Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 3 October 2003 (un-nominate Chronicles of George as now a redirect). 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

Guidelines for admins -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- copyright violations-- foreign language -- personal subpages -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- deletion guidelines -- m:deletionism

Older than 6 days

Images awaiting deletion

Software issues mean images can't be deleted at present. Those listed for more than 7 days should be put here.

Image:Doom3title.jpg, Image:Internal reflection in semiC glass block.png, Image:BillGates.bmp


September 27

September 28


  • Image:K_Patterson.jpg
    • Delete this file as it has been replaced with Image:K_Paterson.jpg which is now spelled correctly. - Fernkes 01:25, Sep 28, 2003 (UTC)
  • Australian tree hockey, seems fictional, Aldie 06:46, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Sounds like nonsense to me. Dysprosia 06:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. Evil saltine 06:50, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I think we should wait until one game has been played before including this in Wikipedia -- by the article's own admission, there has only been a practice. Room should not be made in Wikipedia for theoretical sports. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:44, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Australian Tree Hockey -- it's baaack!. Please delete. -- Bcorr 06:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I say keep it. If we're allowed articles for such sports as Extreme ironing then why not Australian Tree Hockey? Graham  :) 20:33, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exactly deserve a place here... Dysprosia 22:59, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • It's not famous in any way. er.. delete it. Evil saltine 12:17, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • US First Cavalry Division, trying to move 1st Cavalry Division to US 1st Cavalry Division and spelled out the number. Needs to be deleted since the correct page is US 1st Cavalry Division. Ark30inf 08:05, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The spelled-out number might catch a link from somebody else's article someday, no reason to delete. The ambitious might even deliberately create redirs from spelled-out unit numbers, many people use those. Stan 13:44, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Integration (non-mathematical) -- not needed LirQ
    • Redirect. Keep. Don't break links. Martin 22:08, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • 55 articles link to this. Clearly, it's a comon Wiki link, whether it should be or not. If you'd like to change every link whcih shoudl go somewhere else... JamesDay 09:23, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Integration (general) -- not needed LirQ
    • No need to delete redirects either -- Taku
    • No significant links to this one but it's a reasonable alternative. JamesDay 09:23, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


  • Co-routine - to make a room to rename Coroutine. Let me know if you are againt renaming. -- Taku
    • There are more Google hits for the current hyphen-less article title. It's probably a parallel of the also hyphen-less "subroutine". --Menchi 06:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • coroutine is correct. co-routine is not. This is technical language and the hypen in coroutine had vanished even in the 1980s. If you're renaming coroutine to co-routine, think again. A redirect from co-routine to coroutine would be good, though. JamesDay 09:26, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • John Hickman - very similar to [1]. -- Oliver P. 01:59, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:
  • John Hickman - vanity page. -- Schnee 14:45, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • He should add a picture of the wife and kids; otherwise delete. A personal webpage - Marshman 17:48, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Possible copyright infringement. (See here.) But we should have an article on him one day. As the article makes clear, he's had a lot of work published, so there should be a lot of verifiable information on him around the place. -- Oliver P. 01:49, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Is he really any better published than any other minor professor at some school or other? More significantly, the same user has deleted Angela's VfD link on the page, and has inserted a largely specious vanity link into Robert Zubrin. He has, however, also contrubuted Malapportionment, which seems fine, so he's probably just a noob with an ego, rather than an out-and-out vandal. I think the Hickman page should be deleted for vanity reasons Finlay McWalter 23:27, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • The text which has replaced the VfD link is a minimal rewrite of the copyvio original, but I guess it isn't strictly copyvio now. It's still vanity, IMHO. May I suggest we bump this back to VfD? -- Finlay McWalter 23:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

September 29

    • Google[2] has 797 links, and Amazon has one book[3]. Keep. Oh, and I moved it, hope nobody minds. -- sugarfish 05:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. So what if there are 797 hits on Google - I have several dozen hits on Google, and I don't think I deserve an article. This reads like a resume, not an article about Warnicke's work, and nothing suggests her work merits an article.
      • I have hundreds, and I don't think I deserve an article. Vicki Rosenzweig 23:51, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not every university professor needs an encyclopedia article. Axlrosen 03:22, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


