Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tannin (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 7 March 2004 (Virus (plural) vote to keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
If you were looking for an article on the abbreviation "VFD", please see VFD.

Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Note that this page is for listing articles that you think are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles you want to see deleted, but doing so would mean a change in policy. In that case, go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to discuss a policy change. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.

See Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#VOTE:_NEW_LAYOUT_FOR_VFD! for a vote on layout change.

Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month:

7th - 6th - 5th - 4th - 3rd - 2nd

Front Matter

Cleanup

Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

copyright violations -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- Cleanup -- translations

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

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

March 3

Customer experience management

See Talk:Customer experience management

Booger

- Well, I tried, but it didn't turn out very well... is this a dictionary definition or an encyclopedic article? ugen64 01:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

    • The content is OK. Isn't there a technical term for this, though? It should be moved there. Meelar 04:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The proper technical term is bolus of overdried glutinous extranasal respiratory secretions. (And if you believe that, then you'd believe that flatus advanced by rectal transport is another proper technical term...) Dpbsmith 00:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Symbiotic algorithm

- Looks to be primary research. Suggest merging any salvageable/encyclopedic content with parallel algorithm and delete. --Lexor|Talk 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Lexor. Google Test yields very few results. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:42, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Original research. Delete. moink 20:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Be gone. Though the idea is interesting to me. I have made my copy of this, so it's fine to delete it. -- Taku 22:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Emerging Symbiotic Clusters

- Primary research, zero Google hits [1] (cf symbiotic algorithm). Suggest merge/delete (see above). --Lexor|Talk 05:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Original research. Delete. moink 20:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Report from Himmler to Hitler

- looks like it needs a transwiki to WikiSource, then a deletion. Any other opinions? Isomorphic 05:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Source text. Transwiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 11:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete the page but don't delete the image. --mav 06:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nascent

- Belongs in Wiktionary. Boot it over there. Denelson83 05:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Democide

See Talk:Democide

Ontario_Mills

- Shopping centre in Ontario. If we delete nonfamous people, surely we delete nonfamous shopping malls. Maroux 11:54, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

    • Keep if it going to be expanded, otherwise move to Ontario, California. Concerning the comparison with people: there are far fewer big shopping centers than nonfamous people.--Patrick 12:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Shopping malls are famous. Anthony DiPierro 13:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - malls in general are not famous - Texture 16:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 16:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. we have articles on a number of shopping centres - SimonP 19:50, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Malls are visited by hundreds of thousands of people annually. That seems to imply some level of notoriety and importance. If anything, they go towards local history in many cases. Besides, there are other malls in Wikipedia (e.g., Houston Galleria). RadicalBender 20:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep this. Malls are famous locally--there's usually only a few of them in any given area. Meelar 22:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We're adding every interstate and interstate spur route in the country. Surely there's room for every mall if people want to make entries for them. Moncrief, 3 Mar 2004
    • Keep this. There's no room for place facism on Wikipedia!

New College Democrats

Attack Tool Kit

- Appears to be advertising; if the product is notable in any way it needs to be NPOVed. Warofdreams 14:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • NPOV and keep. Anthony DiPierro 15:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert - Texture 16:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote - it's an advert for freeware theresa knott 16:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Advert. DJ Clayworth 15:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. He is using this as free press. See this Link
    • Delete, unless it is completely rewritten. --Humus sapiens Talk 00:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete

William Hill Kelly Jr.

See Talk:William Hill Kelly Jr.

The Source

- originally listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, I am listing it here as a member of the Leo Wyatt/Charmed discussion above. I personally believe all these pages should be merged into one anyway. -- Graham  :) 19:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Keep. We have lots of other characters from fiction all through Wikipedia (Jean-Luc Picard, Bart Simpson, etc.). I don't see why these should be excluded. There's certainly more than enough information on them. Move to cleanup, though. RadicalBender 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the difference is that Jean-Luc Picard and Bart Simpson are both famous beyond the confines of viewers of the TV shows; "The Source" is not. Bearcat 20:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the content, but the most famous use of the term is probably the hip hop magazine of the same name, so either the article at The Source should be on the magazine or a disambig page. Tuf-Kat 08:20, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Tuk-Kat. This title should be dab'd. RickK 06:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geostationary orbit

