Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Optim (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 12 January 2004. 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. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here even if it is obvious.

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

copyright violations -- 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 -- maintaining this page -- wikipedia:inclusion dispute

Older than 7 days

January 4

  • Age of cattle features a quote from a book that "may not be accurate", and nothing else. -- Francs2000 08:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is probably a copyright violation. Compare with Original Article and read the terms and copyright. They say: "5. Use on Other Web Sites. The Contents are licensed only for the personal, household, educational use by a single individual. Reproducing Content on another site or redistributing Content is forbidden. Taking Content from this site and editing it and posting it on another site is also forbidden. Framing of this site is forbidden.". Thanks to User:Chadloder for locating the web source (this was done on 24th January 2003, do we really have a copyvio publication published here for a year???) .Optim 10:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The copyright claim is invalid because the Household Cyclopedia, being published in 1884 is in the public domain. Toph99 12:31, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article should be merged into an article on cattle or cows or bovines. However, I would be a bit wary of "technical" info that is this old. Still, it could be moved with the 1884 tag until someone with knowledge about aging cows comes along to correct - Marshman 18:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Move to wikisource if you like it, since the information is too outdated to be reliable. Maximus Rex 20:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Telling the age of cattle was well established by 1884. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Expand. Telling the age of ruminants by looking in the mouth is seen in old movies and TV shows, and the adage "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" relates to this directly, though I agree the species is off a bit. The historical information is interesting. I have asked a university veterinary dental instructor if she would be interested in contributing to the article. Kd4ttc 18:27, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Copyedit and expand [note history and innovation, if any] JDR

January 5

  • Robert Curatolo non famous 9/11 victim --Jiang 01:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 09:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Magicker71 20:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. About 790 Google matches, which is a lot more for many people we've kept. Wiki is not paper means that non-famousness is not a valid reason for deletion anyway. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd say delete. "Fireman who died in Sep11" is somewhat akin to "soldier who died in Vietnam": tragic, but not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, even a non-paper one. But great for wikimemorial, if that gets off the ground. --Delirium 08:09, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Non encyclopedic. Move to Sep11 wiki. Angela. 02:46, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • "Encyclopedic" means "comprehensive". The idiosyncratic Wikipedia usage ("suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia") is deprecated. If you think an article is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, please give a reason! -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Expertise - definition plus some very vague handwaving in the direction of AI theory. Was on Wikipedia:Cleanup for weeks. Onebyone 02:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Finlay McWalter 02:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep An umbrella term, for example fluency is a type of expertise Fred Bauder 03:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there anything useful we can say other than its definition? Sure, lots of things are types of expertise, but anyone who knows the definition of the term expertise already knows that. --Delirium 08:09, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

January 6

  • Alice Is Talking Again - sub-stub about a poetry book, the author of which is so unimportant he doesn't even have his own page. PMC 01:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • orphaned, del --Jiang
    • Many very important poets do not have Wikipedia pages yet. Dale M. Houstman is a minor surrealist from Minneapolis, and Wikipedia seems to attract surrealists. He is obscure, but not entirely unknown, probably no less worthy of a place here than Easter Bradford. Move to Dale M. Houstman and lets see if anyone will add more info. Bmills 11:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The poet should probably have a page too. I'm basing my assessment of this book's importance on my having heard of it, when I'm nowhere near a poetry expert. moink 19:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not listed by the Library of Congress, COPAC or Amazon. We no longer have the Easter Bradford article. --Imran 22:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes we do. It's just that for some reason it had been turned into a redirect out of the article space. (I've reverted that.) -- Oliver P. 07:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't find any information on the book apart from that it exists. I suggest keeping, and redirecting to Dale M. Houstman when such a page exists. -- Oliver P. 07:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I Think I Canada - episode summary for Timon and Pumbaa, a Disney TV show which is now off the air. The text of the summary is in the main page for the show. I don't see why it should have its own page, it's not a particularly notable episode. PMC 06:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • redirect to Timon and Pumbaa. it doesn't hurt to do so --Jiang
    • See Talk:I_Think_I_Canada. Investigate, will you, before you resubmit articles on VfD for a second time. -- user:zanimum
      • Don't respond to me about it! --Jiang 22:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • My bad, I didn't look at the talk page. Don't respond at Jiang for when I screw up :P PMC 04:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've changed the <nowiki>***</nowiki> to <nowiki>**</nowiki>, what I meaning to do before. It was a response in general, not to one particular user. - user:zanimum
    • There should be some guidelines to prevent the re-introduction of an article to the VFD page within say 4 months or less. Such a quick re-introduction shows disrespect for the process. mydogategodshat 04:15, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above, despite their moderately offensive username. Such guidelines should be discussed in talk Jack 11:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Paradigm Atom orphaned product advertisement --Jiang 06:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Advert. moink 19:52, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Submitter argues on the talk page to keep it. --Delirium 02:23, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • View of Florida from Space - is this really worth an article? --Jiang 07:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Village_pump/June_2003_archive_6 for a discussion that apparently led the creation of that page. I also believe, though, that this image should somehow be incorporated in a more general article about the geography of Florida Nyh 10:15, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree that the image and it's descirption should be incorporated elsewhere. --Jiang
  • Car Satellite Radio - title breaks Wikipedia:Naming conventions, also article's subject (satellite radio) is not limited to cars. I propose all useful content be merged into Digital audio broadcasting#Digital radio for the US automotive market, where most of it is reproduced there anyway. Merge and delete. TMC1221 18:07, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with and redirect to Satellite radio and delete. It is not the same as digital audio broadcasting, which is land based and uses different technology. Davodd 02:54, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect. See the deletion policy. "Merge and delete" is not an option, because using other people's work and then deleting its attribution to them is an infringement of their copyright. Even if it weren't illegal, it would still be bad practice. Merging and redirecting preserves all information, is undoable by any other Wikipedian if necessary, and - best of all - does not require discussion on this page... -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • John Morrison Birch points to nothing Anthony DiPierro 18:27, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Sending to Cleanup: its Hx is
      • POV non-wikified Copyvio creation
      • Blanked
      • Redir to non-existent John Birch page
      • I just redired to John Birch Society which has a 'graph on its namesake, mentioning that full name.
    • He's like Horst Wessel (see List of people by name: We-Wg) & Ernst vom Rath (see Kristallnacht), nonentity treated as fringe-POV martyr. Leave as redirect until there's a non-copyvio bio brought forth; when it comes, i'll probably NPOV it (& return to redir if too little left) if no one else does.--Jerzy 21:01, 2004 Jan 6 (UTC)
    • I've written a bio. Feel free to NPOV it. Secretlondon 15:07, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Wait a minit, who talked me into offering to NPOV? Oh, yeah, i thot it was an empty gesture. But by now i'm kind of fascinated & i'm picking up today what may be the only academic acct of him, and working more on touching up than PoV. --Jerzy 14:55, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)
    • Keep: now a useful short NPOV bio. Bmills 15:16, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not really a vote, but if there's a copyvio in the history, can we just leave it there? -Anthropos 02:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep John Birch (it's fine), but delete John Morrison Birch and recreate it as a redirect to John Birch to remove the copy vio from the history. Maximus Rex 11:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Sounds good, but in anticipation of disamb page, it may be worth making the article John M. Birch since a Col. John Birch was significant in Brit history and a John Birch heads an advocacy group for concealed weapons. (And for that matter, tho maaybe less insidious in confusion potential, yet another (was it Sir John Birch?) is negotiating trade arrangements in China.) --Jerzy 14:55, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)

