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 15:39, 18 November 2003 (Sensor Networks kept because 66% want it kept, though I don't see why). 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

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- Wikipedia:Cleanup



November 12

November 13

  • Petting a dictionary definition WP:WINAD. Maximus Rex 05:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as dictionary definition. I will caution that according to Wikipedia precedent, any sexual slang term can be turned into a full-featured article about a small, but somehow significant, community of people who write, discuss, and engage in said behavior as a major part of their lives. It's only a matter of time before this article is linked to furry. Daniel Quinlan 07:44, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Come on, Daniel Quinlan! This is an extremely common, if not pervasive, term and practice, clearly of enough significance (if expanded), to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete - I've added it to Sexual slang Andy Mabbett 09:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Give it some time at Cleanup. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. slang is 2nd meaning (but valid; needs expansion). Animal-human relationship primary (but needs expansion). reddi
    • Keep, though I won't be expanding this rather stubby article. JamesDay 21:31, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, as disamb for Petting (animal) & Petting (sexuality). The animal part was recently moved, inappropriately, to become a dict def in Domestication where (as with, e.g., Dog) there should be instead a link to Petting (animal) that can e.g. discuss developmental effects of petting on animals normally and prematurely separated from mother, destructiveness of petting wild ungulates, and danger of petting wild carnivores. The sexuality part is valuable, and not properly redirected to Foreplay, which has, excuse me, a whole different thrust; it can e.g. link to Blue balls (and, IIRC, Testicular congestion; we can argue abt which is the redirect to the other) and Slippery slope and maybe Saving oneself. --Jerzy 18:58, 2003 Nov 14 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's great. Mommy, I found a page for the petting zoo... Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Pakistani literature - just a list of books about Pakistani literature. -- JeLuF 06:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to cleanup for a month. As the anon creator noted today, one day after creation, this is just the start of the article. A day isn't long enough to see whether a new article is going to be developed further or not. JamesDay 21:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and move to cleanup. Interesting, non fantastic, subject. -- Finlay McWalter 00:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Michael Carroll redirect to main 9/11 article. --Jiang
    • Whoever made it probably knew him. They should make it a short biography.
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Tamil Literature
    • Not quite sure what to do with this one. WikiMuseum? It was created in March 2001 as a list of external links. Jimbo cleaned it up and wrote a comment about how "we prefer to have content _in_ the encyclopedia". It's only been edited twice since then. -- Tim Starling 06:46, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. Its quite a vast and important subject, will try and write a (very)short article within a couple of days. KRS 04:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Been on clean-up a long time with no result. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • A few selected articles created and edited mostly by User:Khranus, now banned for various problems. I don't trust a word of these articles or whether they should even exist. Daniel Quinlan 10:30, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Alex Grey
      • Alex Grey looks ok to me. Keep. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep, quite well known artist.JamesDay 16:53, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Bohemian Grove
      • Bohemian Grove is a valid subject, but one that easily will be handled wrong by a conspirologist like Khranus. Nothing lost in deleting. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Should be kept and would bear being expanded. Bmills 17:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I feel no confidence from the text or the link provided that this is anything more than a movie script description. Delete - Marshman 17:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. Seems accurate and Google finds more references than the pair I added to the article JamesDay 22:30, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • 8-Circuit Consciousness
      • 8-Circuit Consciousness gives little information, but what is there seems right, though too little to be useful. Seems rather idiosyncratic, though, so I'd say, merge it into the Timothy Leary article and redirect. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Certainly needs a lot more text to be of value. And some citation giving asssurance Leary had anything to do weith this (and was conscious at the time) - Marshman 17:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I think it may be usefully folded into Timothy Leary. It exists, but I would not vouchsafe his state of consciousness (altered or otherwise) while he scribbled it. But he did originate the schema. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 10:55, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Black Lodge
      • Black Lodge is much used on the web, but not (AFAICS) in this meaning. Delete. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Credo Mutwa
      • Delete. A quick google search makes me believe this person is well worth a Wikipedia article, but the current one definitely is not it. Credo Mutwa is in the first place a practicer and proponent of shamanic medicine, not a historian or mythologist. Andre Engels 10:18, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Nommo -- complete garbage, as far as I can make out... needs a rewrite from scratch, at the least -- The Anome 17:26, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Huh? What the hell is wrong with this paragraph? How is it any different from writing "Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology whose eyes were torn up and then put back together again" or "Yama is some green guy in the Hindu religion who became the first human to die and therefore was made into a god with four arms" or "Zeus is the bearded king of the Gods in Greek mythology who lives on Mt. Olympus and shoots lightning bolts and anyone who disobeys him"? I don't get it. Wiwaxia
