Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seth Ilys (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 16 January 2004 (vote). 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 you think 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 8

I'm inclined to say keep out of a certain respect for Larry Sanger. And why do you call him "someone" with no seeming realization that he is Wikipedia's founder? (Rhetorical question.) Michael Hardy 23:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 17:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not an article at all. DElete - Marshman 17:41, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete. What IS this? moink 06:01, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved to User namespace. See User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text. Angela. 07:12, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Consider deleting the redirect, as it discourages the creation of an actual article. If this is to be done, Angela's orphaning of this page should be reverted. --Jiang 07:18, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 9

  • 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Keep. We have already decided that polls are appropriate to Wikipedia. - SimonP 20:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Some polls may be appropriate, which doesn't automatically mean all of them. If this is to be mentioned at all, it should be a one sentence "A poll by [blah] found [blah] to be the character people most empathized with" in List of Harry Potter characters or something. --Delirium 05:13, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • merge with relevant HP article. JDR
    • Keep. Trivia hasn't hurt anyone. BL 06:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, merge, or at least change the title. Anthony DiPierro 19:30, 15 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 [1] 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • 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)
    • delete - not sufficently important -- mkrohn 02:17, 12 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • delete or merge -- mkrohn 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If a full article is not possible, why not merge with Prolog? -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge n' redirect JDR
  • Lay Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. silsor 05:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete or rewrite. Not an article -- mkrohn 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not an article, and not a start of one either. An article on this topic should be written, but until it is, a red link is better. --Delirium 01:25, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, a red link is worse. BL 06:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

January 11

  • Brianism
    • Continued at Talk:Brianism
      • Posted some new evidence we may have missed. Please review. SpellBott 07:31, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • There is no new evidence. This is simply and purely a propaganda article on behalf of a small movement called "Brianism" without any independent assessment by people other than "Brianists". This voting page should never have been moved from Vfd after a number of people had already voted for or against deletion. Please keep this on "Votes for deletion but do not try to befuddle everyone with your pseudo talk. I am going to try to move the actual votes back here and leave the irrelevancies of the chat among the Brianist members at the Talk:Brianism site. --Dieter Simon 19:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Trying again later as system very slow. --Dieter Simon 22:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • FWIW, things with lengthy discussion are often moved to keep this page of a manageable size. The discussion can still continue elsewhere until a decision is reached. --Delirium 00:47, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Re Brianism, I just don't want things to be lost sight of, Del, and the whole page has become so large mainly because of pretty irrelevant and inconsequential items and chat among some members of this group. We are not here as a mouthpiece for a new movement, worthy or otherwise, as an encyclopedia we should be describing what has been created elsewhere and is already in existence as a solid theme independently observed by other people. We should not be assisting the creation of it. That way lies POV and an unfree encyclopedia --Dieter Simon 01:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-


January 12

  • KX-T2365E - some kind of how to for setting the time on a phone. Wiki is not an instruction manual! PMC 03:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks if it is useful; and delete from here. It is about the Panasonic KX-T2365E phone (source: User:Grape). The page is orphaned and unupdated since January 2003. # Optim 04:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) #
      • I'm hideously ignorant. How does one make a transfer to WikiBooks? (Just refer me to a help page if you like) PMC 04:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Go to http://wikibooks.org create a username if you wish and copy-paste the info on your userpage. Then, ask the other Wikibooks partitioners whether this info is useful and in which Wikibook it should be added. If you locate a wikibook suitable for this info, just move it there. Optim 04:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Muchas gracias :) PMC 05:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
            • This is surely thank you, but in which language? Spanish? Optim 05:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes, Spanish it is. It's about the only phrase I can remember in that language... PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete from here, don't move to wikibooks unless major improvement. Flockmeal 05:16, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've put it on my user page on WikiBooks, so we can see if they want it there or not. (My guess is not, but you never know) PMC 05:21, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Good job! Optim 05:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Wiki books. SpellBott 13:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Shadowsnake Films - publicity stunt (see below)
  • John Coulthart - publicity stunt (see below)
  • The Mindscape of Alan Moore - an interconnected publicity stunt with previous two. All three were created by an IP with a history of inserting bogus information (see Wikipedia:Cleanup) - User talk:Unkamunka|.]] 04:14, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all three. Wikipedia is not a launching pad for promoting movies and film companies. Flockmeal 05:16, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Bmills 09:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Have verified what unkamunka says. SpellBott 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jeffrey Pratt - an undergraduate student who's not (afaik) particularly well-known. User's other contributions are very good though, so I've left a note on his talk page. --Delirium 08:46, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete low-key vanity page. Bmills 09:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- not worth an article in an encyclopedia -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Necropedophilia - Dictionary definition. 33 Google hits. 9 Yahoo web hits. No Yahoo directory hits under category Sexuality. No dmoz.org hits. May be some Death Metal album or term. Discussed on some vampire-gothic-etc and Metal music BBSes. Disgusting. Created by a new user. .'. Optim 16:10, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
    • It doesn't exist, new user probably got off on it. Delete. Mrdice 18:00, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • delete -- checked number of google hits -- mkrohn 00:26, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Creepy, delete. (note by Optim: This was user PMC)
  • Glittering generality another dictionary entry. Dori | Talk 22:27, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- duplication of information. note that this definition is exactly given within the propaganda article. -- mkrohn 00:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • convert to redirect page, since the phrase is in circulation. Mikkalai 00:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 13

