant and suggesting that the word really does have that meaning. As to where, the article says it's Scottish, and the Google hits seem to have reference to usage in the UK and Australia. Someone needs to check a reliable slang dictionary. I removed the unnecessary reference to the danger of ignition, since this is covered adequately in fart and lighting farts. We're left with a slang dicdef but, if verifiable, it's an interesting one which I hadn't known and am therefore reluctant to delete. Is this, in fact, the taboo origin of the legitimate word "guff, n, 1. Nonsense; baloney. 2. Insolent talk; back talk?" (AHD4) If so, defining "guff" as "baloney" has a certain appropriateness... Dpbsmith 20:41, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm a Londoner (i.e. not Scottish) and I'm familiar with the word 'guff' meaning 'fart'. Im not sure it needs a Wikipedia entry, though, as it's always basically going to be a definition.Harry R 20:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've never heard 'guff' used to mean anything but 'fart', but the article has no value. Chameleon 12:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


Bad uninformative orphaned stub about a rather unimportant webpage (Alexa rank around 80.000 [2]). More wikispam than a noteworthy article. andy 19:53, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

CCITT X.409 '84[edit]

Gibberish. RickK 01:35, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Mind if I stick my nose back in to say that I agree with you? - Lucky 6.9 01:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Orig res, if not tin-foil-hattery. --Jerzy(t) 01:59, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
  • I keep reading it, and it keeps almost but not quite making sense. Delete -- Cyrius| 07:27, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like the output of a Markov chain. Abigail 14:29, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • [Visualizing Markov-chain chain-edit.] --Jerzy(t) 20:12, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incomprehensible, no links or references or background or context to make it possible to verify whether there's anything meaningful at all behind the bush where a gull calls, coming far, ending here. Finn again? Take, but softly memory till thousands are given the keys to a way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, by a commodius vicus of recirculation. Dpbsmith 16:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I knew a guy who thought he had a commodius vicus of recirculation, but it turned out to be a tapeworm... - Lucky 6.9 17:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonense. Ellsworth 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like Cyrius said, it seems on the verge of making sense, but it doesn't. Johnleemk 15:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Jason Richey[edit]

a guy that works for Bomis, Jimbo's internet company. Not otherwise notable. Maximus Rex 00:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Well I know some other Wikipedia guys have articles about them, but unless this guy's specifically notable, I'll have to say delete. blankfaze | &#9835 00:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Angela. 01:17, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, he does: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" and "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". If you delete this page, what about Carl J. Meade, Bram Moolenaar, Clifford Adams, Donald Becker, or any of the hundreds of other pages which don't meet a narrow interpretation of those criteria? Do you think we should delete all of them too? anthony (see warning) 21:05, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • He's already got almost as much of a bio under User:Jasonr. Delete. -- Cyrius| 01:35, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it's worth noting where this debate has been already. The article was created by an anon. Two different sysops have attempted to make it a redirect, only to have it on both occasions reverted by the same user, a noted inclusionist and nonconformist. Jason is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, but even he shouldn't have an article in the main namespace, and the compromise of making it a redirect (which I would oppose anyway) isn't working. Andrewa 03:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As you admit yourself, he is notable. anthony (see warning) 20:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article makes no claim for notability separate from Wikipedia itself, so not currently warranting a separate article. Average Earthman 11:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
    • What is wrong with notability not separate from Wikipedia itself. Should we delete the Wikipedia article? anthony (see warning) 21:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, delete. Reluctant because it does not appear that he did this himself. That makes it a little harder than the obvious vanity pages. Regardless, this is what the user pages are for. We should not be writing about ourselves in the main article space. Rossami 21:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • As much as I like the Wikipedia, delete. --Wyllium 22:45, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

Bandwagon Oklahoma Music and BandwagonOK[edit]

  • Advertising. RickK 02:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Gets about 50 hits on google, half of which appear to be attempts at selfpromotion on forums and guestbooks. Delete. -- Cyrius| 07:25, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • This group has no historical or cultural significance and the information given is simply aimed at potential clientele/associates. Delete. HamYoyo|message me 00:20, 31 May, 2004 (BST)
  • Keep. Nonprofit site aimed at helping the music industry in Oklahoma. User:ZaKK

Robert Kyle Wilson[edit]

