Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rfc1394 (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 20 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page

Subpages

copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories -- redirects -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

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

December 9



December 12

  • Signuno -- the third completely obscure homemade conlang I encountered in the past 5 months! It has about 200 hits [1]. It is described at Gestuno (with 2000 Google hits), as a conlang "about which we still do not know very much at this stage". --Menchi (Talk)â 14:23, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 08:51, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Deleted, but Gestuno should be rewritten to take this into account. --Delirium 02:18, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Gestuno rewritten. Secretlondon 11:37, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Rewritten. See my comment at Talk:Signuno. Chuck SMITH
    • Verifiable. I say keep. The page history should be restored as well. Angela. 11:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Didn't see the original but what's there now seems legit to me, and distinct enough to be separate from Gestuno. It's not the most obscure thing on the 'pedia. I don't want to put it on VfU myself, not having seen it. Tualha 14:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 13

  • Nun's butter sounds like something from Roger Mellie's profanisaurus in Viz Comic... quercus robur 20:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think we can delete something because it sounds like a sexual euphemism. Move to wiki cook book? Secretlondon 20:10, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Wasn't really meant as a deletion arguement, just an observation that amused my puerile mind for a few moments ;-) quercus robur 20:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, move to Wikibooks. -- Finbar McWalter
    • I'll move, but suggest a "category" — "Old-Tyme recipes maybe? - Marshman 17:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 14

  • MasPar Unity. Non-encyclopedic article and has little chance of becoming one. Googling reveals little information on it other than what is given. --Imran 02:33, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like a stub article. Let the computer guys figure out if it is worth keeping. Not encyclopedic does not apply - Marshman 17:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It's marked as a stub now. I don't even know what non-encyclopedic means, let alone whether it applies. Personally I wouldn't look up a term like that in an encyclopedia, I'd go straight to google, but who knows? Onebyone 18:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • There's not enough information available about it to make it anything more than a sub-stub, 90% of the google hits are just copies of the same information. Searching usenet indicates that even during the time when the software was in "popular use" only very few people used it. --Imran 03:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:List of articles frequently visited through Google hasn't been updated since early March. I posted in the talk pages in early October asking if there was any plan to update, and no one responded. Super-stale pages like this give a false impression of where effort should be concentrated. --Raul654 11:14, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I have to agree. If a time-sensitive page isn't regularly updated, we are better off without it. Rossami 16:00, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • This may sound obvious, but why not just *update* the thing instead of deleting it? --Raul654 15:06, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Good question. Answer: 1) Because I don't know how. 2) Because other things interest me (and apparently everyone else) more. Rossami
    • Don't delete, but restore to former title "What Google Likes." I've edited the page some, to make it so it is not so time-sensitive. It is linked from quite a few places under stats under the heading "what google likes." The present heading is inappropriate and should be updated regularly or deleted. The specific data should be updated regularly, but at present is listed as a case study. However, posting at least weekly, possibly even daily a list of what pages Google is referring would be a good quality control check to make sure those pages are in good shape. Sterlingda 07:59, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • While what you are saying sounds good (I for one would love to see the page updated rapidly), as a computer engineer, I'm inclined to think it is a logistical nightmare. Specifically, running such an intensive task on such a large log (whatever webserver wiki is running) would probably take a LONG time to complete - on the order of hours for each run. And last I had heard, wiki is short on developers as it is. --Raul654 08:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and try to update it. Its a useful tool to know which articles we should try to improve. Muriel Victoria 11:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)