  • Demonize - move to wikitionary/delete and or/ redirect to demon. --Jiang 01:19, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikitionary, and make redirect to demon. Possibly make note at demon about what demonizing is? PMC 03:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Optim 04:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. silsor 23:16, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. SpellBott 07:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • (from cleanup) Anigraphical music - idiosyncratic? For an internet term it gets no google hits - best guess-invented term. google shows anigraphic as abbr. for animated graphic, no more. - delete immediately?
    • Delete. --Jiang 01:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Confusing, no context, stub...yep, delete. PMC 04:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Smells like another aleatoric art technique known only on Wikipedia. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The Best Page in the Universe - irrelevant website. Why can't such obvious violations of established guidelines be deleted on sight? --Wik 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete (but after the 5-day wait, not on sight). Just some guy's blog, not really mentioned anywhere except on other people's blogs. --Delirium 05:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not that well known to deserve its own article. Dori | Talk 05:12, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Alexa ranking is 4,069 is you use the http://maddox.xmission.com address. Angela. 05:15, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, Maddox gloats about how he has a higher Alexa rating than several fast food websites on one of his articles. WhisperToMe 05:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • While the 4,069 Alexa rating is for the entire domain, this states that 88% of traffic going on Alexa end up at Maddox.xmission.com -- http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=maddox.xmission.com WhisperToMe 05:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless it's particularly prominent in some way, move to List of blogs if we have, or want one; else delete. Salsa Shark 05:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Salsa Shark, a "List of Blogs" is right here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weblog#Example_Weblogs
    • Delete SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Irrelevant. PMC 07:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, wiki is not paper, and this article isn't vandalism Jack 07:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's actually pretty popular. Don't listen to me, he gives the statistics himself. Personally, I love it - Maddox is hilarious. →Raul654 07:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It ain't pretty, but it is popular. This "blog" combines x-rated language, parody and humour to draw a sizeable audience. He gets more hits than McDonalds, which he pans mercilessly. Has been around since 1997 and has several imitators - "The Second Best..." "The Worst..." etc. Sunray 10:32, 2004 Jan 13 (UTC)
      • Here's a sample [1]
    • Keep, but needs serious rewrite. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: meritless. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not a dumpster either. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article could use some help in the writing area, but definitely keep. - Marshman 18:25, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - deletionism is running rampant around here - I have an idea for reform that I will put on m:deletion management redesign and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion.The Fellowship of the Troll 19:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep -- the page seems to be more important than I initially anticipated judging from the article alone, but rewrite is needed -- mkrohn 20:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • more information: about 1000 times linked, about 1000 mentioned in usenet
    • I rewrote it, please review it and make corrections if needed. Apart from Alexa and the statistics published at the original website, How can I check how popular this website is and compare it with other sites? If it is popular then Keep, otherwise Delete. Optim 20:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's an incredibly popular site, we need an entry on it. punishinglemur 00:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's popular but not popular enough (top 1000) to warrant an entry IMHO. Imran 00:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • See http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com/c.cgi?u=owned on why the "Top 1000" is too much of a restraint :[ WhisperToMe 01:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Maddox's site has grown to be a part of the internet sub-culture, and if wikipedia's goal is to provide an encyclopeida online containing all manner of information, there is no reason as to why this should be deleted. It is a very popular and well known site. It's like trying to move Slashdot to "list of news/tech sites". Don't delete. Nuada, Jan 14 2004
    • Keep. It's pretty popular and has been part of the internet sub-culture landscape for what seems an eternity. --MikeCapone 05:57, Jan 14 (UTC)
    • Contentless self-promotion. Nothing encyclopedic or even fresh. We spend too much time deleting stuff like this. Wetman 06:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 07:44, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fredrik 08:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Self-indulgent nonsense. Move to "list of blogs" or delete. Puffy jacket 23:57, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Otherwise, where do we draw the line on vanity pages? A link to it may belong in other articles, but a description of the content of another web page doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This page is not remarkable enough to justify an article of its own IMO, and I think we should be conservative (deletionist if you like) on this point. Andrewa 14:05, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Andrewa, ever heard of this little thing called Alexa? I suggest you look up maddox.xmission.com on that. You'll know how significant it is when you do that. WhisperToMe 23:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmmmm. Irrelevant IMO. Are you saying that an Alexa ranking should automatically qualify a website for an article? Remember, we are discussing an article about a website. We do have articles about organisations whose sites rank lower, certainly. But we don't have separate articles on the websites of these organisations, nor should we. Still delete. Andrewa 01:02, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Websites ARE fair game to make wikipedia articles out of. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia articles based upon websites.