    • Delete. These facts are so far out there along with the web sites that talk about this, that I regard this stuff as unverifiable without a trip to the library. Delete until someone tackles with verififiable information. Daniel Quinlan 20:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, done a rewrite - hope it's a bit better now. Dysprosia 07:53, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Unverifiable without a trip to the library"? Wikipedia wouldn't be useful if it didn't contain information that was tricky to verify. Onebyone 11:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Maybe we could all do with the odd trip to a library? Bmills 11:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. No problem confirming this via Google. JamesDay 15:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is common knowledge among anthropologists that Dogons have a divinity called Nommo and all sorts of strange stuff. At18 20:24, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Post-colonialism in literature, list of literature. -- JeLuF 20:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep this day old start of an article. Would be nice for it to sit in cleanup for a month so we know whether it will or won't be anything useful. JamesDay 22:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Give it a chance. DJ Clayworth 23:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Defer, agree -- give it time to grow. Fuzheado 05:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and move to cleanup. As with Pakistani literature (VfD above) it's potentially an interesting subject by a new user, so we need to give it a chance to bloom. Better this than tree people. -- Finlay McWalter 00:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Put on cleanup so it can be ignored with the rest. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • The Avengers United: This page is little more than a duplicate of the content at The Avengers (comic), most content having been copied from the latter page in the 06:10, 14 Sep 2003 revision by an unregistered user. There was a short-lived comic book The Avengers: United We Stand - based on the Avengers cartoon series - but renaming this page to cover that series doesn't seem useful. I suspect this page was created in error. There isn't any significant content in the "United" page which doesn't already exist in the (comic) page, so I think it can be safely deleted. -mhr 21:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • mv non-dup info to main article and make redirect; otherwise delete. reddi
  • all of the pages listed at User:Cyan/chain, and any others in the sequence that I missed. -- Cyan 22:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge history with User talk:BuddhaInside as explained on that page. Angela 22:47, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to be a total bother here, but I have to oppose deletion. Part of what made this user so annoying was his creation of these 'Deletexxxx' pages. Seeing these pages in the way he had them shows their stupidity, as well as showing the precedent for why he moved the Main Page to the place he did. -- Mattworld 22:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • But that can be explained without needing to keep the pages. Angela 22:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I know, I just feel that showing rather than telling is better. -- Mattworld 23:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 14

  • List of Refernce Tables just noticed this as having an edit but its an unneeded redirect? Archivist 01:12, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think Wikipedia contains various spellings. See Queer as Folk (US) vs Queer As Folk (US). --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • your example could be dealt with by the software whereas plain bad speeling does not need to be kept :) Archivist 02:56, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • It is generally Wikipedia policy to keep all redirects. If someone has linked to them once, someone might link to it again. Deleting things like this also seems quite silly as over at User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects a bunch of us a busily making hundreds of redirects just like this one. - SimonP 03:05, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • If nothing links to this, I'm okay with deleting it. Daniel Quinlan 03:18, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it, even the redirect. I don't subscribe to the "keep all redirects" theory. We shuld nut prolifterate bad speeling. Fuzheado
    • Delete, agreed. Only common misspellings should be kept, imo. --Minesweeper 05:53, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree. Only common mispellings. Otherwise we need redirects for Lst of Reference Tables, List of Reference Tbles, List of Reference Tabls, and numerous other permutations. That kind of clutter cannot have bvalue here - Marshman 03:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep redirect unless it's doing any harm. Martin 19:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The harm is that an edit to the page shows up as an edit to the redirect in recent changes (and it trains bad typists!) Archivist 01:08, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
        • Really? If so, that's a software bug - take a screenshot and report it to wikipedia:bug reports. Certainly, I've never seen that behaviour. Martin 01:51, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • I could be wrong, but I tried it and took this screenshot: [1], and nothing out of the ordinary happened. Again, I could be wrong. -- Mattworld 17:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Refrain Reads like a dictionary entry, perhaps move to Wiktionary? SableSynthesis 06:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Move and delete. Daniel Quinlan 09:03, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. -- Mattworld 23:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I have expanded the article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:10, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • And it is now well worth keeping. Bmills 17:13, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I retract my orginal vote, the article is very good now. Thank you Smerdis SableSynthesis 20:25, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Student Clubs - Unencyclopedic, improperly titled. --Minesweeper 09:14, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Yes, I really typed that.:)JamesDay 15:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Andy Mabbett 23:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It should be moved.