January 7

  • Ladder Theory: so far as I can tell, the Ladder Theory states that "Men and women have (different) criteria for ranking who they'd like to date, and they will prefer to date those who rank highest." This is so obvious, I can't see how it would rate an article. -- Khym Chanur 04:18, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Obvious theories are worth stating, to make them visible and subject to critical consideration. Obviously you've never considered a contrary theory: that men won't (except in fantasy) come near a woman who ranks above them or even equal to them; they feel more secure in having the upper hand than in making a "find". Some people find the parties they go to have lots of couples, a corner of intelligent, good-looking, successful females talking among themselves, and a corner of dumb, ugly, male losers, as this Mismatched-Ladder Theory (to make up a name) predicts. --Jerzy 15:41, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)
    • Keep (reluctantly)(for now). This seems to get quite a lot of disparate googlage, and I figure there is a half-decent article in there somewhere (if only in a slashdot-troll like guise). I'd say file it on cleanup, and del if cleanup doesn't improve it. -- Finlay McWalter 04:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The website the article links to is highly offensive, and the theory is non-falsifiable, so it's crap, but I say keep anyway, and NPOV the article quite a bit. moink 20:23, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Flamingantichimp 03:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article needs to be rewritten, but it's valid. I wouldn't consider the Ladder Theory to have any sociological grounds, and the site is kind of offensive, but I'd still include it for the same reason we have All your base are belong to us. --cprompt 04:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Stupid God: "Stupid God theory is one where God is credited with creating the universe, but not very well...". Reads like junior highschool level philosophizing. Since the topic is made up, it is unredeemable. It also falls under original research. Maximus Rex 06:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Google search for "stupid god theory". It has to be worth something. User:68.173.191.185
      • No hits for "stupid god theory" quoted, about 200 with "stupid god" quoted, and most of the first 20 appear to be standard abuse, not philosophy. Delete. Onebyone 21:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Patience, my friend. First, you did wrong search. "Stupid god" gives 2,700 hits. 90% is curses, but there are pearls, like[1] Overall, the concept turns out to be pretty popular. Leave, but rewrite. At least disambig into (curse) and (theory). Mikkalai 00:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Idiosyncratic ramble. If there were any there there, it would belong in The nature of G-d. Delete. (Oh, and zero Google hits.) Salsa Shark 06:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is just a rant. - Jsan 07:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Garbage, del --Jiang
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • WTF pretty lame; wiktionary at most --Merovingian 11:16, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Eh, I'm neutral. It's come into common enough usage that it just might deserve an article. --Raul654 11:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've redirected to Internet slang, which mentions WTF. Not much useful stuff you can say about other than what it stands for. Maximus Rex 11:33, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep definitely, I'll work on this page Sam Watkins 11:43, 11 Jan 2004 (AEST)
  • Roads and Expressways in Poland - I think it was already decided here that we aren't supposed to have articles on roads, unless they have some importance. --Raul654 11:37, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was only 2 hours old when you listed it here. Secretlondon 14:46, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • True, but (IMHO) irrelavant. Regardless of how developed it is, I don't think Wikipedia should ever have an article like this. --Raul654 21:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Disagree with that assessment. We have some good articles on the US Interstate system (and lots of them). The subject is perfectly valid. Keep - Marshman 18:08, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What's the harm? Meelar 19:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is informative and harms no one. Imagine yourself writing a thesis on European roads, surely you would be interested in articles like this. ..Optim 00:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Include this: Camden High Street] in the above statement. It's a road 500 meters long! Sheesh. --Raul654 11:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Camden High Street probably deserves an article, it just doesn't deserve this one. Onebyone 11:47, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and lets hope a London-loving wikipedian can expand: the street is well worth an article. Bmills 12:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Secretlondon 14:46, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a very important 500-metre stretch and the reason why Camden Town tube station is the busiest station on the whole London Underground!
    • Keep...Optim 00:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I figure most large cities will have two or maybe three encyclopedic streets, and megacities like London or Tokyo maybe 15. While this is pretty low on that 15 (Whitehall it ain't) I figure it's still encyclopedic. And we brits can pack a lot of interesting stuff into 500 metres (it's not just one branch of Arby's). -- Finlay McWalter 00:17, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Neurological zombie - Idiosyncratic or movie/RPG reference; no apparent real-world content. Salsa Shark 12:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Pseudo-science, also present in Zombie. Apparently comes from the fiction The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks, see [2]. The Google cache for Zombie shows that this zombie theory was in the page at one point, it and the links like Neurological Zombie should probably be completely removed. — Jor 12:11, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this nonsense. Bmills 12:16, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Good news for those worried about the solanum virus (aka potato virus) mentioned in this well written and factaully accurate gem -- it only affects plants! [3] Maximus Rex 12:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Norman A. Beck - some sort of rant, not an encyclopedia article Nyh 13:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Rant. -- Finlay McWalter 13:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Bmills 14:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - unless turned into an actual article on the author which is encyclopedic. Secretlondon 14:48, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Possible speedy delete? DJ Clayworth 19:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Quarters_of_Gdansk - stub, with information already contained in the Gdansk entry. One page links to it, and link on the page links to an external site in Polish. Lyellin 20:31, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gdansk page is protected. Admins don't react on requests to put additional information, that were put on the talk page. Therefore it is necessary to add aditional pages. Cautious
      • Gdansk is protected, but the information on Quarters_of_Gdansk would be easily added to Gdansk whenever it becomes unprotected. And Beyond that, there was never a request on the talk page to add that info. I don't think it makes sense to be adding extra pages, when they aren't needed, especially with how Gdansk is organized. Put the Quarters info on the talk page, and if an admin doesn't add it, it iwll be there to add when it goes unprotected, as opposed to making extra pages that eventually won't be needed. Lyellin 21:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tygo - advert. Secretlondon 23:40, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Whoever created it keeps deleting the VFD tags. I readded and protected the page it so that the tag doesn't get deleted (again). --Raul654 23:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • May be a place for this, but this one is just an advert. I see nothing mentioned that distinguishes "Tygo". Delete as is - Marshman 18:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Environment protection - an article could be written, but this is not it. Move this to wikibooks. --`Jiang 23:45, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. THis is sort of a pamphlet, not an article. Maybe the submitter will expand it into an article? Nothing at Wikibooks for it either. Needs a better article name - Marshman 17:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 8