One more thing, you said that it can be rewritten. The article should not be listed to delete if there is a way to salvage it. WhisperToMe 02:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Nursing skills - poorly written, full of errors, doesn't seem encyclopedic. Alex.tan 17:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Poorly written? Rewrite. Full of errors? Correct them. Very encyclopedic imo. These are entries of importance to nursing students and others. - Texture 20:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • move content to Wikibooks -- text is a howto, not an article _about_ "nursing skills", therefore it is not encyclopedic. -- mkrohn 20:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic. I understand the desire to maintain a reasonable standard for good English writing and usage, but we're throwing out too many content babies with the English-usage bathwater. I don't know how accurate the information is or how uniform state certification requirements are. Until someone qualified to pass judgement comments, I think we should keep it. The writing can be fixed. Although I admit to being totally exhausted after trying to revise the first three paragraphs. Dpbsmith 02:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I am a doctor. There's just too many errors. If someone wants to fix it, among the things that need to be done are internationalizing (not every state/country has the same requirements), clean up the errors, fill in the missing pieces, add some organization that makes sense... it's just a huge job. Sometimes v2 should be done by getting rid of v1. I don't think anybody can or will fix this adequately anytime soon, so it's going to stay here as an example of bad english and poor information until someone rewrites it. Alex.tan 11:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but title needs to be changed to something about Nursing Assistants (cuz this is way below what Nurses do), and add history of Nursing assistants, changing roles, advanced nursing assistants (LPN, med LPN), income range, training (this current art. fits on the training part). I think this is sort of an article in incubation. For those with a passion, try to recruit someone in a Nursing assistant program to contribute. Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 04:23, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But needs fixing. I know some nurses I can ask. SpellBott 07:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is a how-to article. It should only be kept if it can be made into enyclopedic style. moink 21:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. On Kd4ttc's advice, I moved the page to Nurse assistant skills, after consulting with writer. Craigbutz 23:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Seagulling - orphan, idiosyncratic sexual slang; other than UrbanDictionary.com entry, top google hits for this word have bird rather than sexual context. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 23:16, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No ocnfirmation after searching several times on google. No evidence it even belongs in a dictinary failing to be present anywhere. Kd4ttc 04:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Idiosyncratic nonsense. Delete —MIRV (talk) 21:31, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Erect position - dictionary def. Imran 00:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. Comment: Moved to Upright position. Reason: 138 Google hits for "+"upright position" +multiplexer" but only 25 for "+"erect position" +multiplexer". .·..·..·. Optim 14:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·..·..·.
  • Republican communism - dictionary definition, untouched since July. Little possibility of real content. silsor 00:06, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • keep -- "Republican communist" returns >500 hits on google, e.g. [2] -- mkrohn 00:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Because there are google hits for it, redirect it to communism. What is "republican communism" anyway? Would seem from the definition on the page to be a tenent of any form of communism, individual sacrifice for community good. Flockmeal 00:23, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, or redirect. I find it hard to believe that the term "Republican communist" is in common use, or any particular reason to imagine that it means what this article says it means. john 02:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This seems highly improbable. Probably made up. Delete. Mrdice 02:48, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
    • It may seem improbable, but it looks to be legitimate in some sense. Read this article from the Weekly Worker, specifically the third paragraph. This article might have a wrong meaning, but it should be an article, albeit a rewritten one. Meelar 05:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is a real term and is used by some groups to describe themselves. I will rewrite if necessary. Secretlondon 23:05, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Only references I can find for this are groups who think the US Republican party are a bunch of left-wing extremists. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Well it does exist - there is a Republican Communist Network in the UK. I am trying to get a decent article cobbled together before the deletion deadline... Secretlondon 22:45, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