  • Locations_in_Britain_visited_by_Horace_Donisthorpe
    • Talk on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is inconclusive about User:80.255, but even making the nicest assumptions about 80.255's motives, I don't see much future for this article.Pete 11:47, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it would be best merged at Horace Donisthorpe or equivalent? Dysprosia 11:53, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • Let me explain why this article is necessary: I intend to create locations in Britain notable for their wildlife and various other pages regarding notable people (e.g. locations in Britain visited by Charles Darwin) referencing the main 'wildlife' article. This will also allow specific notes regarding the activies of these people (many of which resulted in significant breakthroughs in biology) to be referenced in main 'location' articles without it either being too obstrusive or over-mentioned. In addition to this, some people have complained when I've added correct, factual and relevant information regarding visitations by Donisthorpe and others to main "place name" pages - thus it seems a better idea to include these on a page of their own. I will also create a page featuring Donisthorpe's thoughts on various, specific species, which will reference the "locations visited by" page. Putting all this information under the main Donisthorpe article would make it unnecessarilly long and difficult to navigate. 80.255 13:17, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
          • Merging the pages wouldn't make it that long, it would be manegable. I don't really see any reason to have this article seperate... Evil saltine 13:30, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
          • Agree. This is obvious for merging into the Horace_Donisthorpe article. Many things we might like to link to specific facts simply are better made part of an overarching article. I would think that true for Darwin as well. - Marshman 18:46, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
          • Merge with Horace_Donisthorpe then delete. Fuzheado 01:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • John Hickman: unencyclopedic? -- Karada 16:50, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: It looks like a vanity page to me. At best, non-famous. It's hard to tell which Google hits are related to this John Hickman. Paige 18:41, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Inclusion of "contact information" seems to give it away - Marshman 18:53, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Jake 20:05, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Do not delete. Hickman is on the verge of fame.
      • Justify this, and please sign your additions! --Morven 21:46, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • This user, PReeve18 is doing the same Hickman-aggrandising vandalism as his previous incarnation of 66.20.28.21. I don't suppose a sysop would like to share PReeve18's IP addr? -- Finlay McWalter 22:19, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
          • Is the demand for PReeve's IP address some sort of pathetic schoolmarmish threat by Ms. F. McW.? Sounds a wee bit obsessive.
    • Do not delete. Where else can you find the background/biases of your favorite author.
      • Note that this account, User:Fluffy, seems to exist only to cast this vote (having done nothing else at time of posting) -- Finlay McWalter 08:34, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article has no justification and is merely an ego-driven vanity page. FearÉIREANN 22:56, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Do not delete. ...or delete all bios as they are all ego-driven vanity pages. This guy has published a fair amount and no doubt has a few people wondering who he is and where he came from. It's pages like this one that make Wikipedia a valuable resource. Dotwarner
      • Note that this account, User:Dotwarner, seems to exist only to cast this vote (having done nothing else at time of posting) -- Finlay McWalter 08:35, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 05:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- part of ongoing vanity vandalism (vandalism in progress) -- Finlay McWalter 08:51, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Vandalism? Lewd and offensive? Justify this. Dotwarner