  • Wikipedia:Wikimoney; Wikipedia:WikiMoney etc. - Third time lucky. See the last two entries on Wikipedia talk:WikiMoney for justification, if needed. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:09, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This was already listed here two months ago. The page history shows that people are still using this page. Angela. 17:26, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, still apparently in use (if only by a small number of users). Onebyone 17:58, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Say what? Two actual transactions in the last three months counts as being in use? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 18:02, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
        • I'd say so, yes. It may be worth adding a warning to the page that only a very small number of users pay any attention to it. I don't see why it needs to be removed unless there's some kind of "travel light" policy in the Wikipedia namespace that I don't know about. Onebyone 18:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The last time this was listed, Louis Kyu Won Ryu voted to delete and the following voted to keep: Angela, Axlrosen Lirath Q. Pynnor, Anthère, Taku, Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick, Patrick [2]
    • Okay. Quick recap. After the inception of the page, it very swiftly died. I then suggested it should be deleted as well. The response was a hum-humming agreement that the page sucked, but "let's keep it anyway". A month or two later I suggested again that it should be deleted. That time people were already arguing that it was a "historical monument" and should be kept on those grounds. Okay, I accepted that argument, as actually being reasonable. When it came up again, I did not vote against deleting, but rather suggested that we wait and delete it once there is a way to export a page with it's history intact; since the only valuable thing about the page is its history. We now have such an export facility! The question of where the "historical monument" with its attendant page history should be interred, is not my affair, but the page is doing active harm by confusing newcomers, as you will readily see, if you check the talkpage. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 03:42, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Meta, so that people can discuss why the experiment failed there.—Eloquence 05:03, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not dead, it's just sleepy. Some people find it worthwhile. (Notice: I've indented the last two comments to put them "under" the topic.) Tualha 14:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • At best, the accuracy of this page is in question; I was never offered my 20 wikis. I'd go along with the move to Meta suggestion. Bmills 15:35, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That's because you don't get offered your ψ20; you put it in yourself when you qualify. Tualha 16:46, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The which is not extractable from the article. If kept, needs clarification. Bmills 17:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • Um, if you mean the article doesn't say you should add yourself, see Section 1.1. Been there since May 18. Tualha 05:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • WikiMoney predates me and I don't really have an opinion on what should be done with it, but it's not totally useless, as I've used it to fix or add articles. Of course, essentially the same task can be done by the Requested articles or Requested stubs pages. Adam Bishop 17:34, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. One of the nice things about this Wiki - Texture 22:02, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Public school slang Only about English slang and is short and has no point. In addition, it follows no naming convention if it is a list.Greenmountainboy 18:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • That kind of list interests me, I suppose in the same sort of way US presidents by height interests other people...so I'm not sure how to vote :) Adam Bishop 19:30, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I moved it to "List of public school slang" Should we keep now? (I think it wouldnt hurt to keep it now that it has been moved.) Greenmountainboy 19:32, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. If there is any useful content, it could be added to public school, but personally I don't the content should be kept at all. Angela. 19:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I like this. I'm not sure where it belongs though. Secretlondon 19:38, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • There's a list of slang at the Eton College page, which is possibly where this lot came from. Not sure it should have its own article, though could be merged with public school, as has been suggested. Francs2000 11:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or merge with public school as a cultural phenomenon
      • Only entry is England which is far too short to be meaningful
      • America has no separate equivalent                         - unkamunka. 22:10 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I frequently—well, occasionally—read old British novels in which people use public school slang and sometimes want assistance beyond guessing meanings from context. I happen to have a book dated somewhere in the nineteenth century that's about an inch thick, some three hundred pages, entitled "College Words and Phrases," by the way. That suggests that it should definitely be possible to have a full-length article! I love the Owen Johnson Lawrenceville stories, which are set at the Lawrenceville prep school in New Jersey around the start of the twentieth century, where they use a fair amount of slang, usually without explanation (and are always tossing off catch-phrases whose meaning and context are unclear to me: "Does your mother know you're out?" is one of them; "See anything green"—I think I know from context.) I haven't read Kipling's Stalky and Co. in a while, but I'm sure the same remarks apply. I guess what I'm saying is that the topic is completely legitimate although the actual present article is barely more than a stub. Dpbsmith 16:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Interesting as I find the content, I have to agree with Angela: Wikipedia is not the place for this. Tualha 05:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What? It's factual, and not doing any harm. May I suggest that you spend less time deleting other people's work and more time writing your own.What most surprised me was the arrogance of the administration 04:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Plessey Content is "Former British computer manufacturer". Andy Mabbett 22:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Every stub has to start somewhere. Keep, though could possibly reword a bit. Francs2000 11:21, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I de-stubbed. UninvitedCompany
  • Alexandra de Scheel Is she famous for anything else but being a daughter? -- JeLuF 22:12, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • I think not. But keep. Nobody seems to have a problem with Chelsea Clinton, but then she's an American! Anjouli 17:28, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not only is she someone's daughter, but she's a member of the Dutch royal family. If we delete her then surely the convention would be to delete other minor members of royal families around the world? Perhaps the current redirect Princess Alexandra de Scheel, of the Netherlands could be made the main article so that it's clear that she is a member of a royal line and not just someone's daughter? Francs2000 14:09, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • What on earth makes you think she's either a princess or a member of the Dutch Royal family, which consists of HM The Queen, her sons and daughters-in-law and grandchildren, HRH Princess Juliana, HRH Prince Bernhard, HRH Princess Margriet, her husband, their sons and their daughters-in-law? Binky 02:24, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • This website, among others (just do a google search). Besides which she is getting mentioned in gossip columns, because she's a bit of a looker. All the more reason not to delete her. Francs2000 17:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • The fact that that page is titled "Genealogy of the Royal Family of the Netherlands" doesn't mean everyone listed is a member of the Dutch Royal Family: they're not. And that page doesn't call her a princess, either. I don't say the Wikipedia article should be deleted, but it should be accurate: she's "famous" for being rich and goodlooking. -- Binky 19:21, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
            • I still think it needs an explanation of her proper title, be it Princess or not. All the gossip columns I've read about her state that she is a Princess. If that's wrong it needs to be explained that it's wrong and why, rather than just left as it is. -- Francs2000 14:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
              • I think her proper title would be "Ms.". If gossip columns are consistently and wrongly calling her princess, I suppose it might merit a clarification in her article. Are they? Is she representing herself as a princess? - Binky 21:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                • Yes. And apparently she snogged Justin Timberlake. It's amazing what you find out in Heat magazine... -- Francs2000 22:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Prophet Muhammad's Final Sermon Source text. Andy Mabbett 22:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, move to wikisource - but leave on VfD the full time. I left a note for the contributor (on Talk:Muhammad) asking him to consider making it a discussion of the sermon. -- Finlay McWalter 00:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • After reading the VfD I agree that since its purely a source text it shouldn't be on wikipedia. I changed the link to it from the Muhammad-article into a link to a wikisource location, but I haven't deleted the wikipedia entry yet. -- Sincerely, author
    • Keep. Only 2 days old and the first sentences are not source text. BL 18:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Accordeon Content is "test accordion page.. wle." Andy Mabbett 23:21, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is misspelled anyways.
    • Redirect to accordion. Francs2000 11:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Weak vote to delete because it's not a particularly common misspelling. Rossami 04:36, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 15