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Terrorist organisations in Asia - This page is just as ill-advised as List of terrorist groups, but is even less useful in that it's descriptive rather than merely listing the groups. Explanatory text is unnecessary; these groups have their own articles, and there's no reason why one should read choppy blurbs about them here. Furthermore it's unclear to me WHY we should group these organizations by landmass. They're only marginally connected, often, and List of terrorist groups does a much better job of listing organizations by relevant associations. Graft 19:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Cock - Until we someone wanting to write about the signifcance of male chickens, this is just immature. - user:zanimum
    • Maybe Wiktionary would be a better home? -- Pakaran 21:19, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are more uses just need editing. Archivist 21:36, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reasonable, if incomplete, disambiguation. Andy Mabbett 23:26, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - disambiguation is a good solution. Some day we will have an article on cockerel. Martin 00:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Slang terms go to Wiktionary or an article about slang, or both. - Arthur George Carrick 01:31, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, what else can we write about? Water pipes? Cocked dice? Weathervanes? They're gotta be something we can do with that word. Wiwaxia 02:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I thought I was being good I left out stop cock ! :) Archivist 03:05, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary, please. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The edits have wikified it completely. - Arthur George Carrick 03:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, " JamesDay 19:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Illuminati Order Illuminati Order of the United States (relisted with new location 21:28, 14 Nov 2003)
    • Delete - not encyclopedic as it stands. --Minesweeper 09:12, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Appears to be a very minor internet-only organization dedicated to promoting some sort of vague philosophy and associated mp3.com band, as far as I can tell. --Delirium 11:59, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE. Totally POV! Besides, we already have an entry on Illuminati. —Frecklefoot 15:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Previously listed as a copyvio from [2] but the talk page claims the submitter of this article also owns that. Angela 22:07, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bizarre. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • This article is about the Illuminati Order, and not specifically about the definition of an Illuminati. All information is verifiable. How can this entry be brought up to Wikipedia standard? 01:42, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It should be written like something you'd find in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It should be in third person form and shouldn't read like an advertisement. It should be written under the assumption that the reader knows almost nothing about the article topic. See also: Wikipedia:News style. --Minesweeper 10:08, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • mv any applicable content to applicable Illuminati order article; make a redirect; otherwise delete. reddi
    • Keep. Edit as necessary to conform to Wikipedia's editorial standards. -- NetEsq 19:52, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 15

  • Yugu is a set of 3 articles which themselves only redirect (incorrectly) to yet another page. -- Pakaran 04:22, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like it's been fixed... -- Pakaran 04:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It looks like 61.186.115.162 has been creating a lot of pages which all redirect to the same nonexistent article. I don't have a boilerplate on hand to talk with this user, or I would... articles probably need deleting for fixup? -- Pakaran 04:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Perle - is currently about Peruru. Am I missing something? Shouldn't the article be called Peruru? Kingturtle 05:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • From 'what links here' I was able to determine it is a character from Sailor Moon, "Perle (a.k.a. "Peruru") ? the good fairy from the SuperS movie". Merge into the main article if content is made coherent. Delete otherwise. Maximus Rex 06:40, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There are other pages for fictional characters, so I say keep, but move to cleanup. This one might get touchie, as the common name for this charactor is probibly Perle in English, but many die hard anime fans insist on only using the Japanese names for characters. Gentgeen 12:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Just how important a character is this? I mean, a separate page for Lady Macbeth is one thing, a separate page for Banquo is another thing, a separate page for the walk-on character Caithness is quite another. Unless Perle is an integral character