Discussion moved to Talk:Geostationary orbit



Panalix

  • Looks like original research. The sole contributor is one of the names mentioned in the article, and he has signed it at the top.Graham  :) 22:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - original research - Texture 23:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - this looks like a whitepaper or something. Original Research. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - changed to make it look more like second source . Followed the style as on Menuet. --Adek336 12:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Note Adek336 is the author of this page, and is also the researcher mentioned within it. Graham  :) 12:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fixed. Anthony DiPierro 13:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Fixed how? It's still a research project and self promotion by a Wikipedia user. How is this fixed? -- Graham  :) 13:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, you're right. It still looks like original research. I'll withdraw my vote. Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It's still original research so I think we should delete. Perhaps in a few years, if it takes off, then yeas but not now. theresa knott 14:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I have plenty of 'software with little functionality'. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Esse Aequitas and NinePointFive Thesis

Zero and 16 google hits. Muriel 22:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the creator, I will remove the contents of the Article on Esse Aequitas, due to the lack of evidence, however, I ask that NinePointFive remain, since evidence of being valid exists on the web.Volition

The only evidence is at [2], which is not enough. Keep for a standard time, then delete, if more solid validity will not be shown. Mikkalai 23:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikibug here! http://web.archive.org/web/20030729181108/http://www.ninepointfive.com/index.html didn't resolve via [ ]. Mikkalai

NinePointFive looks like original research. Delete. Anthony DiPierro 23:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless validity proven. The 16 Google hits appear to have nothing to do with NinePointFive Thesis. The reference listed in the article is to a search in web.archive.org. No evidence here that the thesis has any currency. I'm not sure it has any historic value. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 23:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: original rsearch. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of past countries in Europe

Recommendation was "merge", not "delete". Discussion moved to Talk:List of past countries in Europe. Rossami 23:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 4

Torah Cosmos

See talk:Torah Cosmos

Drew

  • We don't need pages on first names. moink 02:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is used as a disambiguation page. RickK 02:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 19:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if it becomes a redir to various Drews. Davodd 00:51, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks good now. No longer related to first names only. Jay 08:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Than

  • Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:49, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information on contested issues of English usage is valuable and encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded with etymologies, reworded. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Climate Research

  • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • agreed but this is no reason to delete. The page needs to be expanded, so that the news story becomes a small snippet. Suggest move to cleanup. theresa knott 08:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Starting point for an article. Fixed. Anthony DiPierro 13:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • An empty/blank link is also a starting point for an article. We can't encourage dumping news items into blank articles. If an article is junk, it should be deleted. Add the blank link to requested articles and provided there a link to the news story. Kingturtle 19:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah but this starting point is actually useful. Anthony DiPierro 22:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a snippet from news. Besides, it is about the magazine Climate Research, not about climate research, so one should start from Climate research (disambiguation). THAT would be a valid starting point. Mikkalai 19:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: valid topic. No disambig needed at this time (forget about the magazine). Wile E. Heresiarch 23:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep what? Did you take peek inside? And why forget about the magazine? The contents are about it. Let's better keep an empty page. Mikkalai 01:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Revised article -- pls review your vote (if you care). I have erased the abstract from the magazine and replaced it with what I hope is a valid stub. It's a large, complex, & interesting topic. I hope someone can do more with it. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tencel

  • This one is also Wiktionary-bound. Denelson83 08:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I said above, I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:50, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

See Talk:List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

Content-free Space Shuttle pages

See Talk:List of space shuttle missions

====Desenrascanso==== Desenrascanço

  • Gets no google hits except Wikipedia derivatives. Made up? DJ Clayworth 15:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the word is a portugese one? The page is seriously POV though.If we keep we need to NPOV it. This is not a vote either way.theresa knott 15:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • You are right dear Theresa, thats the most wonderful of the Portuguese virtues, the one who keeps saving us for the last 900 years! Muriel
    • Despite the true definition and the tender way in which is expressed, delete, not encyclopaediac. Muriel 15:57, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It needs cleanup. VfD is not cleanup. Optim 16:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a real portugese word for "crisis management". Delete because it is not in use in English. (I did not find it in any of the dictionaries I checked.) However if keep, move to Wiktionary (after thorough NPOV). Rossami 16:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If I understand well, it's not just a word. Also, Agora is not used in English but no-one ever voted to deleted it AFAIK. Would you? Optim 16:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Agora is in use in English. Evidence - it was listed in the very first dictionary I checked. From evidence available to me, Desenrascanso is just a word. Rossami
    • I suggest merge with Culture of Portugal Muriel 16:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I would suggest to start a Culture of Portugal article with this info, i.e. move it there. :) Optim 16:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The correct spelling returns several other hits on Google, actually. Fredrik 16:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: valid topic, move to clean up list. The link w/ Dutch sailors is interesting, I wonder if it can be substantiated. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ornamentation and crime