Subsection 1

  • Smilex -- context-free footnote from another article. Jgm 01:49, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 17:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know. I think it has the potential to become a worthwhile article - NOT! Delete. Tualha 06:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Analytical Thomism -- seems made up to me, the author also vandalized a page. Dori | Talk 03:13, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's nonsense. Analytical Thomism is a topic in philosophy - see the articles that link to it. Same vandal has blanked it, I'll revert. Tualha 04:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It's been replaced with more factual stub. Dori | Talk 04:35, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, what I would have said if I'd thought first is: the title is a legitimate topic, the content is nonsense; therefore, if someone wants to fix it, great, otherwise delete until someone wants to write it. Tualha 04:49, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • L600 Just a picture and the words "2001 : Indrema releases the L600 Entertainment System multimedia console". Seems like an advert and not a very good one either. Saul Taylor
    • Delete ad. Bmills 10:29, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This cannot possibly be an ad, because Indrema folded in 2001 and the product is not on sale. Keep, since the reason for deletion is not valid. Onebyone 11:27, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Even if it isn't an add it's still completely un-encyclopedic and should be deleted. Or maybe merged with a more suitable article. Saul Taylor
      • or are we saying that ads for products that do not exist are OK?Bmills 15:39, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying that, I'm saying it's not an ad. Onebyone 21:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 19:54, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The question we should be asking is, does this subject have the potential to become a good article? There are about 1300 Google hits, and people seem to be trading their used machines and possibly developing games for them. So Indrema being gone isn't necessarily a killer. I think it would be of interest to some people, if it were a real article instead of a sub-stub. I suggest we let it live, link to it from a few more articles (including Cleanup, of course) so people find it, and see if someone fills it out. If it's still stunted after a month or so, then it will have failed the test, and should clearly be deleted. Tualha 06:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • To clarify: my vote is keep, and if it is kept, I'll be happy to implement my suggestions above. No point in doing so and then having it deleted, of course. Tualha 00:37, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've done a little research and filled out L600 a little. Indrema, related, is still a sub-stub. Added both articles to Cleanup and Pages Needing Attention. My research indicates that the L600 was to be possibly the first Linux based game console, and the Linux community had high hopes for both it and Indrema until they folded, so I'd say the topics are worthwhile. Tualha 20:25, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 18:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Tremper High School - unencyclopedic stub by an IP who has a history of "interesting" contributions like [3]. Pakaran 03:45, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's an encyclopedic stub. BL 18:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looking at the history of the article, and the kind of stuff the user who created it was contributing, I just don't know if it's worth keeping. Of the edits to the article, most were insults against the school or people who go there. Pakaran 04:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Another Dream - Delete. A google search for "Another Dream" "Alcott Louisa" brings but one reference, and it is a reprint of the wikipedia article at tutorgig.com. Kingturtle 07:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No such album. Anjouli 17:21, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. fictional. Also 1 related page which I'll stick at the end. Secretlondon 19:01, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Subsection 2

  • Jefferson on Deism - move to wikiquote? --Jiang | Talk 07:29, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes. Wikiquote. Anjouli 17:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No. Note: this was an important page furthering my research on Deism and the founding fathers. It would be a shame if it were removed. Instead, I added an introductory paragraph making it an article that presents Jefferson's own words on an important topic in American history. The title of the article should be changed to reflect the content of the quotations more accurately: "Jefferson on Religion and the Separation of Church and State" might be better. Ozacua 18:16, 15 Dec 2003
    • The introductory paragraph added was full of fluff. You should check out http://quote.wikipedia.org. If we kept the article, most of the quotes should be removed. --Jiang | Talk 23:21, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the page because it's an interesting idea for an article but move the quotes to wikiquote to make room for analysis. Rossami 04:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hacker's diet content is "A hacker tends to have a high consumption of caffine or surgar, often both." Caffeine isn't even spelled correctly. -- stewacide 09:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As the Jargon File entry on the diet of the average "hacker" would suggest, this topic is too general for a real article -- "hackers" eat what human beings eat, basically. Delete. --MIRV 09:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think that it's a bit of urban lore but is primarily of interest to the slashdot crowd. Yet I think it's still interesting. Goodralph 10:19, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Just a joke or a poorly-supported, hardly universally true theory. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:55, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Repeating a stereotype is not respectable academic work. Onebyone 11:29, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • In fact, the article has now descended (surprised me that was even possible) into garbage. Onebyone 11:50, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense. Bmills 12:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Any useful content can be merged into hacker - including any discussion of historic trends/stereotypes. And let's not even get into whether caffeine is part of a diet. Pakaran 15:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Garbage. Delete. Kosebamse 16:31, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Make it a redirect to Hacker, and add there any info that might be deemed worthy. Dori | Talk 16:50, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. a weak joke. Rossami 04:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Santorum affair - page title is idiosyncratic and non-NPOV, split of page was done by The Cunctator against consensus of people on Rick Santorum. Daniel Quinlan 10:10, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • merge and redirect. --Jiang | Talk 10:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • How is the title POV? Possibly take that thread discussion to Talk:Santorum affair, where someone has already commented saying it isn't. Onebyone 11:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The term is idiosyncratic, assigning "affair" is a comparison to the Iran-Contra Affair or another such event. It wasn't possible or necessary to assign any name until the material was prematurely split off of the Rick Santorum page which covered the material quite adequately and more neutrally.
    • Keep the content - but either merge it with Rick Santorum or take stuff from there and merge it here. As a Brit who's never heard of all this, I found the article both interesting and neutral. Merriam-Webster defines 'affair' as: "a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal" .. and it strikes me that this is exactly what this is, else people wouldn't be getting so hot under the collar about it. Spellbinder
    • Rename to Santorum controversy if you don't like the word "affair", and keep the article separate from Rick Santorum. Keep a redirect from santorum (word) to Savage Love, or move the 'coinage' material to santorum (word) with a link from both "Savage" articles. Uncle Ed 15:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but perhaps retitle. Although I'm against this guy and his opinions, I think the article is pretty much NPOV and it certainly needed splitting-off to stop the page getting too big. Santorum affair is acceptable to me, but I would not have a problem with Santorum controversy or Santorum statement on homosexuality if that was more widely acceptable. Anjouli 16:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (as another disinterested brit). Santorum controversy is probably a better title. -- Finlay McWalter 17:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Thie content could be put back where it was. This is part of a larger issue as DanielQuinlan suggests. See User_talk:The_Cunctator/Agglomeration for discussion. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This stuff is part of Rick Santorum's story and that's were it belongs, rather than being separated out for whatever pointscoring game is going on. Bmills 17:31, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and retitle. Certainly don't delete the material. The article is good. Perhaps it could be merged back on the Rick Santorum page although I continue to think this creates problems with the balance of that page. The title or entry "Santorum affair" isn't too good. I think the title should be phrased in a way that suggests a close connection with the Rick Santorum page and also includes an approximate date as an identification (it's possible that he may spark another controversy someday). Something like "Rick Santorum April 2003 controversy." In effect that means it will be probably never be found as a direct entry, and most likely will be found only by searching or following a link from the Rick Santorum page, but that's OK. There isn't going to be any standard, generally accepted short name for the controversy, at least not for a while. Dpbsmith 17:45, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • AtlasShruggedStructure - Orphan, the correct reference is to Structure of Atlas Shrugged, which is a cross-link to the actual entry which was moved to Wikibooks.
    • Heh. I think Wikipedia has the Adequacy gang to thank for all the (now-deleted) Atlas Shrugged stuff. --MIRV 11:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Fisse - Danish sex slang. Bmills 16:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does this qualify for a move to Wiktionary, even though it is Danish? Anyone know the status of other languages on wiktionary? --snoyes 17:06, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Perhaps it should be added to Sexual slang, where such information resides, except that everything there seems to be from Anglophonic countries. Tualha 06:39, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Subsection 3