  • Delete - world renowned vanity page and advert for his website - Tεxτurε 05:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • That was painful to read. Delete. -- Cyrius| 07:22, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought we had LiveJournal for this sort of thing. Delete. - David Gerard 07:25, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • He makes Shawn Mikula look like a good poet. Delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 13:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, how nice! He gave himself permission to post this. Delete swiftly on silent wings of extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Haha, yeah, I really cracked up when I saw "Released with permission from Robert K. Wilson." Oh, and "Justification came next in the selfishness of yesteryear" ... haha, does that even MEAN anything? Move to Bad Jokes, or not, I could care less, but DELETE. blankfaze | 18:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow. Did anyone have the opportunity to read his "blog" [3]? This Robert K. Wilson fellow is one twisted person. blankfaze | &#9835 18:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • You delete what you do not understand. (signed on his behalf by Cyrius| 06:44, May 26, 2004 (UTC))
    • Delete. Large scale egos do not warrant inclusion. Genuine world renown is required. Three google hits for the name, one of which is for someone dead for a century, four Teoma hits, including two dead and a local newspaper list of graduates. This indicates no renown whatsoever. Average Earthman 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
      • You realize, of course, that most Wikipedia articles cover subjects that would be known only to relatively small numbers of people in particular parts of the world.. Everyking 16:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
  • The poetry is pathetic. The blog is even more pathetic. I wonder what the life is like? Delete yesterday. Denni 22:11, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I don't think it's necessary for people to include criticism of the poem or the poet when this is the place to discuss the worthiness of the article. MK 03:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, MK, but the poem is the article. He has also linked his blog to the "article", and Blankfaze does not exaggerate. If you open your living room door to people, you should not get upset if they comment on the mess. Denni 05:28, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

Haha, dunno if anyone else got this but someone left a message on my User talk page about this Robert Kyle Wilson case. I figured I'd share it with you all: blankfaze | &#9835 18:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I am offended at your lack of taste. Mr. Wilson is a talented poet, as evidenced by his numerous speaking engagements across the midwest.
He is a poet and you can quote it.
E. Buell
Denison University

I got a personal note from the Bobber himself on my user page. It took me to task for the quality of my life, spending "all my time" as I do, working on a "virtual encyclopedia". There was more, but DELETE is such a darn handy key...Denni 22:27, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

I got one as well, claiming that I am "unable to recognize greatness when it smacks [me] in the mouth." -- Cyrius| 22:37, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
It gets better. I went back on Our Bobby's blog page [4] and it seems he's boycotting us and accusing us of "having too much time on our hands." That's the nice thing about working with a computer all day. I can work and have some fun here as well! - Lucky 6.9 23:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The lot of you does need to lighten up. What you are doing here is ultimately of little substantive importance, so don't take it, or yourselves, too seriously. However, I have found this "debate" to be quite entertaining. But enough is enough. You have my permission to delete the submission and move on to more important issues, such as debating the worthiness of grind punk bands from the early nineties. Go you!

Knowledge, in of itself, is meaningless, if not tempered by wisdom.

Attributed to Robert Kyle Wilson

I'm sorry that you feel that building a free multilingual encyclopedia for the world is unimportant. We'll let you get back to writing angsty poetry in the Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings style and publicly telling the world to go to hell twice a week. Sorry to have wasted your precious time. -- Cyrius| 02:24, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • " I turn twenty-four in little over a month. Odds are I will buy myself a whore. But, instead of engaging in sexual intercourse, I will spend an hour berating here because she is ,in fact, a dirty, dirty whore. I can't wait till June 28th. " (from Robert Kyle Wilson's "self-effacing" So, Robert, tempered by the wisdom of what? A wart? A chancre? A particularly obnoxious social disease? Hey, man, I'll miss you - this is one of the ways I lighten up - by taking the opportunity to slag obnoxious worms like you, with no feelings of guilt whatsoever! But alas! It's back to articles on Lincoln's shoes and chewing gum through the ages. At least it's "too much time" we have on our hands, and not something else, ifyaknowwhatI mean... Denni 04:27, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Once again, we of little "substantive importance" are granted permission, this time to delete his oh-so-unappreciated "article." And, he's now quoting himself in the third person. Bobby, go buy your hooker. Have a ball. And consider applying your quote to yourself. Oh, and don't forget the penicillin. You're too much fun to lose at such a tender age. - Lucky 6.9 17:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Bob, I tried to speak up in your defense. But your subsequent behavior isn't helping you any. By the way, you misspelled "pseudo-intellectuals" in your recent revision. MK 05:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

True Magic[edit]

Article not written in encyclopedic style, looks like a copyvio, content is source text at best and even the name is POV. Please kill it. -- Graham :) | Talk 09:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • This completely POV insanity must be deleted immediately. Any half-sensible content in it should be merged into Magic (paranormal). Chameleon 12:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure that there's anything of worth here that isn't already covered at Magic (paranormal), and I see little point in sifting through its malarkey about nadion particle mass. Delete. Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic title, contents at least 90% fantasy, possibly more. Only other contribution by this anon is a link from magic, since removed. Andrewa 14:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete before someone finds this horrible article -Ivan 17:22, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Nadion particles," eh? Either someone's been watching too much Star Trek or has been drinking bong water against all advise. Oh, and delete. - Lucky 6.9 17:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • This, I believe, comes from some sort of fantasy novel, RPG, or the like. Note that some low-level magic users are "nobles who dabble in the arcane, or minor hedge wizards". Delete, but potential keep, depending on whether or not there's context. Meelar 17:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and clean up the drool left by the writer. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cyrius| 18:24, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [5]. Follow the homepage link at the bottom to get the rest of the details on the game. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Newdawnfades 15:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Stepping-stone democrat[edit]