  • Pro-technology propaganda. The only useful sentence in the current article is the first: Pro-technology propaganda is propaganda to promote technology.. Onebyone 01:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It was written by EoT on disinfopedia (before he was banned there) [4] and then modified and brought here by Guaka (apparently unaware of the ban). It us quite poor and should be deleted. Maximus Rex 12:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I brought it here because there are 6 articles linking to it. So I think that either these articles should be changed or PTP should be an article of some kind. Guaka 14:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Be bold and edit. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I checked and each page that linked to "pro-technology propaganda", was written by EoT. Maximus Rex 17:57, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Onebyone. Not of much use except as a wiktionary-type definition. Perhaps content could be merged into Techno-utopianism if the entry yields anything to add, but I doubt it. Toby 14:37, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • DElete. Remove links in those articles. The term is rather self explanatory - Marshman 17:56, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing of value there. -- Viajero 18:49, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wilfredo G. Santa - anyone know this guy? --Jiang 01:19, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not me...I vote delete. PMC 03:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I concur. Bmills 09:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Or at least establish that DR. Santa is/is not material for an article - Marshman 17:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. From reading the article, he sounds like a reasonably adequate subject. Sure, I haven't heard of him, but then, I haven't heard of William Timothy Gowers, either, or any number of people here. Meelar 02:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless someone can verify/proove the accuracy of the article. I checked his science-fiction book and neither rec.art.sf.written or the ISFDB have heard of it. Nor is it listed in either COPAC or the LOC catalogue. --Imran 21:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • 2000 Al-Qaida Summit- I am not sure this should be a sepearate article. And I don't remember any of this being made offical. User:Astrotrain
    • Ask for sources. Delete if not forthcoming - Marshman 17:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Futurist Manifesto. Source text, move to wikisource and delete. Saul Taylor 15:22, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Bmills 17:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikisource and delete. moink 06:29, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Paul Harrison - a newsletter Secretlondon 16:54, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 17:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Google search for "Paul Harrison" and atheism finds 423 pages.+Anthropos 02:27, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Clarifying my own vote: It seems that some article on Paul Harrison is worthwhile. This article needs to be deleted if it's copyvio. However, shouldn't that determination/deletion take place as part of the copyvio process? -Anthropos 14:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Business workflow analysis - copy and pasted in from somewhere. Can't find it as a copyvio - perhaps machine translated? Secretlondon 17:40, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Certainly looks it. It is also an advert for the external link they posted (written in French), and appears to be describing a particular product they sell, rather than the general concept. Morwen 18:02, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This same content has recently been put in management, management accounting, strategic information systems, business performance systems and several other articles. All have been reverted. I have tried to separate the product promotion stuff from the worthwhile stuff, but it is very difficult because the translation is so poor. I can't fix it. Delete, unless someone else can edit the product specific promotional stuff out. mydogategodshat 06:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Weluvducsoha - appears fictional. 2 google hits. Secretlondon 17:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Google hits are to a BBS page where the user (presumably user:205.213.111.50 creates the 'religion'. - UtherSRG 23:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not so fast, dogpile has about a half dozen sites one of them actually looks like the actual religion. User:205.213.111.50
      • Yes so fast. This religion [5] boasts 25 members, most of whom are honourary (Bill Clinton and Michael Jordan) or inanimate. Fiction or not, this falls cleanly within the "not famous" catagory. Delete. -- Finlay McWalter 19:58, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, another fake religion with no following. I could start my own religion, that doesn't make it any more significant than my imaginary friend. Maximus Rex 18:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Idiosyncratic silliness. Delete. --MIRV 18:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Yawn. Delete. Salsa Shark 19:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete from wikipedia. Reasons: 3 Google hits, unknown; there is a webpage [6], from the webpage it is apparent (to me) that it is a joke and will not drawn any publicity. The google hit came from a message board where a user named "Weluvducsoha" was promoting Weluvducsoha with posts like "I dare you to find something wrong with my religion.", see [7]. Optim 19:24, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If there's any proof that anyone besides the writer actually follows or believes this, keep, otherwise delete. Meelar 19:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • W. Thomas Smith, Jr. is on cleanup. I think it's worth keeping, but I wanted to make sure before I take the time to wikify. Meelar 19:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote for deleteion, he dumps his autobiography and is too lazy and lacking in respect to spend a few minutes formating it for wikipedia, delete the article (and hang the author :).
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • A mathematical bug: contents before blanking was a well-known fallacious argument wherein one 'proves' 1=0 by dividing by zero and hoping nobody notices. Salsa Shark 22:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete! Reason: False information Optim 23:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. (I've added a note pointing out the division by zero, but that's just in case anybody stumbles on it before it's deleted, not an attempt at making the thing worth keeping.) —Paul A 08:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This "bug" is already covered at invalid proof. I'm not sure whether a redirect is appropriate here. If not, delete. --Minesweeper 08:28, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I knew there had to be a better-titled article, but couldn't find it; thanks. A redirect doesn't seem right to me as 'A mathematical bug' is not an article one would expect to exist. Salsa Shark 08:35, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Covered in invalid proof. Geoff97 09:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Rick, why do you vote keep on this, or do you just vote Keep on everything? Kyk 21:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is silly. A discussion of Russell's paradox is the real content this wishes it were :) Kyk 21:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Rebellion - currently a dictionary definition, which should be deleted. However there clearly could be links here to lists of rebellions, and article on the games company, or probably something else. Onebyone 23:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 9