  • Sir Thomas Browne on America - his musings on America, not an encyclopedia article. B 17:41, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC). Also check out Library of Sir Thomas Browne both authored by Norwikian. B 17:44, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep this one. Why should it be deleted? RickK 20:36, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • RickK, an article titled "Library of [person]" is not an appropriate model for wikipedia. There is no need to separate out the writings or opinions of an person separate from the article on that person. B 15:14, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • No particular reason for either of these to be deleted other than the proposer for VfD is a Europhobe, who cannot get his head round anything which originates outside of U.S.A. besides i notice that other U.S.A. encyclo's have incorporated several other of my articles on Sir T.B. so too late dear boy, like when in doubt in one's comprehension just delete, delete, delete, the final solution is to delete, delete !!Besides the article Sir Thomas Browne on America has been around on the Wiki for 3 months now since October 11 . It is only since User :B has had an ideological objection and clash that B. has deemed it fit to nominate it for deletion, less out of concern for the integrity of the contents of Wiki than out of petty prejudice I fear. Norwikian 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote to keep Pollinator 03:34, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • User b's talk-page heading entitled 'Norwikian's condescending European prattle' indicates non-justification of either pages being deleted Norwikian 03:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • My vote is to shorten "America" and merge it into "Browne", because it's short; and to merge the bio information from "Library" into "Browne", cut the encomium, and keep "Library". Tualha 06:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Seconded. Merge, then delete all encomium. BTW, Norwikian, you've already been warned about not making personal attacks. Keep the discussion relevant please. B 15:14, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • This whole absurd travesty began from my unsolicited criticism of American Defense department. This in turn has now sparked these 2 proposed VfD's. Library has already been voted to keep, months ago, so it is rather tiresome to restate reasons why it has kept. Check out the archive discussion here.