  • Original research from 1908 DJ Clayworth 15:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, incoherent (hence nonsense). Dpbsmith 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I did move it to Ormamentation and crime, I mean Ornamention and crime, I mean Ornimentatation and crime, but only because I could'nt stand its' mispeling.)
  • There may be some merit to this page, but I can't see it. Mark Richards 21:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am still trying to understand it - Texture 21:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 21:16, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bizzarre. If this isn't patent nonsense, nothing is. Meelar 21:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Archaic is the best way of putting it. Secretlondon 22:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research...ish. moink 18:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ethical fitnessism

  • Original research, only 1 google hit. -- Graham  :) 16:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I can't decide if it is an advertisement for the concept or what but it has no support - Texture 19:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not an advert - it claims to be about Dawkins - and quotes his work. Doesn't count as original research as it is clearly published. But - has anyone got the book to verify? I haven't. Secretlondon 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If it's about Dawkin's parts of it should be merged with Richard Dawkins, I don't think it deserves a page of it's own with one Google hit. I don't think Dawkins actually uses the term "ethical fitnessism", but he may have mentioned "ethical fitness". --Lexor|Talk 03:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to something like Ethics and evolutionary psychology and keep. I'm fairly familiar with Dawkins' popular writings, and but for the idiosyncratic title it seems a fair statement of one ethical calculus based on sociobiology. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paddywagon

  • Orphaned slang term, little chance of improvement. -- Graham  :) 16:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary? I think the use of this slang term has outgrown its racist meaning; and is now generically used to indicate a police car (as seen in public enemy lyrics). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:59, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I rewrote with a slightly fuller explanation--still a stub, but could maybe be expanded. Meelar 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe this could be redirected to Police car or something of the kind? Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Borderline, but I think it could grow. Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If there were an article on police vehicles in general it ought to redirect there, but (to the best of my knowledge) there isn't. -Sean 06:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

McFly

See Talk:McFly

Note that Eloquence has removed this ahead of time - and decided to keep it despite a 7-2 vote for deletion. --Wik 16:54, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Seditty (3d/0k)

  • to Wiktionary? DJ Clayworth 18:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like outright trolling to me. I can't find the word in google define or in dictionary.com. I'm guessing it's a pun on someone's name or something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I presume this is a personal attack on someone. Secretlondon 22:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Google actually turns up plenty of uses with this meaning [3], so I'm guessing its recent slang. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stellated earflaps

See Talk:Stellated earflaps

Prone (4d/1k)

Dicdef moink 20:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. dicdefs should be speedily deleted. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwikied to wiktionary and *then* deleted, surely? Secretlondon 22:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes- sorry, i guess there might need to be a new category - "candidates for speedy transwikification"- this could include recipes and dicdefs (although I wasn't part of the recipe discussion, i don't know how that finally ended up, so I might be wrong). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dont even think about it. First, see encyclopedia. Next see compendium. Next see talk:compendium. Next see definition. And finally talk:definition. Bensaccount 18:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Is that a vote to keep, or to delete?
  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 20:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to wiktionary Rossami 21:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


March 5

Kilian Knote (12d/1k)

undeleted as it was deleted out of process without being here five days. Angela. 02:00, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • if Kilian has a page, i want one too. Muriel 16:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; purely a vanity page; no meaningful Google hits. Added VfD notice. -- Seth Ilys 16:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonfamous. Maroux 20:46, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, "job wanted" ad. Lupo 10:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You already have a page. Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not in the wikispace! Muriel 11:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no value. 80.202.80.207 05:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable individual. Maximus Rex 05:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page theresa knott 10:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a significant person. Average Earthman 17:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

September 2004, et. al.

Ding Scale (8d/0k)

Gets no Google hits. Made up or original research. Maximus Rex 05:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. April Fool Day joke. Mikkalai 09:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim·.· 12:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke and a bad one. No Google hits (although it's hard to tell because of many hits on words like "grading scale" that have been line-broken and hyphenated!). Dpbsmith 13:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Decumanus 15:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Urm, delete. Bad joke. Besides, 1/0 is undefined, not infinity. -Seth Mahoney 19:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. That's just tasteless. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:27, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - tasteless - Texture 22:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mike Church 22:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bate Boiko and Briquet (1d,0k)

Move to Wiktionary. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cali Ruchala

Journalist (not especially famous). Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 14:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony, please stop insulting other people for raising legitimate questions. This is a very borderline article -- I'd say this person is just on the edge of being encyclopedia worthy, but Cali's magazines seem professional enough that it tips me over into "keep", barely. Jwrosenzweig 17:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've removed what could be seen as an insult. Sorry. Anthony DiPierro 17:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CardRealm (2d,0k)