  • Aerotherapeutics - a 1911 article about various medical procedures, hopelessly outdated, almost orphaned, no way of making this a valuable source of information. Perhaps mildly interesting in historical context, but even that is doubtful. Kosebamse 17:02, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Not doubtful: I say it's interesting in historical context. Perhaps start it out as "In the early 20th century, Aerotherapeutics was a term that meant blah blah blah" or something. -- Jake 20:05, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Hm. When put into historical context, something like, say, Medical concepts of the 19th century, it would perhaps find a place. The text itself is, however, rather incoherent and not strong on concepts, looks more like a loose collection of ideas. Anyway, it would need much editing (read:summarising and pruning) to become useful and I doubt it's worth the work. In its present state the article is just useless. Kosebamse 20:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • If somebody wants to fix this, then let them do so. Otherwise delete. -- Daran 15:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council - looks much like an unedited source text. Wikipedia is not a collection of source material. Kosebamse 21:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- seems like source text to me too. --Morven 21:46, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- source text, as has been stated. -- Mattworld 21:50, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The article needs to be written as an article, linking to quotes from the text. But deletion is the wrong solution. FearÉIREANN 22:56, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete--I didn't realize this was already here because the VfD boilerplate hadn't been added.
    • Keep -- edit things instead of deleting LirQ
      • So do it. Delete if Lir doesn't fix it by the end of the week. -- Daran 15:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Hold on, don't demand that Lir or anyone else fix it . . . or else. Lir simply made the point that it would be better to fix it than delete it. There are hundreds of wikipedians. Don't order people about. Maybe Lir may fix it. Maybe I will. Maybe another user will. But you have no right to demand that someone who says 'keep an article' must be the one to fix it, let alone to your timespan. Don't be so arrogant. FearÉIREANN 21:52, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • The demand that "anyone else fix it" came essentially from Lir, not me. My suggestion to him/r was to be bold. I should have said "delete if nobody has fixed it". I'm as entitled to make a conditional vote as anyone else. -- Daran 00:01, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • Why delete it at all? It's not like we are running out of harddrive space. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Chewbacca Defense - nonsense, very specific, very unencyclopedic. TwoOneTwo 22:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- although there's plenty of genuine google hits, and it looks like a valid a piece of "internet culture", we don't have pages for other (better known) internet wonders like maher,hamsterdance, or tubgirl. Furthermore, if Chewbacca lives on Endor, this page must go :) -- Finlay McWalter 22:47, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • How could we delete a term in standard use with a lot of Google hits (and a clear, uniquely defined phrase at that . . . not a collocation like "Bush is an idiot")? We have a page devoted solely to Slashdot trolling phenomena, for crying out loud! Oh, and if we don't have an article for Hamsterdance yet, someone needs to make one! Wiwaxia 02:13, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've tried to make it a little bit more encyclopedic. I think it's harmless. Don't delete. Evercat 23:41, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Much better. The wookie wins. Keep. -- Finlay McWalter 00:49, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I never watch Southpark, but Slashdot and others use the term so much, it's become part of our "cultural" landscape. Fuzheado 01:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Imagine if we started having lots of pages like this refering to Star Trek? We'd have pages for the Corbomite maneuver, dozens of MadLibs-esque Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a ___ pages, and Of course, the Russians inwented ___... ;) -- Bcorr 02:23, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. I questioned this earlier because it seemed like it was just a South Park ref, but it now illustrates how it has been applied elsewhere. (And frankly, I'm surprised there isn't a Dammit Jim article already!) Paige 02:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • "Dammit Jim..." and "Of course..." trail off and have (as you said) Mad-libs, wildcard type relevance, so they wouldn't make good articles anyway. Now Corbomite Maneuver, that I could get behind. The Chewbacca Defense article was actually useful for me, as lots of Slashdotters refer to it, and I find it agonizing to sit through even 2 minutes of South Park. :) Fuzheado 03:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Daran 15:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is decently written page about a term that is now used beyond just referring to South Park. It is more encyclopedic than a lot of pages people don't complain about. InanimateCarbonRod
    • Keep. It is just another innovative defense that desperate criminal defense lawyers should have available in their bag of wicks. Alex756 06:54, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Daniel Quinlan 07:31, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • ISO 3166-2:CD - what does this mean, by the way? Andre Engels 22:58, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It's one of a myriad of ISO country code standards, mostly decending from ISO_3166-2. There's even pages for each _revision_ of the standard. In total, this looks like source material, not encyclopedic. That said, User:Tobias Conradi has done a bunch of good honest work on this (it's neither vandalism nor raw content dumping). Perhaps the whole thing should go to Pages Needing Attention, for simplification? Pending that, I vote Keep. -- Finlay McWalter 23:13, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • All of the pages linked to from ISO_3166-2 appear to be source material, and unexplained, incomprehensible source material at that. Delete them. Axlrosen 03:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep those which already have contents (e.g. ISO 3166-2:TH), even though those might be incorporated into a Subdivision of Country page (e.g. Provinces of Thailand). Then it is same encyclopedic as one of the many lists we already have. Those ISO 3166-2 pages which have no actual list contents, only stating the country like the Congo one should be deleted and started again when someone really wants to fill them. andy 09:05, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and expand these ISO 3166-2:?? entries as time allows. This one is the page for the ISO standard governing the internal region/place name codes for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (country code CD). If you wondered how packages get routed around the world, these codes are one of the answers - the unique worldwide zip codes for places. See ISO 3166-2:GB for an example of how this linking works. The codes also belong on the individual place pages but a central index is good. I'd like to see all of these country codes completed. I'll expand on ISO 3166-2 a little. Jamesday 10:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've added descriptive text and cross-referencing to the 60 countries which already have an entry. If anyone feels like linking the regions to the places and adding the international codes to the place articles, there's plenty of that still to be done... Jamesday 11:17, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, but Wikipedia is not a source repository. I looked at ISO 3166-2:GB and it's nothing more than a list of the codes. (The text at the top is basically taken from ISO 3166-2.) ISO 3166-2 is fine, it's an encyclopedia article, but all the others are not articles, they're data. Axlrosen 22:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • So far, most are little more than pages giving the major internal divisions of the countries (though that seems like useful information). To see what they can become, take a look at ISO 3166-2:CH and you'll find that they are also the number plate codes used on Swiss vehicles, as well as learning more about each of the regions. Even without the expansion, they are another index and I'd have no interest in deleting pages giving a list of US zip codes and pointing from them to the locations the zip codes represent. It's just part of the organization of data duty of encyclopedias to include multiple index types and it's something people can reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia. This reasoning wouldn't apply to every possible list but it does apply to this one. JamesDay 07:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