to anime, merge and delete it. orthogonal 15:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Sailor Moon. Martin 20:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I created some disambiguous links. Kingturtle 21:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Favorite Ice Cream Flavor Another bogus page that was suggested in order to feed Calmypal, and he gladly accepted. Delete or move to meta, but get rid of it. Kosebamse 06:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I linked to the article originally as a poster child of the kind of list of users that belongs on meta, not wikipedia namespace. Of course, Calmypal had to create it in the wikipedia namespace (though to be fair, I'm one of several users, including 2 admins, who listed ourselves under the article). Given that it was created to illustrate that some kinds of lists belong on meta, move it there. The problem with these kinds of lists is that everyone wants on the bandwagon, and that takes energy away from working on the 'pedia. Move to meta.-- Pakaran 06:54, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an interesting list, but as Pakaran said, it belongs on meta. Move to meta. -- Mattworld 17:42, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Whatever is going on here: You may be able to delete this list but not my predilection for vanilla. --KF 01:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is a brilliant page. Don't delete... but do move to meta! Stewartadcock 01:40, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Calmypal has now linked this page to things like vanilla sex. I'm debating whether to mention my concerns about this on his talk page... -- Pakaran 04:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Please do. Calmypal is rapidly becoming a problem user. RickK 06:05, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Actually, the vanilla sex links were mine. Martin 14:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Democratic_Evolution - orphan. dull. self-promotional vanity page.
    • Idiosyncratic. Delete. Andre Engels 15:07, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even sure he has his terms right. Seems more like a description of a republic than a democracy - Marshman 04:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Polyconomics - advertisement -- JeLuF 14:59, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as fast as possible advert Archivist 15:02, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Clear advert; nothing left when removing POV. Delete. Andre Engels 15:07, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Reverting (not just withdrawing) my vote. Has been improved enough to keep now. Andre Engels 00:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Advert. Delete. orthogonal 15:45, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. All POV has been removed. What's left is a valid stub. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - It is just one of thousands of wealth management firms. The fact that they are guided by supply side principles is interesting, but no reason to treat it any differently. mydogategodshat 03:59, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Advertisement. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Dolphin brain -- unverfied speculation, pseudo-scientific nonsense. An embarassment to Wikipedia. orthogonal 15:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Speaking as a non-expert on neurophysiology, it seems to me totally legitimate, mostly composed of neuroanatomy facts and maybe a little speculation at the end. History shows some edit wars that have since settled on an evidently acceptable form. And as a wannabe scientist, it doesn't seem in the least "pseudo-scientific nonsense". At18 19:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can you show me in what scientifically reputable publication there is evidence for
      • Dolphin brains appear to be composed of two similar sub-brains, each of which has two hemispheres, so dolphins might be said to have 4-lobed brains....each of the two dolphin sub-brains has an independent blood supply. orthogonal 22:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmm.. it appears that I was too quick. A Google search turned out many peculiar sites but nothing legit. I retire my vote. At18 23:00, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Dolphin brain" is a legitimate topic for an article. Correct any factual errors, but don't delete. The article already contains a notice that the factual accuracy is dispute. -- Miguel
    • Seems like we have to keep the article. Probably just needs work to remove any non-factual material - Marshman 04:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It has a LOT of Khranal influence, though. I'll try and work on it tonight... the problem is knowing what is and isn't true... -- Pakaran 04:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable to keep, but I suggest we cut out anything suspect and let the article build up again. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ile2 - on a finnish usenet troll. Secretlondon 16:09, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove. This is personal info, which is in no way related to the purpose of Wikipedia.
