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 Kingturtle (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 23 November 2003 (re: Adorunta). 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 -- lists and categories -- redirects

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 16

November 17

  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 21, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 22, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 23, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 25, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 26, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 28, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/September 3, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/September 6 - I wasn't here when these subpages were made, so I don't know what discussion went into creating and then later abandoning these pages. Some subpages (which I have NOT listed) were declared resolved and redirected to this main VfD page. These ones still have some listings. Are they resolved or what? These pages should be blanked/redirected/deleted if all their listings have been resolved so that these listings aren't left outstanding. --Minesweeper 10:56, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... interesting question. I'm fine with just nuking them. I don't think there's any point to relisting entries or temporarily storing the information here to preserve history, whatever. Just deleting is fine with me. Daniel Quinlan 10:59, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. They now redirect here, and the page history of the previous discussions may be useful in future. Angela
    • The difference between redirecting back and not is simply in who processed them - I redirected on finishing, others blanked, others deleted. Sometimes I do look through past VfD listings (esp when someone relists a page previously listed here), so I'd vaguelly prefer to keep. Martin 18:26, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move discussion of kept/redirected articles to their subpages, then delete all. There's no need to keep these pages as redirects. --Jiang
      • Gah! Well, if you want to do all that moving! (yikes!) Martin 23:44, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't see the need to clutter up talk pages with stuff that, in most cases, is no longer relevant, so keep as redirects just in the case the page history is ever needed, but don't move the old content anywhere. Angela 14:41, 22 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)
    • Well, it actually turns out that Adorunta, the band that Fukue Keita is supposedly the lead singer and guitarist for, is a one-man-band lead by a 53 year old guy from Hiroshima who calls himself Adorunta. I rewrote the page, removing almost everything, and moved it to Adorunta. -- Tlotoxl 19:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Nice work. But the new article is an orphan. Can you fix that too? Kingturtle 00:38, 23 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)
    • Not any more significant than any other school in Sydney. I'm uncertain why, with such a strong web site, someone would want to add all this stuff to a Wikipedia article (interesting grading curve, by the way). Should be severely cut back, then merged into Sidney or Schools in Sydney where every school can place a blurb - Marshman 23:21, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 03:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. According to the article, "[t]he school was founded in 1883, making it the oldest state school in Sydney." Does that make it more worth keeping? I mean, I'd say Boston Latin has a place in Wikipedia. orthogonal 06:30, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are many articles on secondary schools already in Wikipedia. SBHS is just a significant as them. The article as it stands could do with some work but it should be delted outright. Sydney Boys High is significant enough to warrant its own article. -- Popsracer 22:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Please list thos other school articles so they, too, can be deleted. RickK 05:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I see no reason why well-formed articles including differentiating aspects of specific secondary schools should not stay.
      • Anonymous posters' votes don't get counted. RickK 05:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I would say keep. There is no actual reason to delete this article, other than the fact that it is perhaps not particularly relevant, as many of you have said. SBHS is a significant school - in fact, probably the most significant school in Sydney, which is a significant city in the world, etc. But that's not the reason behind letting this article stay. As long as it conveys information, it should stay. Even though it probably only appeals to a few people, it should stay. And, on the other hand, it contains important information about the school. Marshman, you said that because the school has a strong website it should be deleted. If we were to respect that reasoning for other articles, then we would get to a stage where all entries on companies, institutions and organisations would have to be deleted. Wikipedia is an encylopedia with a difference - it's range of topics should be much wider than, say, Britannica. And finally, articles should only be deleted if they are: a) harmful, derogatory, blank, b) totally irrelevant, as in an article on Bob's Cornershop, 72 Sandringham St, London, or c) biased. SBHS is neither of these - as long as it conveys information it should definitely stay. -- Rronline, 22 Nov 2003
    • Keep unless it is decided at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools to delete all schools. Angela 18:10, 22 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
    • Move and delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Check the original contribution.... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:26, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd seriously question the accuracy of the opening paragraph. But it seems a valid enough topic, with some good info in the body. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Bugging devices in EU headquarters a news story that somehow became an article, can't stand alone as an article. It has already been listed on cleanup for 9 days. Maximus Rex 07:34, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 10:24, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This was Iraq-related - could it be redirected and merged with an appropriate Iraq war article? Martin 23:04, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • How was this Iraq-related? There is no mention of Iraq in the article.Maximus Rex 15:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Answer in the external links. Martin 23:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and work on - an ex-GCHQ worker has now been charged with leaking stuff related to US bugging of UN delegations. Secretlondon 10:06, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you could explain what the above has to do with the article? I believe the EU is different from the UN. Maximus Rex 15:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though at some point it may merit being placed within some coverage of diplomatic bugging. I'll leave that timing to those working on this and related topics... Jamesday 16:07, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • AcuMox & acumox - Perhaps acceptable after name change from AcuMox to acumox 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)
  • Chip Row. Now has no content or page history, as per guideline 10 of the DGfA. Angela 16:10, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (and thanks for listing the first one) Martin 23:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