September 30


  • Sir Michael Mouse seems bogus. —SGJ.
    • There are a ton of these (see the contribution list of the author[4]). I think these are ripe for consolidation. (Yes, I am volunteering.) -- Cyan 02:26, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I will hold off on doing this until the authenticity question is answered. -- Cyan 06:28, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • The son of Sir Weirdo Mouse who is now a living ghost? Do a google search and then Delete. -- Bcorr 02:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete the poltermeis and all his kin.Ark30inf 02:40, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 05:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm unsure these are bogus. They may be real (part of the comics they purport to derive from). If so, they should be merged into one article per comic series. There is a lot of them by this contributor - Marshman 05:42, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • From a lifelong fan of Disney Comics:Mickey Mouse's father has yet to be mentioned in any published story. Which makes the article dubious. User:Dimadick
    • Delete -- Daran 14:56, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • No mouse or other person by that name on http://stp.ling.uu.se/~starback/dcml/chars/egmont-mmu.html, which spends pages and pages on characters and places from Mickey Mouse. Andre Engels 22:53, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Sir Skull Mcduck. Can't seem to find him on Google. Ark30inf 02:50, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I think that's from Duck Tales, or something relating to Scrooge McDuck...there are a lot of articles like that, with little or no context (it's strange when hitting "what links here" on medieval years and seeing a McDuck character...). Adam Bishop 02:59, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • All of 64.203.44.179's edits are questionable at best. Delete them.Vancouverguy 03:30, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete them. Axlrosen 03:34, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 05:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm unsure these are bogus. They may be real (part of the comics they purport to derive from). If so, they should be merged into one article per comic series. There is a lot of them by this contributor - Marshman 05:42, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I personaly added the articles on the McDucks two years ago. The info on them, including the link to medieval years, is part of a detailed family history of their characters created by Carl Barks and later by Don Rosa in their comic book stories. Several links on those characters can be found on google if needed. However this in not the case with the recent additions by 64.203.44.179. He claims that Sir Skull Mcduck, Sir Unknown McDuck, Rocker McDuck, Sir Luckduck McDuck and Sir Fatlow McDuck are also Carl Barks creations but no site devoted to Carl mentions them and the only findings google currently provides is Wikipedia itself. So dubious. User:Dimadick
    • Delete. I trust Dimadick far more than someone who writes "...a ghost who still lives today." -- Bcorr 13:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Daran 14:56, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • It is possible that the article names are corrupted translations to English of the characters local names. BL 23:41, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Yuppie Philosophy, seems to be a rant written by a JoeM-esque person... Adam Bishop 03:21, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete. Axlrosen 03:37, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It's just a POV rant. Delete it.Vancouverguy 03:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • This might be worth keeping if we renamed it Yuppie stereotype. It is a good description of a stereotype that is widely held in American culture. Maybe include an introductory paragraph indicating that it is just a stereotype. mydogategodshat 03:45, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • We have an article at yuppie. If there are any points worth saving from this rant (I can't recall any), put them in that article. --Robert Merkel 04:06, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • This article (or a different one with a similar name) was deleted just a week ago. Is this the same person? Can we determine that? - Marshman 04:25, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems someone has NPOV'd the page. Merge it with Yuppie.Vancouverguy 04:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, much improved, but it still is a fantasy. The existing Yuppie article seems a lot closer to the perception most have of the term. This still seems a bit twisted (rantish?).. - Marshman