Internet card game: we are not advertising. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as it stands - could easily be included in list of card games - Texture 15:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Maroux 22:47, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some individual or coalition of individuals qualified to write on the subject as to why this Cardrealm has general interest does so, providing a better article. Right now, it's merely a stub, put there as an outlink to another site. People come to Wikipedia to learn about things, and maybe some will come to learn about Cardrealm. But a page with only trivial information and an out-link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Mike Church 22:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cattleboat (2d,0k)

Slang - wikyionary. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 15:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lewis Sanders, Justin Sanders (3d/0k)

Non famous vanity. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete both - looks like a new user who doesn't realize this is inappropriate - Texture 17:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree looks like newbie expt. theresa knott 17:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Last Words of Dutch Shultz

A gangster's incoherent death-bed rambles. Source text; doubt it could be made into a reasonable article. -- Infrogmation 20:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - source text - cannot be expanded - Texture 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Offer it to wikisource & delete. moink 20:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dutch Schultz, wikisource, and delete. Anthony DiPierro 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Harri Porten

See Talk:Harri Porten

March 6

Davide Mana

More Customer experience management

Beekeeping leading practices

  • I created it. I don't have the content knowledge to finish the page and based on the length of time unedited, no one else has interest. Rossami 02:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Some information is better than none. Everyking 02:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looks pretty cool. -- Decumanus 02:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'll try to get some more on it. Pollinator 02:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks, surely. Egil 07:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BTW: I am doing a research and I plan to write a paper related to bees, so I want to learn more on these subjects. Optim·.· 08:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Articles are often unedited for ages. Then someone new comes along, see them, thinks "well this is a very poor show for my favorite subject" and greatly expands them. It's all how the wonderful world of wikipedia works.theresa knott 10:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good start. Except possibly the page title itself, perhaps should be moved to "Beekeeping Recommended Practices" or "Beekeeping Good Practices." Dpbsmith 11:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)



Carrying capacity

  • And then move carrying capacity (biology) here. Disambiguation page with only one meaning. Andre Engels 13:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I'm not aware of any other sense of the term. Psychonaut 17:46, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What about the carrying capacity of a truck, airplane, or even yourself.

Richard Genovese

See Talk:Richard Genovese Vfd header added on the 6th.

Charles Edward Jones

See Talk:Charles Edward Jones Vfd header added on the 6th.

Headology

Looks like nonsense. 995 hits at google and the first ones are not quite "scientific". There is even a username somewhere... Pfortuny 16:43, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. It's a term used a lot in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of novels. Graham  :) 16:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If it's fictional, add context. If nonsense, delete. Meelar 19:20, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Granny Weatherwax, since AFAIK she's the only one who uses the term, and her section on the aforementioned page has all the explanation necessary. --67.69.188.153 19:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poorly coined term. Mikkalai 00:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but maybe it'd be worth keeping if someone reworked it so that it wasn't pretending to be scientific. Everyking 01:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Move to cleanup. As it stands the page is seriously incorrect because it would lead the reader to believe this is an accepted word in ordinary English. The American Heritage Dictionary knoweth not of headology. However it gets so many Google hits that I am convinced that it is a well-known bit of jargon with some specific meaning among some group of people. Someone with a foot in both the world of the American Heritage Dictionary and the world where "headology" is a word needs to write it with proper context, identifying the group of people (Wiccans? Pratchett fans?) that use it, and what the word means within that group. Dpbsmith 03:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Granny Weatherwax and redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Does it have any currency outside Pratchett fandom? Is it universally recognized as a reference to the Pratchett oeuvre or has it acquired a life of its own? Is it established to be a Pratchett coinage? Inquiring heads want to know. Dpbsmith 12:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where I have come across it outside Pratchett fans, it's been used as an obvious reference to Pratchett's (or Granny Weatherwax's) headology or system of sympathetic magic. I've never come across it outside of that context. Graham  :) 17:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Staple (cooking)

Typical example of wiktionary term. Pfortuny 16:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Garcia

9/11 victim, not particularly remarkable. -- Graham  :) 16:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Del. --Wik 16:54, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Anthony DiPierro 17:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; unremarkable and unimportant. Psychonaut 17:46, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not famous. moink 17:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 18:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not famous. Not encyclopedic -Hcheney 21:05, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • To Sep11Wiki. Why do people think that dying is enough to go into an encyclopedia?Maroux 22:45, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself, I don't. I think living is enough to go into an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 00:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - move to memorial - Texture 23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move and delete. Secretlondon 23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and del. --Jiang 00:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move and delete. Not worthy of entry before 9/11. Average Earthman 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of 125 Greatest Living Footballers