  • Computer services - inaccurate, useless entry Anthony DiPierro 00:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redir to outsourcing. Anthony: please remember to add the VfD notice on articles you nominate. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 00:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree w/ Anthony, make redir. Meelar 02:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what we would redirect to. Looking at the list of companies under Computer Services, many of them are not at all involved in outsourcing. For instance, Yahoo is listed under Computer Services. Maybe it's better to just mark this as a stub and clean it up a little. I think a redirect to outsourcing would be worse than what is there now. Anthony DiPierro 03:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Most empathetic Harry Potter character - the results of a poll by some unknown agency (they don't even have a page!) about which Harry Potter character people empathise with most. Do we really need to list the results of every single worthless, nonfamous poll out there? PMC 01:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Whoa, don't pick on Ipsos-Reid, they're big and credible in Canada. Nevertheless, this should be deleted. moink 04:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Are they really? I live in Canada and I've never heard of them. Guess I must be more out of it than I thought. Either way, I'm not trying to pick on them, just the poll. PMC 05:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Very well known in Canada (don't know where you've been) - http://www.ipsos-reid.com - delete this garbage BTW -- stewacide 07:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • So why not create an article describing them? Phil 12:01, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
            • Since I was the one who insulted them, I'll write the article. (As for Stewacide: living under a rock.) Edit: Done, but I'd appreciate some more info on them. PMC 00:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree on delete, but I've definitely heard of Ipsos-Reid, and I'm from the U.S. Meelar 05:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:17, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • initial-stress-derived noun No comment. silsor 03:32, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • keep, no harm. Green Mountain 03:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Pointless. In any case, it is probably impossible to write this from a NPOV. Delete this as yet another useless list. Tannin 07:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: I dont see any relation between POV/NPOV and the page in question. How could somebody write a POV on this subject? My vote is below ... Optim 16:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • What a load of absolute bloody knee-jerk nonsense has been spouted in reply to that comment of mine. I am astonished at comments such as those made by Optim above and UtherSRG and Anon below. The problem - and it should not require me to point it out - is that a good 30% of the words on the list (back when the entry was just a list) did not fit the criteria unless you speak with a US accent. Now throw in another dozen accents from around the globe and any attempt to make an exhaustive list becomes an utterly hopeless task. Last time we had one of these crop up - it was titled List of words that are commonly mispronounced or some such - the acrimony dragged on for weeks, and although I myself initally voted to keep the entry, in the end it became clear that there was just no way that we were ever going to be able to agree about what words should be listed and what words should be left out. Language is simply too variable. However, with that out of the way, I see that the initial list has mutated into an article instead - an approach that is workable, as the list component can now be simply a short list of examples on which all can agree. The entry, in other words, is no longer just anoyjer bloody useless list, and has genuine value: keep. Tannin 13:27, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Linguistics is the study of language, and liguists note that the spoken language is key. The issue of accent is not a reason to discredit this topic, but rather to study it. If there are accents of English that do not convey this difference between verb and noun form then there is a natural language opportunity to test the Sacher-Warf hypothesis. Additionally what happens in languages where verb-noun is not so malleable? Lastly, it was stated that 30 % of the words in this list only are properly included with US accent; is there evidence to support that statement. My vote follows later.Kd4ttc 19:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Yet another useless attempt to delete valid content, you mean. NPOV? What can you possibly mean, there is no point of view involved, it is a factual list of words that change their gramatical role depending on stressing of the sylables. Keep it! Also - see the talk page for a serious discussion of this linguistic phenomenon. 209.102.127.70 07:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and see how the page develops. It deascribes an interesting phenomenom. ping 08:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Onebyone 11:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is an important linguistic fact. English is one of thos languages that most easily forms one word type from another and vice versa and this is one of the key "tools" used. Bmills 11:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Phil 12:01, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Optim 16:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 04:17, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC) Somebody goofed. silsor 23:46, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 04:24, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) Huh? The page history reveals that I never made this vote. No opinion. --MIRV 20:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course. The fact that one person considers it pointless to study language is only that person's weakness. Anyone who cares about the scientific study of the English language will find this interesting, even if the article is imperfect in its present form. Those who don't care about that topic should work on other things.
    • Keep. Who wrote the above? Didn't sign it... tsk, tsk. *grins* - UtherSRG 23:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I wrote it and signed it. Someone else deleted my signature, apparently while deleting (and so apparently rescinding) their own vote for deletion. Michael Hardy 00:47, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, is quite useful to anyone studying linguistics. PMC 00:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and make something more of it than simply a list. This is an interesting linguistic phenomenon in English. Djnjwd 01:14, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lists like these are useful to people who study language and who teach language. This list in particular is interesting and will be helpful to me, an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher, when discussing the role of stress in English. The textbooks usually give only a few common examples, so having this many examples is helpful. I see that there are numerous "List of . . ." pages. Maybe they need to be organized by category. I didn't find a category called "Language Lists"; perhpas such a category needs to be added. Language study includes and requires a great many lists of words that cannot be easily accessed in dictionaries, lists like this one. CyberCypher 11:30 (Taipei Time) 3:30 (UTC), 10 Jan 2004