    • The Yuppie article is largely definitions, and as such, comes across as more elemental. The Yuppie philosophy article, inspite of its obvious NPOV problems, adds a depth that the Yuppie article lacks. Any sociologists around that want to combine the two. mydogategodshat 04:53, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I am no sociologist, but I have made an attempt to merge the two articles. mydogategodshat 05:59, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Tokumasa Yamashita - 56 hits on google. --Jiang 04:29, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Self-agrandizing advertisement. Delete - Marshman 04:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 05:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Bcorr 13:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Daran 14:56, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- SammyDeer 12:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Eamon Coughlan - Not even an anecdote. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:30, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 05:43, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - Kosebamse 05:59, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Bcorr 13:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Daran 15:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Stubbed. The guy was a three time Olympian who set international records and was rather famous in the 1980s. Leave the stub and allow people who know about his career, achievements and sport to add more info. There is plenty of justification for an article on him. It was just that the content was unencyclopædic. FearÉIREANN 21:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Only objection was to the content (or lack of same). A decent stub should be welcome. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 11:03, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Slogan 'Islamofascism' --meaningless nonsense-- see above "Judeofascism" for argument. -戴&#30505sv 07:35, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • delete --zero 08:09, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      As I mentioned in relation to Judeofascism, the similar term Zionazi/sm also gets a couple of thousand Google hits. How long would a page with that name last? Pages like this are primarily created by political missionaries to push their opinions. We should not allow it.
      Btw, some anon keeps redirecting it to Terrorism. Can someone freeze the redirect to List of pejorative political slogans please?
    • redirect to List of pejorative political slogans--Ruhrjung 11:57, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. ~5k Google hits for the term. InanimateCarbonRod 03:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. How many times are we going to vote on this? Every week till the vote turns out the other way? There are 5000 hits on this on Google and it is a part of the central political debate of our time. Why would we not want to tell readers about this term? Ark30inf 13:29, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • FORTRESS.UK - long orphaned stub article a IRC channel - not encyclopedic :-) . andy 11:54, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • ISO 3166-1: - orphaned and no useful contents anyway - it is just a decription on the construction of the redirects ISO 3166:xx. andy 13:28, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There are 150+ Google hits for ISO4161-1: on the Wikipedia but they are to the form without the colon or to it as a part of a longer string and there seems to be no reason even to redirect this one. Can't imagine any human typing it by mistake and getting rid of it while it's not referenced seems like a good idea. JamesDay 08:46, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Crony Bliar - orphan. If this is used enough to mention, perhaps it should be incorporated into the Tony Blair article. Similarly, Wulliam Hague by the same contributor -- Infrogmation 17:50, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • All the articles he's Max2 added seem dodgy: Iain Duncan Cough, Oliver Leftwing, Tony Blair PM and some strange stuff in Spiced Buns. I've never heard these phrases used - the comment in spiced buns comes from one of the UK right-wing papers. I wonder if this is connected with the far-right edit wars going on on some of the UK pages at the moment? Secretlondon 18:12, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've redirected a couple of them to articles on the people themselves, but I'd really like David Blindgit to be deleted. --Camembert 18:21, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed - especially as that seems to be only in use one on website in the world, the 'satirical' site therockalltimes.co.uk. Morwen 18:34, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, Max2 has suggested a list of MP's nicknames instead of articles on each, which seems reasonable to me. It might be better to redirect the nicknames to that list (if it gets made) rather than to articles on the MPs, but I'll leave that to others. (By the way, I don't see anything wrong with Spiced Buns - just looks like an article on, er, spiced buns). --Camembert 18:50, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • It was the bit about some left-wing councils allegedly banning them out of political correctness. Worried this is a problem user and that there is a pattern :( These nicknames really aren't used by anyone, as Morwen says they get one google hit. Secretlondon 18:57, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)