    • Remove, borders on abuse. Morwen 22:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 04:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Protologism - to quote "a newly created word which has not yet gained any wide acceptance". Morwen 16:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • just an old fashione delete req Archivist 16:51, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. See [3] for the possible reason why it is here. JamesDay 19:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - doesn't appear to be a real word (if it was, would redirect to sniglet or somesuch. Martin 20:40, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Someones website, nothing more - Marshman 04:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • [[4]] - an advert Morwen 16:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Alexa ranking is 60,647. Angela 16:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advert Archivist 16:49, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK 19:15, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del, advertising. (I can't help but noticing though that Angela justifies deletion by the site's low Alexa ranking, although she voted against deletion of EncycloZine, which has an even lower ranking. Well, maybe that was just supposed to be additional information here, not a justification in itself.) --Wik 20:23, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real content, no reason why it might be notable. Martin 20:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Automatic mathematics - this article was blanked. I reverted it. Its merits should be discussed here. Kingturtle 22:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no such thing. Morwen 22:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pure fiction - Marshman 04:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Regardless of what Marshman says, there is such a thing. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:51, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Boyerism. --Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • Would you stop using the term "Boyerism," Wik? I have already established that,
        • the term has a meaning, actually more than one meaning, having nothing to do with me, for which I provided references
        • the term was used with reference to me about ten years before you claim to have "coined" it
        • the term is vague and you use it inaccurately.
      • Moreover, by your definition Automatic mathematics can have nothing to do with Boyerism ("someone's personal term for an art technique which is being promoted by Daniel C. Boyer, although apparently no one else uses it" as automatic mathematics is pretty clearly not an art technique. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, idiosyncratic/made-up. Maximus Rex 18:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Doesn't exist--Robert Merkel 22:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I've rewritten it in a way that I hope makes it clear that "automatic mathematics" is not mathematics. Michael Hardy 23:49, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Marcus McCallion, and Reflexive typography. Probably an autobiography (the person described lives in Brighton and that IP is in brighton and has edited Brighton) of someone who is non-famous. The latter is a movement they seem to have created. I've not listed several other articles because they seem to be of genuine interest. Morwen 23:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree that the entries are probably not up to the usual standards, but I really want to avoid biting this new user. Let us be gentle. -- Cyan 00:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hi - I am the user who added the new entries. Yes I am from Brighton and am documenting things that I find interesting in Brighton (and around) but I suppose that maybe McCallion isn't important enough to have an entry. Sorry if it seems trivial to you but just really like using this system and adding stuff. Will stick to the bigger fish if that's what you prefer.. ;-) -- FT 02:24, 16 Nov 2003 (GMT)
    • Seems like there should at least be an explanation of significance. As these articles stand now, they seem like ramblings. If this is just POV, then that generally would not be acceptable here. The impression I get is: you became graphic artists; the only work available is in advertising; life should offer more. Get real. Everyone in every profession has to decide: should I do work that is worth paying me for or should I just have fun and do what I like. The choice is yours, but don't make it sound like society is to blame - Marshman 04:18, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep reflexive typography. The two should be seperated as one is obviously autobiographical and the other is descriptive of a graphic design form. FT
    • Delete both. Marcus McCallion is non-famous. Reflexive typography is idiosyncratic (1 Google hit). Angela 15:03, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • First things first 1964 Manifesto consists only of the text of the manifesto. -- Khym Chanur 02:36, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, source text. -- Mattworld 03:26, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Part of the same entries as above. Just straight POV. - Marshman 04:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • You are a bit quick to be so judgemental. Can you not give me time to add the explanatory text. This manifesto has been very influencial in graphic design and the repecussions are still being felt. It takes a while to get this down... You might think it just a point of view but unless you are in G.D I doubt you would have heard of it - I thought that that was the point of an encycleapedia to be explanatory!!?! - FT 18:31, 16 Nov 2003 (GMT)
    • It looks like this one should be kept, although obviously the source text should not be there. I guess it's just being seen by others as guilty-by-associatoin. Morwen 18:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Give FT time to shace it up. orthogonal 19:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 16

  • KiAi - this is a dictionary definition. Kingturtle 04:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • - Move to Wiktionary - Marshman 04:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • mv to appropriate martial arts article; Copy to Wiktionary; then delete JDR