I do agree that 'On America' may not be too relevant for the wiki but i've seen obscurer. I am beginning to suspect that it may just be the actual TEXT of what Sir T.B. is 'prophecising' which may be causing some upset i.e. on America and its future foreign policy. Delete, edit, merge, do whatever you like to your hearts contents boys it is absolutely of no consequence whatsoever to me. I can always publish elsewhere on the web. Truth and plain old historical fact will out in the end, it can't be suppressed by these highly subjective reasons for proposing a VfD . "Dare we suggest it? The Kingdom of Browne is one which the intellectual snob cannot enter " (O'Geary '55)Norwikian 19:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Norwikian, I have not read the article in question, nor have I read any of the articles to which you have contributed (as best as I can tell looking at your contributions list). My sole exposure to you is here on the VFD list. The attitude that you display here is very abrasive. I don't know anything about your contributions -- they may be brilliant. But I do know that, based on what I read here, based on what I read here, I have no desire at all to work with you. This is supposed to be a community of people working together - yes, disagreeing sometimes, but working together still. Please try to work with us, not in spite of us. -Anthropos 00:25, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Er, please excuse me, but like what exactly does the close proximity of the statements- 'based on what I read here, I have no desire at all to work with you' followed by 'Please try to work with us' signify ??Norwikian 10:48, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation continues at Anthropos/talk.
I do not understand why this article is on VFD. It seems like a useful history article. mydogategodshat 02:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rick Mercer's Christmas in Kabul: Wikipedia is not a TV guide for forthcoming TV programmes.
    • Delete, agree. Fuzheado 00:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • An ad, for a one-shot TV show, that no one will remember two weeks after it airs. Gee, tough choice. Goodbye, article. Tualha 07:04, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wikipedia is a TV guide for forthcoming TV programmes. BL 19:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If it is, it's an incredibly poor one. Onebyone 21:49, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • NewWave Content is "I haven't the least notion what this is, but an inane comment is better than a blank page, no?". Andy Mabbett 21:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Made a redirect to New Wave. Dori | Talk 21:18, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • According to the article that links to it, Apple v. Microsoft, NewWave has a separate meaning that's not on the disambiguation page for New Wave. Since there's no space between the words, should we add this meaning to the disambig page, or give it a separate page? Meelar, 21:44, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject/Guidelines The content of this page has nothing to do with WikiProject Guidelines. —Noldoaran (Talk) 21:39, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Antibodies? Phil 11:27, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, but maybe check against antibody and merge first. HappyDog 13:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The Law of Fives. Is this an advertisement?RickK 22:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Discordianism (and the Law of Fives) is real, although perhaps not very important or serious. Merge into there. Morwen 22:31, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 19:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Joke article about a joke religion. Read the Illuminatus! Trilogy sometime, it's lots of fun. Pakaran 04:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have rewritten the article to make it more pertinent to the actual law of fives. The original text has been moved to the talk page, as I couldn't find any reference to the poem it describes. However, feel free to add it back to the article if it is genuine. HappyDog 14:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Pamphleteer. Move to Wiktionary. RickK 23:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, I added the publishing company, though maybe that belongs elsewhere. UninvitedCompany
  • Talk:Sir Edwin Landseer, from [5]. Why would this be moved to a talk page, anyway? RickK 23:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It wasn't moved. The article page had "see talk page for raw material" before I deleted it. This should be deleted too. WP talk pages are not scratch pads. --Jiang | Talk 04:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 16

  • Settlers of Catan, Great Crossing maps, Settlers of Catan, Into the Desert maps, Settlers of Catan, Four Islands maps, Settlers of Catan, Greater Catan maps, Settlers of Catan, New Shores map, Settlers of Catan, New World maps, Settlers of Catan, Oceans maps. Non-canonical, fan-created variants of a (very good) board game. Should, at the least, be merged into one article until the need for multiple articles is demonstrated. Note also the existence of Settlers of Catan, Variants, which describes several variants of a different nature. As someone familiar with the standard game, but none of the variants, I say that these two types of variant should be kept separate. Smack 00:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • All twenty-three boards are official, designed by Klaus Teuber. You just don't own the rest of the game suite. There are four official expansion sets. Get with the program. ~ stardust 01:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No need to be insulting. I vote to delete. RickK 01:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia's VfD mechanism is not for sophomoric users. It should be used with care and consideration. More than you have just exercised, with a shameless disregard for what you know to be true. ~ stardust 02:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Currently no content. Give the author a day or two to build them up before listing them. However, I've said it before, I think these pages, and all game strategy guides, should go to Wikibooks. Gentgeen 04:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into one article or delete. Angela. 07:06, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Concur with Angela. Morwen 08:03, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • As do I, tending towards the second option. Bmills 11:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. UtherSRG 16:49, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. RickK 01:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Too much information to merge or delete. I think, waiting for the author to fill in the content before making such a decision would be just the normal process. Same thing for moving to Wikibooks: At this point there is just the idea of the game guide, so why delete this article right now? -- Jose Antonio Fernandez 10:43, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Please note that this comment was the above user's first post to Wikipedia, and his second was a modification to Settlers of Catan. I smell a sock puppet. RickK 03:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Fernandez is in Germany, while I'm in the U.S. Resolve our IP addresses and see for yourself. ~ stardust 09:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree. We should keep it. It's too much important work just to throw away. --Chuck SMITH 23:22, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep! Give Stardust more than three days to finish his grand project. And do you really want to kill this: Settlers of Catan, Oceans maps????? If you do, I hate you. BL 09:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm a she. And, this project has a wider scope than being any one person's project. Note the progression of the korean and portuguese translations. Likewise, players with expertise on the sea maps have joined Wikipedia to develop those pages. The suggestion to merge was made and seconded without knowledge of how much information the pages have been designed to contain. ~ stardust 09:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Shrug. I don't see why we need a separate page for each set of maps, but then I've only played with the original map anyway. Let's see how they turn out. Tualha 04:19, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • All articles containing a single link and are devoid of any other content qualifies for immediate deletion. --Jiang 07:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, "Oceans" has been filled out. Presumably Stardust will do the others at some point. Of course she can still do so if they're deleted. I am concerned about "Oceans" though, it looks like it might be going somewhat beyond "fair use". Is there a lawyer in the house? Tualha 20:38, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Universal Dialectic: Only 50 Google hits (not that of the 167 "hits", over half are repeatd in content). No where near Google test. --Menchi (Talk)â 12:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm not satisfied that it's a common enough subject to generate a huge number of hits anyway, and you don't appear to be questioning the content for its validity as a subject. Francs2000 14:45, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a good and useful article. Optim 03:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Website art - an "ancient" listing from Cleanup, this seems to be a stream-of-consciousness article promoting the view that Websites are art. There may be a good article out there for "Website art" -- but this isn't it. -Anthropos 15:35, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete POV. Bmills 15:43, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep if rewritten practically from ground up. Article with this title should exist, but it shouldn't be this one. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't even understand ahat the point is... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:26, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think it was someone's (highschool) term paper. Hope they did not get a good grade? - Marshman 03:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bambuco written in the foreign language of Alta-English. Propose deletion unless anyone wants to provide a good translation. DJ Clayworth 22:50, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Machine translation. In its current state, delete.  — Sverdrup (talk) 23:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The Kings Arms - advert (perhaps redirect to pub names or public house?) Andy Mabbett 11:40, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • VinnieWhy do that? It's not an advert it's an old traditional pub in Portesham that represents what English pubs are all about. Don't delete beacsue you may not understand something. Yes here is a url pointing to the pub, but having said that the homesite is quite informative. I am sure they wouldn't mind linking back here. I actually sent the owner an email he wanted it here as he has the oldest pub in Portesham and is a promoter of portesham in every sense of the word. +
      • Please don't try to blame me for a supposed lack of understanding. Andy Mabbett 12:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
      • Gee, the owner of the pub is glad to have free worldwide advertising. Why am I not surprised? Delete or make it into a universal article, as has been suggested. RickK 01:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • Delete, Agree with Andy. References to specific pubs (as opposed to just common pub-NAMES) are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Spellbinder 12:09, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • Can I vote to alter the redirect? Because 'The Kings Arms' is a popular pub name in England, and is it obvious in the public house article why this is? How about turning it into an article about pubs with that name in general, or 'the something-or-other's arms', and explain what that means? Francs2000 14:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
      • Presumably different pubs bear the arms of different kings? To my mind, the signs are at least as interesting as the names. Maybe there needs to be an English pub signs article to bind them all? Bmills 14:39, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
      • "How about turning it into an article about pubs with that name" - You (or anyone else) are welcome to write such an article, at that page. Andy Mabbett 15:29, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • If someone writes a basic article on the name in 7 days, redirect there. If not, delete. I've been to this pub and its not that special. DJ Clayworth 19:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • Keep this page. theres nothing at all wrong with it 207.44.154.35