        • Ah yes, I somehow missed the bit on bun bans - I've taken that out (though I might add somethign similar to a new hot cross bun article in a bit - it was reported as fact by the Telegraph, apparently, though I'm pretty sure the story was exaggerated somewhat). I think some of those nicknames get around a fair bit (I've certainly heard &quot;Oliver Leftwing&quot; before), but anyhow, I'll let others bash this one out. --Camembert 19:10, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I think we just bit a newcomer! This is Max2's first day of contribution. The contents of the articles were not nonsense, and should not have been deleted without the seven day wait period. And Spiced bun makes complete sense to me. I've just added a welcome to his user talk page. I agree the nickname articles were not wikiworthy, but I think we could have been more helpful. DJ Clayworth 19:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • aoeu Can never be encyclopaedic. DJ Clayworth 19:48, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Orphan, and of dubious use in current state. Delete. -- Infrogmation 19:54, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Stevertigo made it a redirect to Dvorak keyboard. It seems like it won't hurt anybody there. Keep in its current state. -- Nohat 22:11, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Even with the redirect to Dvorak keyboard, who would be searching for "aoeu"? Redirects are best used for alternate names, and since an article can't be made out of aoeu to begin with. Delete. --Flockmeal 22:21, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • A more important question than "would they be searching for it"? is in my opinion "if someone used it in a search, would Dvorak keyboard likely be the page where they'd find what they were searching for"? Given that that's no clear "yes", I am in favor of deletion. -- Andre Engels 22:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Suppose someone had seen a Dvorak keyboard and wanted information on it. Suppose this person had never learned what it was called. If the keyboard that begins with "qwerty" is called a QWERTY, then it would be likely that the person trying to find the keyboard that begins with "aeou" in Wikipedia would search for AEOU by analogy. As for any other possible uses of AEOU: I can think of the Aeiu in James Thurber's story on the Big O, but nothing with a-e-o-u and no I. Wiwaxia 01:48, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought like you did, until I Googled aeou keyboard. I'm for deleting. -- Cyan 04:48, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Justin Weaver, 6 FT MAN, Vintage Pimp - all currently blank with a message on them saying the subject of the article wishes them deleted. Angela 22:44, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a tough one. The author/filmmaker wishes these deleted. But if George Bush asked us to delete his page I would say no. If Janeane Garafolo said she wanted hers deleted I would say no. So I can't have a different opinion just because this person is less of a public figure. He is still a public figure having published a book, created a movie, and made a web page about those things. The only criteria I can use is, "is he enyclopedia worthy?". I would have to say yes. Ark30inf 22:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) P.S. The page should be reverted to its last good version for the duration of the vote.
I e-mailed Justin Weaver to confirm it really was him who wanted them deleted and he confirmed it was and said that he had written them but now feels it was a "dishonest and ego-serving thing to do" and feels he is not a significant enough figure to warrant three articles. (Makes a nice change from all those who think the opposite). Angela 23:03, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • If the author believes the piece to be "dishonest and ego-serving", then that suggets POV in the content of the articles. Stub or delete, and three cheers for Justin Weaver. If anyone feels that an article is worth writing on him and his work, they're at liberty to do so and I'll change my opinion, but even then the old pages should be regarded as a dangerous source. -- Onebyone 23:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Seeing that he is the source then you are most likely correct and I change my opinion. The articles were interesting though! Ark30inf 23:24, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Alternative comedy. Content is "i have deleted it.very alternative.very british". Previous content not much better. Angela 22:49, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Westbury Peace Garden - no content except picture.—Eloquence 23:09, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Now has text. Still has no Google hits. Angela 01:18, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Um, this is a vanity page from User:Ed Poor, isn't it? (He's the gentleman standing on the right, in the maroon shirt.) I'm failing to see what business it has in an encyclopedia. -- Cyan 01:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Honoria- only content is "American Mail-Artist, wrote a thesis on the subject mail art". I don't see how this person is encyclopedic. Angela 23:21, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