    • With some fleshing out, this could make a good article. Do most martial artists in fact say kiai? Why that particular yell? How does yelling help them "focus?" Some references to kiai in motion pictures, cartoons? (Why the odd capitalization in the title? Is this an old CamelCase article?) -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If the content is moved to another article, keep as redirect to that article to preserve the history. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • My instructor always used "Kai" in writing... is there one correct transliteration? -- Pakaran 01:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Arnold.jpg (warning: nudity). I don't think this is very appropriate (dare I say unencylopedic?). It's also probably copyvio, but even if it's not it doesn't belong. -- VV 05:45, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't see how we could use it even if it wasn't a copyvio. --mav 10:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Shocking... but probably unneccessary as well. Delete.Kosebamse 11:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • not PD; delete JDR
    • Pretty stupid uploading an image that can not (and anyone with an understanding of Wikipedia should know) be used in an article. The point is...? Delete - Marshman 23:36, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Will never be used. Delete. - Arthur George Carrick
  • Internet child pornography
    • An article with a troubled history, this has previously been listed on Vfd for seven days with no consensus to delete, but the fact that it had been outside the article space during the discussion period may well have prevented people from realising that its status as an article was being seriously debated. Now that I've moved it back into the article space, perhaps we should start all over again. (Please could people not, in future, move articles out of the article space before their status has been decided. It does nothing but cause confusion. Thanks.) -- Oliver P. 08:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Get rid of it. It reads like a 'how-to' to an audience of pedophiles. --mav 10:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but remove "how to " material (including removal from history). Andy Mabbett 11:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The question of "delete versus disinfect" has been extensively debated before, but attempts at removing the "how-to" character of the whole thing have not gone very far. It it is not radically rewritten it can not stay. Kosebamse 11:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If the comments and questions in bold inside the articles were followed, it wouldn't be a bad article. At18 12:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I would propose keeping this article. It still needs editing, but there's much valid content here, and we don't delete articles just because they need work. Martin 13:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have a whole page of How-tos. If we have them in principle, we might as well have this; making an exception on the basis of the subject would be POV. --Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • copyedit and keep; otherwise delete JDR
    • It needs editing to make it no longer a "how-to", as do all the other "how-to" articles. (No exceptions!) But that means it is a page needing attention, not deletion. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move any salvageable content to child pornography, and redirect from this article to there - may be a way to remove the how-to nature. A problem with this article is that few people seem to want to edit it as they don't want their name associated with the topic.
    • Remove the how-to stuff: currently reads like a POV article encouraging illegal activities. Bmills 10:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Could use some editing, especially along the lines others above have suggested; but appears to be a serious attempt to prodiuce an article on a real subject, so keep - Marshman 23:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It is a serious subject so we need an article on the subject, but the 'how to' stuff needs to be deleted permanently, it gives me the creeps. This is not a subject matter we need maintain NPOV upon.
      • Yes it is. Anyone can be neutral on the easy stuff. The test of our neutrality is in using a neutral point of view even where it is difficult. Martin 23:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • First things first 2000 Manifesto - contains mostly primary text --Minesweeper 13:18, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • I jumped on this too (in Talk), but the poster is new, let's give him a bit of time to make it an article before jumping in with both feet, maybe? orthogonal 13:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looking at the edit history of this IP, there's lots of interesting material. Some newbie issues but this looks as though it'll be fine after the lerning hurdles have been dealt with. JamesDay 14:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Still looks like this is going nowhere, but if FT can actually make something of this, then hold off deleting. I see nothing new in the "Manifesto" other than the age old premise that artists should either do something (in their mind) relevant and starve, or do what society is willing to pay them for. Although couched here as an "ethical" dilema, it is actually just a political one. I too hate cigarettes, but they are legal. It is therefore a political decision not to do cigarette ads, not an ethical one - Marshman 17:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Marshman you do not have a clue what you are talking about. What exactly is the difference between the ethical and the political? You read texts like you have a privileged position on the world and can see an 'objective' stance. Your argument pretends that it is that of 'reason' and 'common-sense' but in reality it conceals a political stance of the methodological individualist - right-wing and capitalist. So if you have a political position then why cannot others? What gives you the right to declare Truth with a capital T? I vote to keep it and have some balance against this pseudo objective stance which conceals a conservative, individualist and highly political agenda.
  • The following are talk pages archiving discussions of the AKFD article: Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/redirect, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/existence, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge. Also related, but discussing seperate content, is Talk:Anti-gay slogan.