December 17

  • Camberwell Chronicles - ad for an as yet unpublished series of books. Originally blanked as a copyvio, but apparently submitted by the original author. --Delirium 07:23, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unpublished? Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 17:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Lumos3 13:25, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ambition (card game) - has reappeared. We agreed to revert to a redirect last time, but it wasn't actually deleted - hence listing here and being cautious. Secretlondon 17:57, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • For reference the original delete discussion was archived at Talk:Ambition/Delete - note that Mike Church, the writer of the new article and inventor of the game has commented there (both before and after the deletion of the original article). The new article is well-written and is in the right place... its a shame the game isn't more widely known just yet... I am open to persuasion to deletion or to keep. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Undecided, but erring towards keep. Francs2000 18:26, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, sets a dangerous precedent. If the game ever becomes popular re-ad (with an explanation of how it became so). -- stewacide 02:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • pop·u·lar (adj.) 1. Widely liked or appreciated: a popular resort ... 5. Accepted by or prevalent among the people in general: a popular misunderstanding of the issue ... [6] -- stewacide
    • Keep. This seems to be a serious effort to develop a new game of cards (I read the authors previous notes to us about it). Since I do not believe the author stands to gain monitarily (I could be wrong?) it is not an advert., and if it becomes popular we will have lost our article. Keep and see if it DOES NOT take off. Delete in 5 years if no one has heard of it then. - Marshman 03:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Mike Church here. (By the way, I should explain now that I am writing in a public lab, frequented by a previous poster in the old Ambition debate. I am a different person from him, though the IPs may coincide. Also, I apologize if I am in violation of any standing rules or etiquette by posting such a long comment. I have parsed it into paragraph-like pieces for "flow" purposes.
      • The original Ambition article was deleted for the following reasons: 1> It interfered with an existing redirect. 2> I, inventor of the card game, requested for its speedy deletion for several reasons, the foremost being copyright-related (there was copyrighted information in the page history). 3> The individual who had written that page, an acquaintance of mine not exactly known for his maturity, had committed several serious breaches of posting ethics in the deletion debate. 4> Some argued that Ambition was not popular enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reasons 1-3 do not apply to the current article, which I myself wrote. As for the fourth, I believe that to be a very poor argument for an article's deletion. General interest-- Yes. Popularity-- No. After all, how many people here have heard of the sedenions? Yet I maintain that the article should be kept-- it's useful information on a legitimate mathematical topic. (Also, hypercomplex numbers are just really cool.) My point is that if everything that were not a "household name" were deleted, if present popularity were to be the metric of what deserves to stay, Wikipedia would have to purge a lot of really awesome stuff.
      • I also dispute the "dangerous precedent" comment. Ambition is not some improvised card game designed by 7th graders. (I'm a 20-year-old mathematics major who's been developing games since grade school, if anyone's counting.) It's a professional-quality product, developed and tested over months by several people. Given the enthusiasm that Ambition has thus far been recieved, I can say with utmost confidence that it has enough general interest to be worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. A professor of mine (a card game aficionado, as well as a leading algebraist) said that Ambition is among the best games he's ever played, second only to Hungarian Tarokk (played with Tarot cards and considered to be the best card game in the world). Ambition would set a "dangerous precedent" if the game were some half-developed concept with no general interest, but this is not the case.
      • In support of Marshman's comment, the article is not an advert. Perhaps it's a plug in the sense that I'm obviously proud of the success that my Ambition project has shown so far, and want to share it for others to enjoy. I don't expect it to make me a dime, since there's nothing for me to sell (the sole physical component is the standard 52-card deck of cards). I only keep a hawkish eye on my copyrights because, in the event that Microsoft were to include Ambition in Windows 2008, I would want compensation. I encourage all noncommercial use and distribution of Ambition and its rules, royalty-free. I wrote Ambition not to make me a fortune, which I doubt it ever will, but to create a great game. I believe I have succeeded to the latter end.
      • Thank you all for your time and consideration. Any who wish to continue this discussion in private (since I think I've said enough here) should contact me at [email protected]. Cheers! 62.112.223.199 17:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Bistromatic drive - apparent copyvio from Hitchhiker's Guide, or one of its sequels - I'll check for sure when I get home from college this evening, my copy is at home. In any event, it's not marked as fictional, or wikified, and I wonder if it deserves to be. Pakaran 18:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 18