    • Sorry if it looks like I voted on my own listing, but upon looking at the page history it seems somebody accidentally merged two listings together yesterday (maybe Michael Hardy?) Anyway, with history view loads pushing 30 seconds I don't have time for this mess right now. Good night. silsor 06:35, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I did not ever merge two lists together. I have no idea what that could refer to. Michael Hardy 21:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I thought that because you were making major changes to the page at the time, sorry silsor 23:46, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
          • What happened was this edit by Michael Hardy at 21:42 on 9 Jan 2004. At that time, the Vfd entries for the list of words and for Bruce V. Bracken for some reason abutted each other, and some people had commented on the list of words below the entry for Bruce, not realising that they were commenting under the wrong entry. So Michael Hardy tried to sort it out by moving Bruce's link lower down, to separate it from the other entry, not realising that the votes by you and MIRV immediately following it belonged with Bruce as well. -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd like to temporarily delete initial-stress-derived noun and its talk page in order to recombine their histories with Meaning and pronunciation patterns in English and its talk page respectively, after copy-and-paste page moves. I'll wait a while to see if there are any objections first, though. -- Oliver P. 10:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. See above for rational. By the way, if the reorganization takes place, I already put a link to the original article in pronunciation which will need to be maintained. Kd4ttc 19:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Bruce V. Bracken Vanity creation. RickK 04:12, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, clear vanity. Claims of "best selling" easily proven completely ungrounded in reality [8]. Maximus Rex 00:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. (Where did my earlier vote go?) --MIRV 20:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • silsor voted to delete this, too. (See notes on the list of words above.) -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • John Paul Horstmann probably vanity, or a joke, escaped notice for 6 days; also Ron Whitman, linked only from Horstmann. Adam Bishop 04:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • While some facts are correct [9] this seems like a joke about nonfamous person. Delete. Fuzheado 06:44, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten it. It's true that he's not famous, but Wiki is not paper, so that shouldn't matter. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK is voting keep for everything today, even garbage articles that were already deleted. --Jiang 04:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Please provide a reason as well as a vote... -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Turbo Prolog Very poor stub, could be included in Prolog article. Not sure if it should be on VfD or Cleanup. Flockmeal 04:47, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If a full article is not possible, why not merge with Prolog? -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Lay Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. silsor 05:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Alien_vs_predator_syndrome Google search on "alien predator Yoshihide" does not bring up anything related. Fuzheado 06:40, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This was only linked to by Talk:Postmodernism and was used as part of a sentence. I've factored out that reference (which was and is still quite badly worded). It seems to be very obscure. Delete. MrJones 13:44, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • British Movement POV rant that I have blanked. Bmills 15:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course it should be deleted. --快艇 (Talk)☺ 15:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't see the content before it was blanked, but now I think it's okay to keep it. Just a stub. --快艇 (Talk)☺ 15:30, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've written a proper entry. A bit of a stub at the moment, but something of substance. - David Gerard 15:32, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion Jimbo and Theresa say that VfD is "broken" and/or that the page itself should be deleted. I second both ideas. --Uncle Ed 17:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The alternative of no VfD is far worse. Fuzheado 17:32, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, no viable alternative has been proposed. Maximus Rex 17:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del Feb 1, and let's reflect, in our attention to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, the urgency of IDing its replacement --Jerzy 17:48, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)
    • Keep. No better replacement proposed. --snoyes 17:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep until we get a better alternative, or even an alternative of any sort. Secretlondon 20:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete when zero-length articles come up as red links, which is the only reason most of the articles here are listed, as far as I can tell. Morwen 21:04, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What else have we got? Rmhermen 21:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep unless you come up with something better. --Jiang 22:12, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep because the alternative would lead to a Technocracy Anthony DiPierro 22:29, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep! Some pages would remain stubs/orphans/patent nonsense for eternity if not listed on VfD. PMC 00:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD is one of the few things stopping Wikipedia from turning into a madhouse. It would be like going after the stub page, or cleanup or – God forbid – the sandbox! --Merovingian 02:44, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Reluctantly keep, only because there seems to be little political will to fix the process. mydogategodshat 10:09, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • BlogBigot This appears to be a bit of offensive slang or idiolect, not an encyclopedia entry. --FOo 17:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Paratroopers Brigade interesting, but definitely not intended to be an encyclopedia article. Evil saltine 20:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The content probably has to go, but the declaration and the unit itself deserves an article. Edit and Keep. The Fellowship of the Troll 20:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jesus does stuff
    • I saw in a deletion log that someone just deleted my page from a while back, or the username or something, Jesus_Blows_Goats, for being offensive. To be somewhat equal-handed, shouldn't the page/username Jesus_Saves! be deleted also? I would suggest simultaneously, but I think that is no longer possible :) Kyk 22:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Not until that user's name has actually been changed, no. Angela. 22:26, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 10