    • Delete (see below) -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A long-running discussion that is important as a precedent and as an example of the issues involved. Since this whole dreary debate keeps recurring, it is important to keep a record of what we decided. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree the discussion should be kept. One solution might be to change the titles of the talk pages to remove the actual slogan from them, such as Talk:Slogan AKFD/title rather than Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title. That does cause problems with broken links though. Angela
      • That would do much to solve the problem. One page stuck in meta on "Offensive slogans" could replace the vast network of pages and talk pages and subpages that we've built up by constantly fragmenting the discussion. -- Someone else 19:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela's solution would be fine by me, provided someone was willing to get fix all the links. However, merging all the pages together (on meta or elsewhere) would be a mistake - the discussion is fragmented because it is discussing seperate things. Martin 19:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To remove the slogan from the titles would obscure what the discussion is actually about. Why anyone should consider this a good thing is beyond me. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It would be good because it would produce a better encyclopedia. It's not all about process, some consideration should be given to the result. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's only removing the title from the talk pages, not the article itself. The point is to have fewer pages with this in the title to prevent it showing up so many times in the search. There is no reason at all that it should obscure what the discussion is about. If necessary, a line could be added to each to talk page stating the page is discussing the article with the title "Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" if it isn't already clear. Angela 02:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Memorializing the talk page is fine. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
    • Delete. Such of it as is informative, should reside at homophobic hate speech. Also, see below. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • what do you want to do with the article information itself? Delete it, or factor it into another article? orthogonal 17:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. If you want to merge and redirect it, you don't need VfD for that, though please read past discussion at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge before doing anything drastic. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You certainly need VfD if you want to delete the redirect, don't you? 10 pages with AKFD in their titles pointing somewhere is still gonna rack up the google hits. -- Someone else 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Sure, but first see if you can get agreement for merging the content, at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge, then merge the content, and then see about deleting the resultant redirect, if you still feel that's necessary. IMO. Martin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Is this junk still on? This POV rubbish has had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. Please delete it and all its unnecessary redirect pages. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Martin. Discussing whether or not the article should be deleted as a redirect is academic, because it isn't a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Discussing why we need (exact count hard to determine...15?) pages of discussion seems not so academic.--Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~
    • Delete. I don't think it is encyclopedic. The term is not all that common and it originated here as trolling, article has taken on a life of its own, deleting it will improve Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. JDR
    • My vote for article is to delete. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • General comments on AKFD articles above:
    • Searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" on the web now gets wikipedia-derived hits in 8 of the first 11 spots. We're not simply reporting anymore: we're actively promoting this lovely sentiment. Time to shove this toothpaste back into the tube. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Promoting the sentiment? Does having an article on Nazism promote Nazism? Having lots of hits for Wikipedia articles does promote Wikipedia, I suppose, but I think that's a good thing. :) -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Having redirects from every marginal variation does suggest that we want to call special attention to it, yes. An encyclopedia with more entries in its index pointing to AKFD than it does to, oh, say, Nazi, does suggest that the encyclopedia is especially fond of the former, and has little rational planning or forethought about emphasizing important rather than unimportant concepts. The fact that you have to scroll down the bage to get to non-Wikipedia-related hits also suggests we might be inflating the importance of this particular phrase. And not all publicity is good publicity. -- Someone else 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • And that's exactly what we deserve. If we had left that informative and harmless article alone after it had been written and posted by, I think, Axel Boldt, there wouldn't be anything to complain about now. (Due to all those redirects it's now also difficult to find the original text.) Reading the above comments shows me that right now people aren't even sure what they want deleted -- the article itself or just the numerous redirects. Two more things (again): (1) Writing about a particular subject does not imply advocating it, just as it does not imply opposing it. Please see the use-mention distinction. (2) Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached and the matter is dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Wikipedia? (I can hear voices telling me this doesn't belong here, so I may post my second question again at a more appropriate place.) --KF 09:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To respond to Someone Else's comment about google hits, I think on balance I'm not too depressed if it takes longer for some Nazi punk to find a hate site because they keep getting hits from a respectable encyclopedia with a policy of writing from a neutral point of view. In any case, most of the Wikipedia-related hits are not being listed for deletion, being mailing list posts, user talk pages, meta pages, and other encyclopedic articles like Fred Phelps, Raid bug spray, Matthew Shepard, etc. Martin 19:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. As SomeoneElse said, once we start "making the news" and bring up the majority of mentions/hits of the term, we are the ones determining the general popularity of the phrase. This is problematic. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Boyerism. Unnecessary redirect. (now the article has moved to Patrick Boyer). Angela 19:25, 16 Nov 2003 (23:05, 16 Nov 2003)
    • Delete, dictionary definition anyway. Morwen 19:28, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I am fleshing out. Already listed on Cleanup. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - only nine google hits, #1 of which is us. Thanks for listing, though. Martin 19:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Google's #1 vote is "Delete"... [[5]] Other sites seem to give a different definition... Κσυπ Cyp 21:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Since the article was mostly about Patrick Boyer, I have moved it to Patrick Boyer in the hope that it will turn into a nice biographical article. Boyerism is now a redirect with no history. I don't see any harm in keeping it as a redirect to Patrick Boyer. -- Oliver P. 23:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • See below. Andy Mabbett 07:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Term is not used in this context. POV title of redirect also. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
      • No, no... Below is for discussion of the article. This is for discussion of the redirect. Actually, no-one seems to want the article deleted, so I'll remove the entry. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Um, I was talking about the redirect, it is both used in the wrong context and POV. Note that I voted to keep the article. Daniel Quinlan 09:14, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
          • Oops, I put that in the wrong place. It was meant as a reply to Andy Mabbett, who just said "See below", presumably referring to the discussion of the article. -- Oliver P. 09:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The article now contains no mention of the word Boyerism so such a redirect would be confusing nd should, therefore, be deleted. Angela 08:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • As one of the resident Canadian politics dudes, and the guy who removed the Boyerism reference from the redirected Patrick Boyer article, my reasoning was as follows: Patrick Boyer is a real figure in Canadian politics, and is worth keeping. As for "Boyerism", from the context I have it would appear that Daniel C. Boyer latched onto a single, isolated coinage of the word in reference to Patrick Boyer to buttress his side of the "Boyerism" debate. Trust me, I know my Canadian politics -- the word is close to meaningless in that context. There is no such phenomenon large enough to be worth an encyclopedia entry. Bearcat 08:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Okay, okay... Kill the redirect! -- Oliver P. 09:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 17

  • Ben & Mo's. Deletion notice was added on 12 November but it wasn't listed here. Angela
    • "Somewhat shizophrenic dining establishment?" What's that supposed to mean? - Arthur George Carrick
      • It means that the author doesn't know very much about shizophrenia :-( Delete. Andy Mabbett 10:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 18

  • Fukue,Keita - the story does not check out. seems like agrandized self-promotion. I say delete. (Also, the article name probably has to be fixed) Kingturtle 02:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think it does check out (much to my shock). I found a Japanese site for a book about the album and the contest he supposedly won here. It does seem a bit premature to have an article on the musician and the article needs a lot of work, but I don't think it should be deleted. -- Tlotoxl 03:02, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sydney Boys and Sydney Boys High School. I don't care where the school is, we don't need an article on every school in the world. RickK 02:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a valid article. Keep. Vancouverguy 02:48, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No, it's not a valid article. We have already deleted other high schools that don't belong here, why does this one deserve to stay? RickK 03:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I merged across the reasons from the other article (Sydney Boys). It is a bit significant, but anyway... Dysprosia 05:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Native American Indian Fighting Styles - too broad a topic. too vague an explanation. an orphan to boot. please consider for deletion. Kingturtle 04:38, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too general, with no specifics. Too many upper case characters in the title, anyway. RickK 05:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep ... I'll copy edit it ... JDR
  • AcuMox Perhaps acceptable after name change but (1) probably intended as an ad for a book of that name (2) altho the practice is well established the term may be made up by fronts for the book. 3050 Google hits, of which nearly all are "entries very similar to the 64 already displayed"; the ones using the embedded capital are, i think, all associated with the price of the book. Continuing to edit it, so consider looking at original via "Page history". --Jerzy 15:36, 2003 Nov 18 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1764412"