Dec 18 subsection 1

  • Filmi -- advert. -- Timwi 01:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pure ad, no future as an article. Tualha 01:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Obvious advert. Pillsbur 02:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. As above. Bmills 11:21, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Have rewritten now. Tuf-Kat 21:04, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep now. Tualha 22:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Train of Thought (2003 album) -- Almost entirely POV, essentially it's just a personal review of this Dream Theater album by an anonymous user. -mhr 01:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. It's a review, not an encyclopedia entry about the album. Pillsbur 01:52, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless someone replaces it with a proper article (or does that go without saying, here?) Tualha 02:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: not an article. Bmills 11:21, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rojam -- advert. Pillsbur 02:04, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an advert, yes, but it's not POV. It can be made into an article, if someone can be bothered. If nobody does within 7 days, delete. -- Timwi 04:24, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Notice added. Posted on cleanup. Tualha 04:54, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by fixing it."BL 09:42, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Andrew_Vachss -- Seems like an advert. Pillsbur 02:08, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, send to Cleanup for more content & elim copyvio: well enough established paperback author (have never read him, but recognized his name immediately) that it's plausible his non-writing work is a calling rather than a livelihood. --Jerzy 02:46, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)
      • Er, what copyvio? Tualha 05:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Er, i Er-red in basing that on a quick glance at language that was identical for a shorter length than was my impression. Tnx for asking. --Jerzy 17:37, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)
    • Seems like a reasonable stub to me. I've read a couple of his novels. -- Cyan 03:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep even if stub, important figure in child sexual abuse field, ISTR NY Times Magazine ran an article on him. Notice added. Posted on cleanup. Tualha 04:54, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Work-for-less -- POV is extreme, nothing additional over Right-to-work. Wake 03:49, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Notice added. Tualha 05:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- stewacide 02:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. POV is basically the same as right-to-work page. Like in the abortion debate, where there is pro-choice and pro-life, right-to-work is the anti-union jargon - so the anti-union people get their page and the pro-union people don't? I suppose a solution would be to move the right-to-work page to the work-for-less one and redirect it, but I'm sure they'd be unhappy with that. Also the complaint seems like a trap - it's called an "extreme" POV, although it doesn't seem so to me since it's the same as the right-to-work one. Then it says it doesn't have much more info - but if I put any more I'm sure he'd deem it "extreme", so he's trying to set up a Catch-22. This seems politically motivated to me, this fellow just wants one point of view shown, not a neutral one or two POV's combining to make a neutral one anyway. -- Lancemurdoch 13:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree that right-to-work is just as POV, but that it the common term. "Right-to-work laws" turns up ~9900 Google entries, "Work-for-less laws" turns up only 153 (almost all of which are in the context "right to work for less"). -- stewacide 18:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Freedom of religon - content can probably be moved into correct article, and seems a bit POV? Pakaran 06:36, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Fix, don't delete. Freedom of religion is an important concept, which deserves discussion. ----MIRV 06:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Well of course. I agree as regards freedom of religion, which has a fine article. The article in question is freedom of religon, which an anon inadvertently created and made into a good-sized, if somewhat POV, stub. Pakaran 06:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I need to read more carefully. Axe the misspelling, by all means. --MIRV 06:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Finding nothing worth merging, I have replaced it with a redirect to freedom of religion. Tualha 15:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Timothy Zenker - personal page. Evil saltine 07:22, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What, he doesn't deserve an entry just because he turns up no Google hits and has done nothing more noteworthy than admissions counseling? Delete. --MIRV 07:27, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 15:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 16:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This was added as a link from some gossip put on the George W. Bush page but quickly reverted - Marshman 02:51, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dec 18 subsection 2