I think the List of 125 Greatest Living Footballers should be deleted. The List of 100 Greatest Living Footballers is the list. JB82 16:59, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Merge with List of footballers (soccer) or broaden the scope. Anthony DiPierro 17:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or broaden the scope. Optim 17:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Just make it a redirect to the correct list. Shouldn't have come up here. -- Seth Ilys 21:20, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Also delete List of 100 Greatest Living Footballers. Transwiki both for possible inclusion in wikisource. Anthony DiPierro 21:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • To Wikisource. If not delete, as "greatest" is pov. Maroux 22:44, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete - pov - Texture 23:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote here. Both lists are POV -- and Copyvio unless we have permission from [4]. I am listing both on the possible copyvio page. [We do not list the companies of the Fortune 500 for similar reasons] Davodd 23:22, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is Pelé's personal list of 100 greatest footballers. He was asked to compile this list by FIFA. What's wrong with it? Mintguy (T) 23:59, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • He and FIFA own the copyright to that list. Similarly, Fortune magazine owns the copyright to the Fortune 500 list. It is not a mere directory of all soccer players; it is one man's creative, editorial product. Therefore, it is copyrighted under international law. Davodd 00:05, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't believe that mere lists can be copyrighted. And if they can then I think the use of this list is fair use. Mintguy (T)
        • A compilation is not a mere list. As a working journalist for the past 18 years, I can verify compiled rank-type lists are editorial content and very copyrightable. See U.S. Copyright Office guidelines here Davodd 00:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no ranking in this list. Mintguy (T) 00:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
            • Ranking these players above any others counts as ranking. Fredrik 00:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't believe that to be the case, but anyway if it is then I think this is fair use. This list has been published in hundreds of newspapers across the globe in the last few days. This list has been added to Wikipedia in 12 languages already. Mintguy (T) 00:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Discuss copyright infringement on possible copyright infringements. The question here is, even if it is legal, is this something we want? Wikipedia is not "Mere collections of public domain or other source material...that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording." Anthony DiPierro 14:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Steve Dagora

Not famous or important. --Alex S 17:40, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Says he was famous for being on a postage stamp, at least for a little while. Everyking 18:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub, topic important to philatelists and citizens of Papua New Guinea. I fail to see how deletion will achieve anything other than loss both of content and goodwill. Andrewa 20:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous in Papua is famous enough. Maroux 22:43, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

Joy Debnath

Content removed by anon--see current version. Should we keep? Or is he insignificant anyway, making this a dead letter? Meelar 19:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - not famous or encyclopedic - Texture 23:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Milnes

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. At the very least, this would need major refactoring, and I'm not seeing how to do that meaningfully without opening the floodgates to all sorts of genealogical information. -- Seth Ilys 21:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could be described as a vanity page. Unless we want articles on everybodies family, this should go. Maroux 22:41, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete - family names are not inherently encyclopedic - Texture 23:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a probable copyvio from [5], a pay site. Davodd 10:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it does need editing. --Douglas Milnes 16:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The information is not genealogical in nature, it is historic data. There is no family tree or ancestry structure. Dictionary definition of genealogical
    • Family names are encyclopedic in historical context. How narrow would you define the broadness of what an encyclopedia is? To describe the information as a 'vanity page' is riduculous, as this can be labelled on anyone who writes something on a topic of which they have interest and identify with.
    • Where family names are historic (such as with races and clans) there is no reason for excluding them from an encyclopedia. See Scots and Mongols as examples - and don't kid yourself that just because they are larger groups, they should therefore be included. The major reason for excluding the smaller race/clan/family names from a standard, hard-copy, encyclopedia is simply that it would make the published work too big: here at last is a medium where we can record such information, never mind how infrequently is it referenced.
    • The entry summary for the item very clearly states that the copyright is mine, and indicates the first-published source (which currently doesn't exist on the web). If this information, in this form is available on some pay site, I'd like to know because I'll consider legal action - there is a lot of research in those few words.
    • This all said, I do think the work needs amending. The data about Boernicians, for example, should be moved to the linked page, as has been done with Scots, Picts and Angles from other pages.
  • Delete: nonencyclopedic. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep : Davodd was wrong to suggest that it was a copyright violation. Wile E. Heresiarch may have a point about nonencylopedic - there is much more that could be added to the article - remaining historic rather than genealogical Peter Blackburn 19:29, 7 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: definition of encyclopedia "...dealing with the entire range of human knowledge..." Background information on clans (historic or current) seems to fall within the entire range of human knowledge.