October 1

  • Noogie - The information therein may well belong on wikipedia, but not as its own article. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:25, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd argue for this article had there been any links to it. -- llywrch 04:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't care what happens to the article, but I just added a Wictionary entry, wiktionary:Noogie (mainly just so I could research the etymology), so I don't know if that will influence this discussion. :) -- Paige
    • Delete, especially since it's now in Wictionary. -- BCorr -- Брайен из Детройте 01:00, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Grouch - Sourcetext. I am willing to bet a sizeable amount of cash that this song is not the national anthem of any country. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:25, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless... - If only because the content has to go, and it should not be a redirect to Oscar the Grouch, because he is only one example of that species, but I cannot find enough good Google hits to research the real content. Anyone? Paige 04:40, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete; source-uh-lyrics. -- BCorr -- Брайен из Детройте 01:00, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Example Ratio's - I want to avoid biting the newbie here. This is clearly a good-faith attempt to add to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the improper use of the apostrophe makes this article useless even as a redirect, although the content can be merged into Ratio. -- Cyan 05:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to bite the newbie either but it looks like someone's homework. They've added Rate as well which also has questions in. Secretlondon 07:49, Oct 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • The guy set it up: an 8th grade math project (under Wiki Projects). Probably just does not quite understand the encyclopedia concept. Seems like what he might be wanting to do would be better at Wikibooks? The page with bad apostrophe should just be removed - Marshman 08:36, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • suprastation - this term was introduced to several articles on electrical power system topics and has been removed. The page should be deleted as it is not a term used in electrical engineering and the only Google reference is this article Tiles 07:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Måke-egg - orphan and sub-stub, the article author wasn't even sure if it is a poem or a short story. It isn't even mentioned in the article on its author, so it must be a minor work. andy 15:10, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Vicky LaMotta - "In 1939 she posed for Playboy Magazine aged 19". Playboy didn't even exist until the 1950s! Is this a hoax? Wiwaxia 19:09, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I corrected the facts in the article. She posed in 1981, not 1939, at the age of 51. She was the former wife of boxer Jake LaMotta. Perhaps we need articles about every Playmate, and everybody who ever stripped for Playboy. But whether these facts make her worthy of inclusion is something I have no opinion for. One thing seems certain: a nude celebrity, she will have many Google hits. My recollection also is that her name is Vicki. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. A quick calculation shows that she would have been about 19 in 1959 1949... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 19:58, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Intarchz, T. - should be moved to 9-11 wiki, is orphaned here. andy 19:24, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Buck naked with chicks - orphan; says it's a "satirical cartoon" but the external link goes to a commercial site showing it is a single one-panel cartoon for sale, of which the title is the punch-line. -- Infrogmation 23:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 2

  • Image:Adrenalina.jpg needs deletion ... poor img [though I uploaded it again, tryin to mess with it (missed the comment)] ... Kpjas asked for the deletion ... superior graphic is being used in the article it was for. reddi
  • Entity - dictionary definition Tuf-Kat 05:44, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Entity is a term in VHDL -- if nothing else, you can use that.
  • University of Lennington It looks plausible, and I may be wrong, but I think this is a made up institution. Google draws a big blank, which is unlikely for 'the oldest university in the country'. DJ Clayworth 18:13, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Couldn't find either. What country is that supposed to be anyway? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен из Детройте 18:32, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems to be Canadian, but I couldn't find any hits either -- for "Lennington" or "Lenington". None of the Google hits for "ulenn" is talking about a university, either. "Thorncliffe College" doesn't appear anywhere on Google, either. I think we may have someone of a similar mindset to that fellow who created pages for such animals as the purple-spleened maple mole or whatever. Wiwaxia 22:34, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Anything opening in 1826 is not likely to be the oldest anything. Great, but utter, BS - Marshman 23:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Del such a nonsense, and watch out for the edits made by that anon. --Menchi 03:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 3

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1519152"