  • Delete - made-up term as propaganda against George Bush. I have removed his name in case it is a real term since a real term would be generic and not specific to one sitting president. I can find no use of this term on the internet. - Tεxτurε 15:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no Google hits, no use in any Kerry-supporter circles, no background in article. - jredmond 15:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete since it doesn't have any google hits. Thue 16:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Cyrius| 18:23, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vote Republican. ;) - Fennec (さばくのきつね) 03:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Cap N1ne[edit]

Looks like vanity. Messy, unwikified deadend. Unworthy! blankfaze | &#9835 18:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah, this guy isn't too fond of himself, is he? No Google hits whatsoever. Delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 18:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • "is about to go down in Latin Rap history!". He can get an entry after he has gone down in history :). Delete. Thue 19:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Yep. Delete - David Gerard 19:22, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I like that "goon" typo. Delete. -- Cyrius| 19:58, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Aww, you fixed it :( -- Cyrius| 21:17, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article itself says he's not yet notable. Andrewa 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Newdawnfades 15:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Phartcore metal[edit]

"Phartcore was coined by Kiyoshi Morgan, in 2004 to describe a previously undefined category of music..." No google hits. Maximus Rex 18:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete if no evidence can be found - David Gerard 19:21, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No google hits. Thue 19:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete since it doesn't seem to be an established genre, and we have no way of knowing if it exists at all. Sounds like it was only intended as an insult to somebody. Everyking 21:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • "Fart"core sounds like somebody's personal joke. Delete. -- Cyrius| 22:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote against deletion of this genre because it obviously has some merit if it insights negativity towards it. I vote for keeping the genre as listed because there is nothing that suggest it doesn't exist. The explaination for fartcore has technicality to it and it shows the limited perspectives of other users who claim that "it doesn't exist". It is obvious that the entry was made to categorize a real group of genres, that were previously undefined. If grouping genres into a new genre is wrong, why are entries like Nu-Metal allowed to exist? Because you "Say" it is real? Again, I see no votes to remove many other musical genres which I find by default don't exist in of themselves. Some of those genre entries are based on misnomers and fallacies! Nu-Metal is not actually Metal for example. Fartcore, goes to describe something that "is as it is" instead of misleading someone to thinking its something else. SkunkHunt May 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is no such word as phartcore. If there were an article about fartcore, it might merit retention. RickK 23:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean the entry into wikipedia is not an article of itself? There must be an outside reference to a document talking about Phartcore somewhere? If there was an article of such nature, then what? Is voting against this genre mainly due to negativity in realizing that it might actually be true? Should example bands be mentioned in the wikipedia entry of Phartcore? I still retract to my original vote against deletion on the basis that it actually categorizes without misleading, where as some genres are misleading even in their own naming. Misnomer, or fallacies aside, I think its funny to be so offended by the rationality behind it, however silly it may seem, I take it seriously to defend this entry. I however, conceed to the Wikicommunity if it were to be voted out. I did not intend the entry to be a joke, but if it can't be updated to be compliant with "merit for retention", and get some kind of positive response from someone, go ahead and delete it. I apologize that you had to read the entry in the first place. Thanks. SkunkHunt 23:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
The votes against it are caused by the fact that we have no verification of its existence, and its name reads like a poorly disguised example of toilet humor. "Insights (sic) negativity" is not a valid reason to keep an article. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:00, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, for heaven's sake! SkunkHunt, please take a moment to read the article assuming that you didn't write it in the first place. One person just coined the phrase, possibly as an insult or inside joke. There is no such thing as "phartcore metal" outside this discussion, and this probably should be speedily deleted as patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 00:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
"no such thing as "phartcore metal" outside this discussion" is an assuming statement. Outside this discussion, discussions occured with other people involving the discovery of Phartcore. You dismiss this possibility when you say there is no such thing as this discussion. How is that possible if I am here today to discuss it with you. I didn't just make it up at the spir of the moment. It was something I heard someone talking about at a music store. Until I can find some documentation to verify its existence, I'll just have to accept your determination about what I know exists or doesn't exist. SkunkHunt 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Right. We're all voting to delete this thing because we're afraid it might be true. Your contention is ludicrous. RickK 01:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence that the title is encyclopedic. The current contents appear to be an attempt at humour, which leads me to guess so is the title. Andrewa 01:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I feel strongly that its "all of you versus me" on this one. I did however state facts to verify the existence of this genre, and if it is "an attempt at humor" like you say so, then so is "Nu-Metal" ... "Rapcore" and every other non-true or misleading genre. Why? Merely because I said so? Not really. I concede. Delete the phartcore metal genre from wikipedia, I'm sorry that you can't see at all in a serious light why this category was discovered. SkunkHunt 11:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