Ximan Studios

  • Delete. Orphan, Vanity page, of no broader significance. (Although the site itself is moderately amusing) -- Seth Ilys 22:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity/advert - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 00:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rice cooker techniques, Rice an' Peas, Pandora Feast

  • Delete or transwiki the recipes to Wikibooks. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 22:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. (and leave a link somewhere - don't just remove all trace)Secretlondon 23:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and delete--Jiang


Banana in my ear

  • Not worthy of being an article. Kingturtle 23:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No vote. Anthony DiPierro 00:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Psuedo-intellectual nonsense. Davodd 00:13, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Extremely fuzzy, but the topic might have potential. No vote. Fredrik 00:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep maybe? Looking at the history, it looks like the original author started with an article about a type of joke, then made the article its self into a joke... For some reason. --Seth Mahoney 00:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It sounds a little silly, but I don't think it's nonsense. Everyking 01:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's an escaped monty python skit. - not encyclopedic - Texture 02:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: doesn't merit inclusion. It's not very funny either. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basically it's just a joke. We should not be including jokes just because they have been around long enough. Andre Engels 10:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 7

Juanita Del Freje

  • Dubious 9/11 victim. --Jiang 08:15, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not interesting. Move to memorial wiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 10:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Shouldnt even be moved since it's likely false. --Jiang 10:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof this person actually existed. Davodd 10:36, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that it's been listed here before and survived is some evidence this person actually existed. Needs to be investigated further. Anthony DiPierro 12:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • what makes you think it was listed here before? --Jiang 12:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That is not evidence the person actually existed. The link you provided suggests that the discussion was against keeping.--Jiang 13:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I would think if the person didn't exist someone would have pointed that out. Anthony DiPierro 13:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't prove the person does exist. Refer to wikipedia:votes for undeletion and get acquainted with our friend, User:The Cunctator. A bunch of these apocryphal 9/11 victims was deleted months ago with objections. Some people just don't care. --Jiang 13:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I never said it proved anything. I said it showed evidence, and that this needs to be investigated further. As for VfU, I'm one of the people who voted to undelete. Anthony DiPierro 13:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. How often do we have to repeat this exercise? We have decided before not to have random 9/11 victims. Those should be instantly deleted. --Wik 13:28, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Even if we had decided not to have random 9/11 victims, they'd still have to go through here to determine if they were random. Anthony DiPierro 13:33, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And don't blank it. Everyking 18:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Great, I see it's already been deleted. Since the article dealt with the controversy surrounding this person's existence, I can see no valid reason why. Everyking 21:12, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've undeleted. Someone deleted it from the speedy deletions page without checking the history and content. Secretlondon 23:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD tag restored. Anthony DiPierro 00:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete... - Fredrik 00:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 02:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to 9/11 wiki and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google finds only links based on Wikipedia. I would vote delete if she were real, I certainly do now that she's probably not real, nor a 'famous legend'. Not sure whether she should even be at 9/11 wiki. Andre Engels 10:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonfamous. -- Graham  :) 17:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Ernst_Gruber

No User Contributions, WP is no Homepageprovider, BTW s.o is spamming ([[7]] and others) the german WP with contributions with this name (and other names, anonym. is blocked in the de:WP already), possible part if some sort of blog.network.--Nerd

Assertoric

Has been transwikied to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Assertoric, sub stub dictionary definition only. -- Graham  :) 00:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Should be a matter of speedy deletion. Fredrik 00:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't even agree with the dicdef that is there - Texture 02:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Christian slaves

  • A list of two members, which seems a little unnecessary anyway. RickK 01:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Either delete, or extend it as a List of famous slaves. Andre Engels 10:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The second member of the list is not described as slave. Mikkalai 11:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Andre Engels that a list of famous slaves would be worth compiling. Not that I'm volunteering however. MK 17:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Humus sapiens Talk 23:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Leica Geosystems

  • advert. moink 03:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be a popular company. Do you think this could be cleaned up to not be an ad? Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm. It seemed pretty run of the mill to me. But maybe. If someone cleans it up so it's not an ad anymore I'll withdraw the nomination. moink 05:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It's only been on Wikipedia for a day now. I'm sure it'll get cleaned up. Hopefully within 5 days, I guess. Anthony DiPierro 05:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Death Ring