  • The House On The Hill (poem) - just the text of a poem. Possibly still copyright? Bmills 09:20, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Until 2005, it would seem. (In the US - not sure about elsewhere.) Tualha 15:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Putting on possible copyvios page. Bmills 16:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • How to cast a horoscope Do we want guides on how to do things in Wikipedia. ? Lumos3 13:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep -- Infrogmation 13:41, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, most how to's dont' belong in WP, and this one especially does not. -- Fuzheado 18:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps someone who doesn't think astrology is complete b***s*** (which lets me out) would like to cut it and merge into Horoscope? Other pages include a bit of "howto" related to their topic, eg Square root. Tualha 23:03, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is no different than directions for other hobbies or recreation, like card games, or drinking games - of which we have many. Davodd 23:09, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. To understand Horoscope, you must understand how it is cast. Texture 23:22, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Francs2000 01:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks. I think there is a "How to" book under construction there. - Marshman 02:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge it with another page. I can do the merging if you want (inform me in my talk page if you decide on a merge). Optim 03:36, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Christian_views_of_gambling - content presently "Christians take a wide variety of views on gambling..." and not much more than that. Fuzheado 17:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • there is a serious article to be written about this, but this isn't it, and I don't have the time at present (too busy sorting out the cod). Is it worth keeping as a stub? seglea 17:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into Gambling as a section (on religions in general, not just Christianity) and change to a redirect. I will, if the consensus agrees. Tualha 19:55, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Good idea for now, Tualha - Marshman 02:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rainer W. Kühne - 16 Google hits (either form of name, with "physics" or its German equivalent); physics PhD apparently unemployed in his field tho he has some professional pubs; significant only bcz of his interest in fringe- or junk-science topics like mag monopoles, cold fusion, transmutation, and Atlantis. --Jerzy 20:41, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)
    • I think someone should undertake the difficult task of writing an NPOV article that amounts to "this guy is a crank" :) Tualha 23:17, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 02:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Chinese plane tree - there is no plane tree native to China. There is an article now for Oriental plane. I suspect that this article came across a misunderstanding of the term oriental, the current understanding especially in the US (East Asia) being mistaken for the older use (east of Europe). Imc 21:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (nonvote)If it's a reasonable mistake for someone to make once, the same could surely happen again. So this sounds like a perfect case either for a redirect or a disambig (and it sounds like you're the best person to write such a disambig) -- Finlay McWalter 23:20, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Trouble is, it's probably not a reasonable mistake. This may well be the first known instance of the term Chinese plane tree! Imc 23:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Agree. No hits on google (except all the Chinese airplane articles) - Marshman 01:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I can work on getting the info somewhere where it will be correct. The furthest east on Eurasia that the Oriental plane tree is native is Iran. Then I'll delete the article. No point in keeping an error like this as a redirect unless someone can state that the term "Chinese plane" is commonly used in say horticulture - Marshman 01:37, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) There is no longer any useful information in the article and should be deleted - Marshman 01:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dec 19

  • 25th century, 27th century, 28th century, 29th century, 31st century - these have been deleted before. They are a magnet for vandals, and currently lack content other than the boilerplate. - Hephaestos 04:04, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete...again. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:51, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete. Tuf-Kat 04:54, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless. PMC 05:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need for them. Tualha 05:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am afraid deletion is not a feasible solution. They will only be recreated again by someone, who hasn't read this. The only Final Solution (tm) for this problem, is to have them and all the future dates as redirects to one mother of futures article; let's say Future milennia, centuries, decades and years. Then you could add sections for those years decades or centuries you have valid info for. The beauty of this would be that it would be open ended, you could add stuff about gazillion milennia forwards. Also, once some year or decade got enough material for a solo article, it could easily be spun back onto it's redirect. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:52, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. maybe four articles would be simpler. Future millennia, Future centuries, Future decades and Future years. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:58, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • North Sodor, Gatineau Toll Road - looks like a hoax. Kosebamse 08:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Certainly not a hoax, sir, unless you are calling nearly 80 million people nonexistent. ~~Bill, Mawbea NS Sodor
    • From searching, it appears to be a fictional land from Thomas the Tank Engine. Evil saltine 08:49, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Also, the link in the article uses the TLD .sd which belongs to Sudan. Evil saltine 08:53, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Right, the Tank Engine show is named after the real island, located between the Isle of Man and the English mainland. Bill, Mawbea NS Sodor
      • Make that fictional island, as any "serious" TtTE fan should know. BTW those links come up red: have they been deleted already in the less-than-4-hours since they were nominated? Phil 10:37, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • How could you fit "nearly 80 million people" onto an island that fits "between the Isle of Man and the English mainland"? Tualha 13:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • N. Sodor: Maybe not a hoax, see [7] for example, if not a hoax the article needs heaps more context setting...By the way, the external links to the supposed Sodor web sites don't work. Not such a good sign. Dysprosia 09:04, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Since the author of the article has been banned for vandalism (inserting junk about North Sodor into other articles), I think it can be safely assumed that these are hoaxes. Evil saltine 09:20, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • And as the user returned with a second IP and left a "thank you" as being our old banned friend Entmoot. See [8]. It therefore could even get the "banned user contribution" deletion shortcut. andy 09:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It's not his style. Also, the IP is from US. Entmoots is Canadian. Angela. 09:32, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Maybe they kicked him out of Canada for being a PITA ;) Tualha 14:14, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Luz_Clarita - Name of a Cuban Soap Opera. Current content is daniela lujan es la novela favoryta mia gue llo visto en my vida. mi nonbre es zorymar sanchez, (Fan gush about Daniela Lujan in Spanish). Anjouli 14:24, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • International Biathlon Union - junk. Created by 64.12.96.237, who seems to come in and vandalize sporadically. Where should such things be reported? Tualha 15:24, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • List the IP under Vandalism_in_progress stating what and when. Also put a polite notice on User_talk:64.12.96.237 asking him not to do it again. Not that he's likely to take any notice, but it seems to be considered the proper thing to do. Anjouli 17:02, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Can be deleted immeediately, I should think - Marshman 17:15, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 20

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2002858"