  • Anthony Beard probable vanity page / non-famous person. Googling for name came up with several other non-famous Anthony Beards. Website seems to indicate he is an unpublished part-time artist. Maximus Rex 02:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reason: Unimportant. Comments: Had a quick visit at the website. He has worked as assistant editor at Webster University and now as freelance web designer. His education includes a B.A. and a certificate. Didn't find something which implies that he should be included in Wikipedia. Of course when/if he becomes notable we will certainly list him in the encyclopedia, but for now there is no reason to keep a page on him, although it doesn't harm much. .'. Optim 05:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
    • Keep. RickK 08:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unimportant. moink 07:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Sam Watkins - YA tinfoil hatter; autobiography. Salsa Shark 05:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 06:15, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Short promotional piece for a crank who does not even appear to be a well known crank [10]. Maximus Rex 06:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 06:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Heh! A `crank' who consistently scored 100% in his physics examinations and has an olympic blazer for mathematics in the wardrobe, google "IMO Sam Watkins" . Sam Watkins 10:52, 11 Jan 2004 (AEST)
    • Delete. I think Mr. Watkins' comments speak for themselves. john 00:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Del --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Delete, vanity page. moink 07:04, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This man was the Australian Team's reserve for the IMO in 1993, but I thnk he's been inhaling the wrong sorts of things since then... :( I suggest moving to User:Sam Watkins and deleting the resulting redirect. -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Nutter, delete. Morwen 13:48, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Magneto-gravity - original 'research'. Salsa Shark 05:46, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 06:15, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Completely bogus and idiosyncratic. Would also fail under 'original research'. Maximus Rex 06:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 06:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Completely unrefined but not even slightly bogus you tripper. Sam Watkins 10:54, 11 Jan 2004 (AEST)
    • Pretty clearly bogus, and completely unencyclopedia. Dete. john 00:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain, perhaps replace with an easy to understand explanation of why electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity. Is it possible to explain without using mathematics? (It's too late at night for me to think rationally, I suppose two clumps of matter would affect each other somehow, just not proportionally to 1/distance² or something, and probably an uncomputably insignificant effect anyway.) Not the first time I've heard strange, but similar ideas. And possibly rename the article to something else. Κσυπ Cyp   04:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del pre-Aristotelian-quality physics w/ extreme prejudice. Sam, there's this thing called mathematics, that's a little more sophisticated and powerful than magic ratios. --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Delete, entirely wrong. moink 07:04, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter whether its true or false, it's just one persons pet kook theory. If it was a famous kook theory, we might want to make an NPOV article about it. Delete. Morwen 13:48, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (copyedit article [partially done]) [It is part of Magnetohydrodynamics. Not one persons pet kook theory. Not Completely bogus and idiosyncratic. Not entirely wrong if understood in context [see references]. The prior article is fringe. The general concept largely unknown (sometimes misinterpertated, also).] JDR
  • Music and optics - hogwash. silsor 06:13, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Salsa Shark 06:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 06:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Hogwash my foot. I studied at the Melbourne University Conservatorium of Music and can play violin, piano and guitar better than you can brush your teeth :) Why is the visible spectrum exactly one octave? Sam Watkins 10:54, 11 Jan 2004 (AEST)
      • Worth presuming hogwash, with talk of "exactly one octave": Light gives "400 nm to 800 nm" which looks exact, yet Color gives "approximately from 380 nm to 740 nm", bcz the ends of the spectrum fade of rather than having any exact end. In any case, the limits of vision are determined by the activation energies of practical visual pigments at the red end and probably at the violet end as well; looking for ratios is part of a nostalgia for magic. --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
        • Please don't feed him the attention he craves. silsor 06:03, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Total nonsense, whether or not Mr. Watkins can play the guitar. john 00:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain. The article is, as far as I can tell, hogwash, one person's point of view, and primary research. But... the topic itself isn't nonsense. People have been interested in connections between music and optics for a long time; the "color organs" of the thirties, come to mind. There was a lot of stuff about this in Stuart Isacoff's neat book, Temperament. And Sir Isaac Newton himself had some cockamamie theories about the relationship between the spectrum and the scale. Haven't you ever wondered by the colors of the spectrum are (almost) always listed as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet... even though indigo is hardly a common color name, and in tests where they asked people whether they saw a color between blue and violet that had as much right to a name of its own as orange, the near-universal answer was "no." But, Newton thought that since there were seven notes in the scale, there just had to be seven notes in the spectrum... and his prism had high dispersion in the short wavelengths... so when it wrote it up, he named seven colors, including "indigo," and textbook authors have copied it from each other ever since. In other words, there's probably an article there. Dpbsmith 03:27, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Ask a spectographer: i was taught Newton was able to resolve some solar or atmospheric absorption (dark) lines, and (cluelessly) construed them as boundaries between colors (from which the possibility of setting some other boundaries by wishful thinking would logically follow). But if you're looking for musical analogs, you have only 2 choices: expect 11 colors, or expect 7 colors but with 2 colors each being only half as wide in the spectrum as each of the other 5. Please! --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Del --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Delete, wrong. moink 07:04, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonsense. Morwen 13:48, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but... If this theory could be historically contextualized, it might fit on a page on "synesthesia" or a related concept. There have been minor (but widely recognized) art movements that attempted to relate color to music--I believe a guy named Stanton MacDonald-Wright had one such.
    • keep, if copyedited; otherwise delete. JDR
  • Earnings multiples - article may be justified but isn't clear in its intent to provide information; may be POV. Doesn't seem to be a copyvio, but also seems to be a potential advertisement; Wikipedia IS NOT a big classified ad board for free advertising; please check. 67.75.231.38 07:53, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK 08:24, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Ive changed it to a more appropriate title and made some edits. Should be ok now but still needs some work. mydogategodshat 01:28, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Steel tariff - poorly written essay on a recent American policy; relevant info incorporated into tariff -Smack 20:25, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Weird, I was sure that page was listed here last week. Delete. silsor 22:02, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's an important political event. Rewritten, but should it be renamed? Meelar 09:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 11