  • Delete - either pov, vanity, or advert depending on the reason for creating the entry - Texture 03:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: 12,300 google hits for "deathring.us". 17,600 yahoo hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a webring. By definition it will have many hits. - Texture 04:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that only popular webrings would have many hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It also doesn't appear to be a webring. Searching for deathring and webring on google only comes up with 5 hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-article. Non-famous. Non-important. Linked site contains a large number of copyvios. --Imran 05:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just some internet-site. Also little NPOV content. Andre Engels 10:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Changed to film disambig page - still an orphan. Davodd 10:14, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep disambig. Meelar 11:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not famous, vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pro Audio Firewire800 HD

  • Delete, promotional. No obvious reason why this particular product rates an article of its own. Dpbsmith 03:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 04:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Ruth Aylett

  • Vanity page. RickK 04:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What makes you think this is a vanity page? Anthony DiPierro 04:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. Everyking 05:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak vote for keep. moink 05:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - reaching professorhood and writing a popular-science book are in my opinion enough to keep. Andre Engels 10:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Author. Davodd 10:54, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


Simulacrum

  • Reads like an exceprt from a parody of a Deconstructionist essay. -- Khym Chanur 06:26, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this could be put on speedy deletions. Maybe in the future an article could go here, but the nonsense presently there will not be of any help. moink 06:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) Keep, as per Anthony, below. moink 18:12, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid encyclopedia topic. Poor writing is no reason to remove a topic. This should never have been posted here; should have been posted on Wikipedia:Cleanup. Davodd 07:07, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • What a difference a day makes. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 13:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meelar 19:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. And I'm the least deconstructionist you could ask for. What was User:Khym Chanur's issue here do you suppose? Wetman 19:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories

Sole reason of page is propagation of POV. Maroux 09:40, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

  • Borderline keep. Interesting subject matter, but POV needs a good industrial-strength cleaning by a set of fresh eyes. (not mine) Davodd 10:59, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pseudoscience has to be studied as well. Mikkalai 11:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Fuel for disputes, but the topic is good. Should be NPOV if the criterion for inclusion is that the theory is not accepted by the scientific establishment (regardless of whether you think the scientific establishment is right or wrong). Keep. Fredrik 12:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It's been around since mid-2003 and has been edited considerably in that time. Suddenly deleting it now would surely be grossly inappropriate. It's a useful list, though the intro needs severe NPOVing. I might suggest some links to and material from Anomalous phenomenon. - David Gerard 13:03, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV. Anthony DiPierro 13:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Fredrik's criterion for inclusion. Average Earthman 16:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be trying to take a balanced view on an inherently controversial subject. MK 16:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember when this page had the word "fringe" in its title ;-) — Timwi 16:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Fredrik. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, reluctantly. Few who agree with one of these theories would acknowledge that they are speculative or pseudoscience. These theories probably ought to be classified as merely alternative views regarding whatever subject they happen to pertain to, not lumped together derisively. Everyking 17:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to List of disputed theories. That's much less POV. moink 18:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree about renaming. Fredrik 19:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if renamed to List of disputed theories. - Texture 18:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • While I agree with DiPierro about POV, I think that revising the first para and changing the title will go far to neutralizing it. Denni 22:13, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. Always likely to be a battleground, but a valid topic. Historical difficulties in POVing aren't a reason for deletion, so long as it is possible to write NPOV material on the topic, and it is as has been demonstrated. (And probably those who waste everyone's time POVing this article would just be POVing some other article otherwise.) Andrewa 23:12, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mystery Castle

Seems bogus. — Timwi 16:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a real place, but the article needs a lot of work. Have wikified. Deb 17:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - real - Texture 17:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems real. moink 18:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In Citysearch's Top 10 best landmarks in Phoenix. [8] Davodd 19:08, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Quant (maths)

Also seems bogus. — Timwi 17:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jury rig

At the moment, this is just a dictionary definition, and I'm not convinced it's worth expanding. Deb 17:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geez, I can only type so fast... :-) On the prowl for a good picture now. Stan 17:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be expanding nicely. moink 18:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Wright

See Talk:Daniel Wright for discussion -- Graham  :)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