January 14

  • List of jokes about statistics - The Wiki isn't a repository for jokes. Besides, there are only two jokes on this supposed "list", and it's an orphan. PMC 06:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maybe soembody shoudl start a Wiki for jokes?SpellBott 07:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 15:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree a joke project might be good. Fuzheado 23:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete reluctantly. Breath of fresh air. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but keep the info somewhere (out of the wiki or at your hard disks) so that we can add it when we will start the joke project. Support joke project. Optim 04:12, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Winter-een-mas - orphan. 32 hits on google. -- Infrogmation 12:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If this is worth mentioning at all, perhaps merge with Leet? -- Infrogmation
    • Delete and merge content with Leet. Bmills 12:35, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Bmills. Anjouli 15:18, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be from webcomic Ctrl-Alt-Del: http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/ RadicalBender 15:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • This is, in fact, from Ctrl+Alt+Del, and as such is only important to fans of the comic and posibly friends of theirs in on the joke. While the comic is quite popular, there really aren't enough people who actually celebrate Winter-Een-Mas to justify an article about it. Do not merge into Leet, because it's more of a Ctrl+Alt+Del concept than a "leet" one. Besides, there's already a note about it in the Ctrl+Alt+Del article proper, where it belongs until it actually becomes a wide-spread holiday. PMC 00:39, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Rewritten and expanded into a more proper, if rather obscure, entry. Kizor 18:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. SpellBott 08:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Three million six hundred twenty-eight thousand eight hundred - and the point was? - David Gerard 21:59, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More interesting than The Best Page in the Universe. --Wik 22:17, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete! Useless page. silsor 22:40, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, and we should probably think more about what to do about "number" pages in general. Fuzheado 23:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We can have articles with all the numbers in them (List of numbers, List of factors, List of prime numbers...). We dont need articles for individual numbers. .·. Optim 23:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
    • Delete. This article is inaccurate and incomplete anyway, there are many properties of the number not investigated, and even the list of factors is incomplete. The number is AFAIK too obscure for the article to be worth fixing at this stage. But in principle, articles on significant numbers are OK IMO. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, and delete the redirect from 3628800 as well, as otherwise we will have a needless problem in three and a bit million years. Andrewa 12:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Move the discussion to Talk:List of numbers/Deletion. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the info. Delete the page. - Hephaestos 05:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - how can you possibly know whether this is useful to someone else or not (besides, there may be more to add, you'll never know if you delete it). It's factual, and to the point, which is more than can be said about many articles. The hot wolf plots hellfire 06:24, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Firstly, FoT, it's not very helpful (or very effective) to hide your ID in a signature, and secondly, the onus is on someone to show why this number is interesting, not on anyone to show why it's not. I'm interested if anyone can. The latest update is a start but not there yet. And as the original author(s) of this article couldn't even calculate the factors of a factorial accurately, and my grade 6 primary school class can, I doubt they know enough mathematics to write such articles, or to decide which numbers are worth writing about. Sadly. Still delete. Andrewa 12:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 08:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: can never be found. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Easter Bradford -- apparently originally a vanity page, and now Jimbo has forwarded an email from him to the mailing list in which Bradford is demanding that it be deleted. Apparently this is entry has been controversial for a long time because of the unimportance of the topic, so if we add that the topic himself no longer wants the page... Katahon 22:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Apparently the guy was trying to start a career in the music business and it didn't work. According to his blog[3] he now works as a temp, and has given up singing. According to some websites[4], and some people who have posted on the talk page, Bradford has ripped people off (I have no idea if this is true or not). Please, just get rid of it. It is unverifiable, and in fact people have directly questioned the accuracy of it. A google search on "Easter Bradford" turns up about 200 hits [5], however half of those are directly related to wikipedia [6]. Maximus Rex 22:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Easter Bradford, Talk:Easter Bradford/delete. Martin 23:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I suggested we start a list of probably not famous people to discourage this sort of thing, but the idea didn't grab anyone else. So just delete, finally. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If the staff of Wikimedia decide there are legal problems, they can remove it [preferably not the entire page - AD]. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Why do you think it should be kept? This is not a discussion about the takedown notice. The page genuinely shouldn't be here as it is an unverifiable vanity creation. Maximus Rex 05:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I think all pages on people should be kept. Anthony DiPierro 05:55, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • That would be nice, but I doubt there is room. Delete. SpellBott 08:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is not paper. "The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits here." "I agree with this one completely. --w:Jimbo Wales" There's plenty of room. Anthony DiPierro 18:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • What, keep all articles on people even if they're vanity nonsense? Ridiculous. Delete it and have done with it! Arwel 18:45, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • The nonsense should be removed, of course. But this article contains several paragraphs of information about the person. Anthony DiPierro 18:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, finally. Even though this means I'll have to change my userpage. Bmills 11:54, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • As the sysop who implemented the decision to keep Easter Bradford after the "last before this" vfd-round, and deleted the whole bunch of "related" pages created by the same source; let me now go on record as my own view that the decision should have gone the other way--that is to delete Bradford, but some of the ancillary pages I thought, at the time, had more merit. But as much as it was an algism in my rectum, vox populi and all that... Delete, finally. (but somebody else implement the decision, whichever way it goes :-| -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 13:31, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • This should not be deleted because of these legal threats. But if the material cannot be verified, then that's another matter. If it should have been deleted before the legal threats (because unverifiable), then it should still be deleted now. But we shouldn't think that there is more reason to delete after this legal notice. -- Toby Bartels 16:39, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. 166 Google hits, many of them from sites which use Wikipedia as a source. Optim 19:47, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Tom Bradley promotion for a self published author [7]. He reviewed his own books [8] favorably at amazon.com. Maximus Rex 23:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't delete. Tom Bradley's novel ACTING ALONE is not self-published-- http://www.browntrout.com/books/results.asp?MGID=204 The amazon.com page referred to does not contain "self-reviews," but just basic descriptions of the books, which amazon.com encourages. The five stars appear because of an amazon.com glitch, which are frequent. User:202.223.166.2
    • Keep, don't delete. Tom Bradley is a major literary presence. See-- http://literati.net/Bradley/BradleyMedia.htm Any good reference work needs to have a listing for this writer. User:202.223.166.2
    • Delete. Poorly written for an article; just a POV promotion of the author, which should not be the basis of a Wikipedia article - Marshman 04:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but rewrite. Seems a legit author, but article is POV. SpellBott 08:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and I'd like to see a policy change where it is specified that any published author merits an article. Wiki is not paper JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to Tom Bradley (author) and post on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The fact that an article is poorly written or POV is not reason enough to post it here. Bmills 12:08, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • All comments above this one refer to a longer, POVier version of the article than the one I just wrote to replace it. Keep stub. (Also no need to do preemptive disambigiation in this case, Bmills, IMO) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:08, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. Self-promotion of irrelevant author. --Wik 19:48, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