  • Vegard Aukrust - unknown person, does not belong in an encyclopedia. The article seems to be written by himself. -- Wolfram 00:40, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Morissettian Irony - claims "The Internet has played an integral role in coining and defining the phrase Morissettian irony" but the phrase only gets 2 hits on google. -- Infrogmation 05:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Which can easily be explained by the fact that her last name is just plain hard to spell. Try Morrisettian, or Morissetian, or any of many variations, and you'll get more results. Not to mention that Google doesn't cover everything, it doesn't even cover the UrbanDictionary.com definition of the word. Add to that the fact that Morissettian irony is mentioned in my college textbook - why not Wikipedia??
    • This is not an article, this is (rather silly) music criticism. Delete. Salsa Shark 05:29, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I was undecided until you brought up Urbandictionary.com, which a) contains a lot of made-up imaginary garbage, and b) is a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. - Hephaestos 05:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • And variant spellings don't turn up any Google hits. Delete, or at the very most make it a minor note on the irony article. --MIRV (talk) 05:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • What you guys don't understand is that this is a genuine type of irony: In other words, because the expectation that something labelled or described as "ironic" is not actually met, in adherence to the definition of irony (that what is expected is not what happens), a situation that would have been non-ironic if left alone suddenly becomes ironic I may be new to this website (a great one I should add, lucky to have found it), and I certainly don't want to start anything, but I think that by focusing on this article being a music critique (it's not!), that it contains references to Internet articles (not important!) and UrbanDictionary.com (removed!), you are missing the real gist of what this article tries to explain. Hephaestos, I understand your concern, so I removed the UrbanDictionary link. That is not where I got the idea for this page, it was from my college textbook. Sorry if I made anyone mad with this, NOT my intention..
    • Delete. Seems a complete fiction to me based on reading too much into a song. Flockmeal 05:41, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, I forgot to say this earlier. If there's any way you can tell me how to <i>improve</i> this article, instead of just outright telling me to delete it, that would help a lot. I'd be glad to look up more information about this subject if that's what you guys want to see. Please, I know I'm not the only one intrigued by this linguistic phenomenon!
      • I'll assume you're being sincere... but it's looking like this phrase or concept is not in wide use. Wikipedia is not the place to try to promote new pet phrases. However there are certainly lots of other usefull things that can be added and expanded here. You might wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 07:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, this is kind of frustrating me right now..I am not trying to promote a pet phrase here, and it is not the result of reading too much into "Ironic" either. It's something I've heard before and seen used as a pop-culture reference - "it's ironic, at least of the Morissettian variety", "a little bit of Morissettian irony for you" - and today, even in my college literature textbook. The textbook describes it as, essentially, the concept that calling something non-ironic "ironic" is actually ironic in itself. I'm honestly confused why a perfectly valid and informative article people are now voting to delete. I just want you guys to understand the spirit in which this was written - to contribute valid information to the very amazing stuff you already have on "irony", that's all. I promise you it's not a music criticism, or reading to much into a song at all..the song was just one example of Morissettian irony! Obviously none of you guys have encountered references to "Ironic", and maybe it's just 'cause I'm an Alanis fan, but I have. If you understand that this isn't an effort to promote a phrase, or an effort to dissect a song, but just an attempt to contribute something so that readers will have a better, wider understanding of irony - and you still want to delete it, then I support your decision to delete it. But so far it seems like you guys have never heard of the phrase before, and assume it doesn't exist, and that's your justification for deleting this entry. Hopefully that's not the case..I just don't want this to be written off as something it's not. lol..I'm new, and I've already created such a mess...again, this was NOT my intention!! I'm sorry, good night everyone!!! :-)
    • Please don't be discouraged. I think it makes a nice addendum to the Irony article, and merits a few words on the Alanis Morissette page. I have no objection to it if you can cite a respectable "textbook" source. The non-irony of the lyric is a popular parlour-meme. Hardly surprising that someone should parlay it into a buzzphrase. [11] [12] chocolateboy 08:10, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • If anything, the term would be "Morissettian," not "Morissettian irony." It would mean "Of, pertaining to, or in the style of, Alanis Morissette or her works." Kind of like Clintonesque would mean "Having Bill Clinton-like qualities." And guess what. Clintonesque is in Urban Dictionary, and Clintonesque definition gets 103 hits on google, far more than any form of "Morissettian irony". But I don't see Clintonesque or Clintonesque definition on Wikipedia, because it shouldn't be. And I don't care if some textbook author used the term, either. Maybe one day "Morissettian irony" will be worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but that day has not yet come. Anthony DiPierro 08:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • There are a number of terms including "Alanic" ;) [13] On its own, "Morissettian" says nothing about the topic at hand: the misuse of the word "irony". Either way, "Ironic"-bashing (and defending) has become a popular Internet pastime [14] which has subsequently been ripped off "reinvented" by at least one standup comedian (press Ctrl-A) and a number of newspapers including The Washington Post [15] and The Guardian [16]. The name might be bogus, but the phenomenon isn't. I think it would be better placed under a dedicated Ironic (song) article, though, unless the textbook in question can back up its usage with citations. chocolateboy 18:28, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it would stand a better chance of being kept if the textbook were cited (with an ISBN). - Hephaestos 08:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, with 3 total Google hits it is clear this is made up (largely as a criticism of the misuse of the word irony). Maximus Rex 20:03, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Move to something "Ironic_(song)" if it can't be established that the phrase is in common use. This is a clear, well-written article, it's more than a stub, it's not nonsense. The issues seem to be a) how common the actual phrase "Morisettian Irony" is, b) how common the concept is. Even if the exact phrase is not common, there's a justification for having a separate article, and that is to have a way of referencing a single, extended discussion from two places: from the Alanis Morrissette and Irony. I think the discussion in both of those places should be cut down to a sentence or two, and the additional material there (e.g. the song lyric quotation) moved into "Morisettian Irony" or "Ironic_(song)" I think the mention in 3030 Google hits on "morissette irony" confirms that the general topic has received reasonably wide discussion.
If, a decade from now, nobody remembers the song, we can remove it then. On the other hand, it's possible that we may be watching a significant event in the evolution of the meaning of the word "irony," and it would be a shame not to have that documented.
It's not possible that we may be watching a significant event in the evolution of the meaning of the word "irony."
The article should better address the question whether the actual phrase "Morrisettian irony" is in common use or not. If it can't be proved that it is, then the article is really about the song "Ironic," influence of same, and debate on same. It should be moved to something like "Ironic_(song)". There are already Wikipedia articles about individual songs when they have unusual significance; God Bless America is one example.