  • All this does is promote lame edit wars. It rewards instigators of edit wars with publicity. This does not help us fight edit wars; it encourages them. We should not be glorifying such behavior. Kingturtle 17:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: this has already been listed on Vfd once before, and was kept and taken off listing without reaching the full five days. My vote is to delete for the above reasons. -- Graham  :) 17:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Infrogmation 17:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Kingturtle. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We may not like them, but edit wars are an important aspect of the sociology of Wikipedia. Everyking 17:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. They remind us all that we can get caught up in silly trivia and forget to see the wider view. I don't think we're glorifying edit warriors, if anything, we're mocking them. moink 18:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing new to add. Tuf-Kat 18:09, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Been through here and survived. No reason not to delete. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 20:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is clearly labeled as whimsical, and is as good a thermometer as the wikiholic test of what goes on here. While Wikipedia is not a joke (quoth Angela), neither should it take itself so seriously that it self-puckers. Denni 22:28, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is no different than the bad jokes and deleted nonsense page. I don't think the existence of these pages will encourage future occurances. When I look at the examples of deleted nonsense or lame edit wars it dosnt make me want to start doing it. mydogategodshat 23:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Alejandro Izquierdo and Chiappini

  • Self-promotion. --Wik 18:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - identical vanity articles - Texture 18:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. moink 18:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worse than vanity, it's foolishness. Everyking 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity. Psychonaut 19:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spum

Neologism. -- Decumanus 18:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Too new. moink 18:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • So what? Keep. Everyking 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Second moink, delete. Fredrik 19:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; too new to be encyclopæedic. Psychonaut 19:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I am the writer, so if I shoudn't vote, remove my vote? To keep the text I will transfer it to my user page anyway. Ellywa 20:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borderline as far as being encyclopedic, but being well-written and well documented tips the balance in favor of keeping it. Dpbsmith 22:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vile and Ve

  • We have pages for Vili and Ve. After looking at the history, this page looks suspiciously like it was started as an advert for the musical duo mentioned. Google hasn't heard of them. I have already added the one piece of useful information here (that Lodur may be an alternate name for Vili) into the article on Vili. Isomorphic 18:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with delete of the viola players. Could someone check if those two gods actually did build Yggdrasil? I've merged that info, want to make sure it's accurate. Meelar 19:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't move it because I couldn't tell if the article meant that Vile and Ve made Yggdrasil or that Odin made Yggdrasil. Isomorphic 20:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Homonymic

  • Dictionary definition. -- Graham  :) 19:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this page. This is an entry for a dictionary (Wiktionary), not an encyclopedia. Also homonym is not a synonym of homonymic. Homonym is the noun form of homonymic. -- Owen and Rob 19:44, 7 Mar 2004 (GMT)

Virus (plural)

  • Not encyclopedic. Comes across as a topic for debate. Suggest adding to an article on iregular plurals. Mouse/mice but not house/hice? Denni 22:01, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty decent article on a frequently mooted issue. (Although you'd think the very first point, "Wikipedia (see English plural) and most English language dictionaries give the plural of virus simply as viruses" would settle the matter. As for "topic for debate," I'd say it's a fair example of presenting more than one point of view. Dpbsmith 22:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fredrik 22:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Recurring topic. Poor title, though, it's not disambiguating from other things called virus. -- VV 23:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frequently arising matter, deserves a page. Aside from any other factor, if we don't have this page, we will be forever dealing with misguided edits to many related pages. Tannin 23:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Lir/artiste

  • Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Kingturtle 22:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, but members should be allowed some leeway in what they post (to their user pages), within reason. As long as they aren't copyvios, I don't see why we should delete. →Raul654 22:05, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • True, but no need to be too rigid about enforcing it. Remember, as long as Lir is editing his user page, he's not editing articles.—Eloquence 22:06, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Surely it would be better if he did edit articles instead? :) Anyway; I'm fine with this as long as it doesn't go overboard. Fredrik 22:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments above. Anthony DiPierro 22:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless it gets extreme. Niteowlneils 23:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

sexed up

  • Keep. (Has a vfd tag, but was not listed here until now.) The current content sucks, but it is a common term, and could become a useful article--how/when/where it originated would be interesting; also a reference to the phrase "sex sells". If nothing else, it could redirect to Hyperbole, with appropriate reference added to that article. Niteowlneils 23:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with above suggestions.
  • It was a key phrase in the Hutton Inquiry which is why the content is why it is. Please add/amend. Secretlondon 23:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neutral. IMO this is not a particularly useful contribution and never likely to be, but nor is there any persuasive case for deletion. Human knowledge? Borderline. A poor choice of article name at best. The material could perhaps be NPOVed and moved to an article on journalistic bias or similar by someone interested in the topic, with a redirect. Andrewa 23:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This article definitely needs changing. It is becoming sexed up itself!
    • I've removed the POV content, and expanded it. Could still use some work, but is an example of what it could become. Niteowlneils 23:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have their cake and eat it too

  • Delete. This article is too imprecise and cumbrsome to warrant inclusion.--Tappyea 23:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak vote to keep Owen&rob 23:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2672041"