    • There IS a genre called fartcore. I don't deny that. There is, however, no genre called phartcore. If you want to right an article about fartcore, please do so. 19:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Orphan, at least article-wise. Zero hits on both Yahoo and Google for "Phartcore metal". Niteowlneils 15:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Dunc Harris | Talk 17:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Skunkhunt, but it seems you do not exist. You are merely a product of your own imagination, but since an imagination can only be a product of a concrete intelligence, then even your illusion of existence is only an illusion. You are, in fact, nothing more than the projection of an article composed entirely of moving electrons, insubstantial in and of themselves, which have coalesced to form the illusionary words phartcore and skunkhunt. When this article has been deleted, your illusion of your illusion will also cease to exist, but you, being nonexistent, will be unaware of that moment. You may be offended by the rationality behind it, however silly it may seem, but you ought to take it seriously enough to delete this entry. Denni 22:29, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
  • Utterly brilliant (and hilarious) as always, Denni. May I direct your attention a little farther down the page to the happy discussion we're having about "Toas?" Your remarkable insight would be greatly appreciated. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Saying I don't exist is an example of the dogma you guys are giving me. I will have proof to end this "vote for deletion" soon enough. SkunkHunt 22:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research. What is with the long drawn-out rambles on this page lately, anywho?


A Trosh is a small weevil made out of carbord. It has only one purpose, to hang on a tree during christmas. No meaningful google hits for 'Trosh' and 'christmas'. I don't get why it links to that website. I am listing it here because the author deleted my msg:delete. Thue 21:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm that a trosh is used at christmas to hang on a christmas tree. That site used to have info about the decoration but it seems to have changed, I'll take off the link.

  • Please be aware that anonymous votes on this part of wikipedia do not count towards consensus to keep or delete an article. Neither do unsigned ones. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • You missed the important part. That comment was posted by, the author of the article. -- Cyrius| 22:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes I assumed that was the case, I do accept the author's right though to defend their choice to create an article, as long as they do it in the right way. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • PS I vote to delete. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if not verified by someone other than the author (or sockpuppets). -- Cyrius| 22:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. "Trosh boxing day" on Google turns up four unrelated hits, two of which are porn sites! - Lucky 6.9 22:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable joke by anon, no evidence that it's encyclopedic. Andrewa 01:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:32, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Jerome War Relocation Center[edit]

  • Delete. Nothing but a paragraph that means someone is trying to use Wikipedia as a free word processor. 22:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Say, isn't this just a teensy bit POV? Delete. Please. Conspiracy theorists make me break out in a rash. - Lucky 6.9 00:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Part of an essay. Doesn't even describe the subject of the article, or at least not in terms that match the article name. Andrewa 01:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Argument for a cause, not an encyclopedia article. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:21, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK 03:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there is not a decent article about Japanese-American (or Ukrainian-Canadian or whatever) internment camps in Wiki, then there really ought to be. Unfortunately, this is not only not a decent article, it's not even an article. It's just a rant. Denni 06:21, 2004 May 27 (UTC)


To quote the article: "A special and local term used in The University of Hong Kong ONLY". Unimportant, unverifiable. Fredrik 22:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially of slang with isolated usage, and in another language. Delete. -- Cyrius| 00:10, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Average Earthman 11:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Chung Ling Record[edit]

Similar to Wan Ling Record. This was contributed by a user who was only around for one day and added only quotes. This article consists entirely of, not surprisingly, a series of quotes. - Nat Krause 14:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a name of some Buddhist text [6] and this looks like a collection of quotes from it. I would be glad if Wikipedia had articles about Buddhist texts but they should be in encyclopedic style. Not collections of quotes without any explanation. Andris 14:52, May 24, 2004 (UTC)


Patent nonsense. Meelar 20:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Looks like a speedy candidate. BJAODN? - Lucky 6.9 21:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I deleted it once, but it was recreated, so I thought that the author should have the chance to see the reasoning. Meelar 21:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I got a chuckle out of it. Delete, BJAODN. -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:22, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Andris 21:35, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke. Andrewa 01:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with WP:-) and delete.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debates and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issues or the deletions should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.