A side note: one of the frustrations I find in reading old novels is that there is no good reference source for out-of-date catchphrases, jokes, etc. For example, novels and songs of the twenties not infrequently include a line "Mother, pin a rose on me." Another one, familiar e.g. from the song "Trouble" in The Music Man is "So's your old man." Every few years I make a vague effort to find out what these phrases meant or referred to. Nobody knows. This stuff is worth documenting. Dpbsmith 21:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I just decided to "be bold" and I've "edited it mercilessly" (i.e. completely rewrote it to my own taste). If not deleted, I think it should be moved to Ironic_(song). Dpbsmith 22:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is a not a catch-all for every half-baked quasiconcept in the universe (which, I claim, is an accurate characterization of "Morissettian irony"). Doing my part to raise the editorial standards of Wikipedia, Wile E. Heresiarch 00:13, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia - move this thing to meta where it belongs. - Hephaestos 05:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It is just possible this is a new morph of a certain banned user... Salsa Shark 05:29, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and move to meta, or put it in the Wikipedia namespace. --MIRV (talk) 05:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Why do we need to cover this? Seems to encourage trolling and appears to be written by a problem user. Flockmeal 05:46, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, or move to meta. I would like to learn more about "trolls" and how to identify them. This is primarilly because I am worried of the potential to label a perfectly ordinary user as a troll, or worse yet, blackball a new user because it is assumed he is a "morph" or incarnation, or whatever. Besides the article seems ok to me. Jack 06:44, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, preferably where it is. I was having a hard time understanding what "Troll" and "Trolling" mean as applied to Wikipedia, until I found this article. The article has been where it is for a while. I've bookmarked it, and perhaps others have too. PLEASE leave well enough alone. Peak 10:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to meta. Useful info, but not in normal article space. Fuzheado 14:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and leave it where it is. It is a legitimate article about Internet Trolling, not internal Wikipedia discussion or navel gazing. People coming to Wikipedia to learn about Internet Trolling don't want to dredge through meta or other internal pages to find it, even if they know what these are. BTW, assumptions and vague accusations about 'problem' or 'banned' users are not good reasons for deletion (present your case, if you have one).The Fellowship of the Troll 19:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course, if we move it to meta, we must also move Wikipedia and all related articles. Unless, of course, this is just a knee-jerk crusade based on a mistaken identity.The Fellowship of the Troll 19:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • We already have a quite extensive legitimate article about Internet trolling. This is, on the contrary, exactly "internal Wikipedia discussion" and "navel gazing", and no amount of denial will change that fact. - Hephaestos 19:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This clearly belongs on meta, if anywhere. The user requested presentation of evidence that they are a problem. I will oblige. In the page Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia the user mentions "For example, one wag added the user Salsa shark to the list of species of sharks.". The user, our troll friend, is aware of this minor occurance because they are the user that added salsa shark to shark [17] as User:207.189.98.44 (and troll is clearly the same user since 207.189.etc responded on troll's talk page as troll (see User talk:The Fellowship of the Troll [18]). This page shouldn't exist for a variety of reason which I will enumerate: 1)It will encourage troll behavior by rewarding them with the attention they desire. 2)Others will document other users they dislike and label them as trolls. 3)It is clearly self-referential in the ways wikipedia tries hard to avoid. The user documenting their own "trolling" pretty much says it all about their intentions on this page, and wikipedia in general. Maximus Rex 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Camp Muriel Flagg a Girl Scout camp in northern Massachusetts that used to operate from the mid 1960s into the late 1970s. Not famous, no known campers of any note. Gentgeen 08:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 09:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What's the harm? Meelar 09:32, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, wiki is not paper. Deletionism is out of hand, I think I may vote for VfD to be deleted.... Jack 09:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it is also not a catch-all. Fuzheado 14:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Class envy "Class envy" isn't a developed concept, like, say, "class consciousness" or "free market." It just means "envy." If you want to get expansive, it is a rhetorical cliché used to discount political arguments that attack social inequity as being merely a manifestation of envy. Might be mentioned in a description of political rhetoric, or in a dictionary under "envy," but it's not a theory or a "phenomenon" or a "sociological practice." It's misleading to give this it's own article, as if it were one of those things. Delete. BTfromLA 09:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, though it might need some modifications to make more NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 09:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Jack 09:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think the problem with this page is more that it makes no sense than that it is POV. Here is how this page started out yesterday "Class envy is a phenomenon where one class envies conditions of another. Some people claim that the primary cause of the discontent of the poor is the generation of envy towards the rich by some third force. These proponents of the idea of class envy describe class relations primarily interms of voluntary cultural beliefs. The term's culturalist response to class antagonism denies the possibility of a genuine basis for class conflict." What is a culturalist response to class antagonism? Merriam Webster's dictionary doesn't even have the word culturalist in it. This whole article seems to be four syllable made-up words strung together that ultimately make no sense. I get no idea what this idea called class envy is - anything that seems to be actually saying something instead of being postmodern gobbledygook seems more fit for Class warfare or Class struggle bercause it is describing class antagonism, not "class envy". Does anyone reading this feel they have a better idea of what class envy is than before they read it? I certainly didn't. And I spent a bit of time just reading the words and trying to figure out if they meant anything. Also yesterday there was a section as large as the workers envying the rich on the rich envying the workers, which I took out as well. 99% of the time I hear about class envy, it is the workers supposedly envying the rich, the idea of an equal-sized part on the opposite is to me ridiculous. I have been radically revising this article, and it still makes little sense. -- Lancemurdoch 19:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It was POV when I came to it, and tried to break down some of the neo-conisms without turning my contribution into a POVed critique. The fact that the term has no standing in social science, and is an undefined polemic term means it needs to go. --User:Fifelfoo
  • Brianism - nonsense, exists only in this article and on the website cited. -- The Anome 18:48, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote, FYI: Our God says 92 hits for "Brianism". A number of these hits come from Wikipedia and sites that use Wikipedia as a source. Optim 20:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 12

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2134090"