January 15

  • Angel Remedies. I request to delete it. .·. Optim 00:19, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
    • What was it? What's all the stuff with the dots? SpellBott 09:21, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually some friend asked me to write this stuff; although I was reluctant to write it since it is not famous and not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, I wrote a stub to make my friend stop annoying me. I thought someday I could write some more encyclopedic on it, but it is so unknown that I decided not to lose more time on it, so it remained a stub and orphan. At some point I felt a bit shame for creating an article which is both stub, orphan, about something which is generally unknown and too specific. Now another user rewrote it and I find it ok since it refers to the general concept, which has some publicity I think. For the dots, visit my userpage and search for the Secret Links. You can win a WikiCookie for any "Secret Link" you find and read! :) Optim 17:35, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, seems to exist. But needs a major rework. Anjouli 16:53, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whar is the reason for listing here? Bmills 16:54, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Read above. Optim 17:35, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Now it has been rewritten by another user so I withdraw my deletion request. Optim 17:35, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
  • ATV News Channel -- after reading both this and Asia Television Ltd, I believe that the only ATV channels that are out there are "Home" and "World", and that while there are news broadcasts on those two stations, there is no actual ATV News Channel. Rdash 03:37, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like a promo for their news service. SpellBott 09:19, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 16:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Dictatress -- The concept of Dictator does not require one to be of any particular gender. Also, there appears to be no female dictators to be found, and while there is mention of one solitary use of the word ever it merits a dictionary article at best. JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No such word. Delete. Anjouli 16:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Delete. Bmills 16:59, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete. Rdash 19:36, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ballot design acorned - nearly-incomprehensible original material. Salsa Shark 11:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone's essay. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be an honest attempt at an article, but the contributor needs to learn that the first thing in the article must be an explanation ofwhat this is about. I cannot tell if it is a serrious effort or just BS - Marshman 17:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless author makes it vaguely comprehensible. It sounds like it might be a proposal for a new ballot design, in which case delete as original research, but I can't make enough sense of it to say for sure. --Delirium 01:00, Jan 16, 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete. Looks like self-promotion, and there's nothing to indicate that he's any more important than thousands upon thousands of other authors and journalists. Isomorphic 20:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree w/ Isomorphic, delete. --Jiang 00:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • mv memorialWiki. JDR
    • Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:46, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 19:48, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Gaylord Focker - stubby orphan; of any use? -- Infrogmation 13:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- not worth an article in an encyclopedia (there is IMDb for this kind of information) -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's the name of "Meet the parents"'s protagonist. Really no point. Delete. Mrdice 18:00, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Without a Meet The Parents article it's not worht including just one character in a seperate article. Flockmeal 20:17, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Ben Stiller and move the information there. Anthony DiPierro 06:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, useless. Great movie though. Tragic that it has no page. PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Character information should be included in the "Meet The Parents" article. Pointless. Delete. Rdash 19:36, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • James_Joseph_Ferguson's sole reason for being in wp is that he died on Sep11. Should he be moved the the sep11wp or is he important enough to warrant his own article? In case of the latter, I think there should be a little bit more info apart from how he died. Mrdice 02:45, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. moink 21:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Good for you Oliver! Move to sep11 and delete by the way. Anjouli 16:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Secretlondon 14:10, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Faulty Conscience a page for a band that gets 0 google hits and has made no albums. According to the article, it's members are all in junior highschool. I can't even find any evidence that this band exists. Maximus Rex 18:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
    • Delete. The page notes that the band isn't even together anymore. Rdash 19:36, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. While there is not a lot of information about the band on the internet, the band was very popular among many groups in New York City. The discography has not yet been posted, as will actual photos of the band, which would prove their existance. Wikipedia also has a lot of pages on bands that have been disbanded (for example, The Beatles). The page does not in any way harm Wikipedia, or clutter it with useless information: a few of the boys mentioend are now in other bands and surprisingly, have record labels. Ex1le 00:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. They get no Google hits, if they were so popular, someone would have mentioned them *somewhere* online. And the Beatles, though disbanded, are an important disbanded band, unlike these guys. PMC 01:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Arkum. Non sense. Probably created in order to fill WP with garbage. seems fictious. "+Arkum +god" returns 79 Google hits. "Arkum" returns 992 Google hits. "Rotherham" returns 679 thousand Google hits. "Sheffield" returns 4 million Google hits. from Cleanup. ! Optim 20:23, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) !
    • Drunken twaddle (try saying it in local dialect). Delete - unkamunka. 20:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the name, it's a town in Wûnseradiel municipality in the NL, remove the twaddle and redirect until someone writes an article.The Fellowship of the Troll 20:44, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's not even clear that the article on the town should be at this title rather than Arkum, The Netherlands or whatever. Onebyone 21:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I deleted this as it falls under Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. silsor 00:51, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • Its speedy deletion leaves me unable to tell whether it might be misspelling of Arkham (i.e., nonsense of an exquisite sort that is worthy of coverage), and in the darkr as to whether anyone considered its deletion in light of that possibility. --Jerzy 02:01, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
        • Just for you, here's the original content in all its bizarantine goodness: "Arkum is a strong warrior from Rotherham. He has many arms and legs but only shows two of each. On occasion he will show people his third leg. He shows no mercy to any man but sometimes he takes a liking to ladies from the outer Sheffield region. He can crush towns and cities with his mind. Arkum is a God from Rotherham, a God from Rotherham is Arkum.". Alles klar, nein? -- Finlay McWalter 02:13, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Omar Sánchez and Omarsanchez. Article does not mention anything notable about this person who appears to be non-famous. Angela. 21:45, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. .·. Optim 22:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
    • Delete Secretlondon 22:24, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless someone uncovers that he's actually done something significant. The name itself gets 1100+ google hits, but none look particularly notable. Seth Ilys 03:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 16

  • Dual Memory, Inversion of Light - WTC memorial design finalists not chosen. Not of lasting importance on their own; no meaningful non-duplicated content. Anything of interest can be placed on a WTC memorial page (whatever name it's finally given) Seth Ilys 03:20, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2163718"