November 19

  • Cassi Holder, Christopher Cochran, Scott Simpson, Don Gibbs, Calvin Nokes, Charlotte Hendrix, and Don Mullins are all members of the deleted "Far From Kansas" improv (now defunct [1]) that was part of the many vanity pages about (and written by) Easter Bradford/User:Easterbradford. Maximus Rex 01:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually, each of these is not a vanity page (I guess because they were put in by a friend or coworker). I'd tend to want to keep them, but lose the link to the stage show. Altogether, it is a clear advertisement, but separately, hard to justify removing all of these people. - Marshman
      • OK. I change my vote to delete -- Marshman 17:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For instance "Cassi Holder" gets 4 Google hits. How is this an encyclopedia topic? Should I write articles about all of my friends? Maximus Rex 02:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Go ahead! We already have articles about unimportant people, and I'm not referring to Joe Ahmed. - Arthur George Carrick 03:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all, does not pass Google test, not even close. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Not encyclopedic. Tempshill 03:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. They're vanity pages whether created by the individuals or by a friend of the individuals. RickK 04:06, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all; the group did amateur improv, it's now defunct. Re Cassi Holder's Google hits: two are from posts by her on www.gephardtgrassroots.com, one is her listing on the staff page of her employer ("Development Coordinator"), and one is on a Wikipedia screen-scraper site. (For comparison, Googling on my real first + last name gets six hits that are me, and two others that are not me. Googling on my full name gets 25, all of which are really me, for a total = 25 + 6 = 31. And no, I do not deserve a Wikipedia page. Also for comparision, Googling for "Easter Bradford" -wikipedia gets 35 results, some of which indirectly result from Wikipedia links.) The FarFromKansas web site consists in its entirety of a photo, a caption, a line of text, and a link: "Read our entry at the Wikipedia." All of this is just appropriation of Wikipedia for do-it-yourself PR and Google farming. Maybe we can make a good Google-farming article out of it. orthogonal 06:17, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. Not encyclopedic. —Frecklefoot 17:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Nasalized language on cleanup for a long time, from User:SmartBee, only 1 Google hit not related to wikipedia makes this suspicious (or perhaps its under the wrong name?). Maximus Rex 02:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unverified (actually, just plain bad) information and title. Daniel Quinlan 03:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Those actually are real, but my recollection of what kind of information should be included in such an article is extremely sketchy. I do have linguistics notes somewhere that would be useful :) I'll see if I can find them, and I vote to keep in the meantime. Adam Bishop 04:12, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • But, is it a useful classification? Is it encyclopedic. We could have an article named K language. Any language with the sound 'K'. Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. It's not a real linguistic term. All hits are from wiki. Nasal language does seem to be used but even then <50 hits. I'm going to do some work on how we categorise languages (it's haphazard at the moment). Secretlondon 10:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, the language I was thinking of was Desano, which apparently has words made up of all nasal segments, or all non-nasal segments. This includes nasalizing consonants that we wouldn't normally consider to be capable of being nasalized...but I'm not sure it can be called a "nasalized language." Oh well. Adam Bishop 00:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is NOT a classification, but a very vague description of the lexicon, etymolgy, and phonetic system of a language, not its relations to others. SmartBee
    • Delete. SmartBee's comment is a convincing argument for deletion. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Red Brick Ltd An obscure group dedicated to "restoring" an obscure game. RickK 05:21, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If we try to maintain an article on every obscure group of a few people with a web site... Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move anything useful onto Earthdawn, then delete it. Andy Mabbett 23:15, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge the content, then make a redirect to the game. Jamesday 16:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Is now a redirect. Angela 14:53, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Games of physical activity, Games of physical skill. I don't really see what we can put underneath these titles that makes them an encyclopedia article. Pete 18:20, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (I've edited on these two). They are closely related and are more a list of games that fall under these types. They are similar to the other pages listed on the games page. It creates a tree structure that i personally like . Content possiblities are not big only what they are good for like body coordination. Ebricca 08:58, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Merphant 01:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, reasons above. Jamesday 16:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • PEG unencyclopaedic, unclear, can't even work out what PEG means. I think its supposed to be about economics (?) DJ Clayworth 19:04, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to require a major re-write, at least. Andy Mabbett 23:11, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - PEG is a term used in finance. It is a variant of the price/earnings ratio (PE) that is modified to account for high growth market characteristics. The article seems totally off topic. mydogategodshat 02:44, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Chisholm Trail District - the was in CLEANUP for ages. I think it should be deleted. I'm not even sure what it IS. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. A Boyscout Troop designation, essentially - Marshman 02:35, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Festivals of Plagiarism - this was in CLEANUP for a long time. It still makes no sense. Either it gets written to make sense, or we should delete it. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Furman v. Georgia - this was in CLEANUP for a long time. It needs to be fixed or deleted. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep now. I've expanded it to include the salient points of the decision and why it was significant. Jamesday 18:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Careertimes.com.hk - this was in CLEANUP for a long time. It needs to be fixed or deleted. Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - just a web site of a job advert newspaper. Secretlondon 09:56, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

November 20

  • Oil imperialism - unless there is hard evidence for this, it is POV and theory. Kingturtle 00:31, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Clearly has problems as most conspiracy theories do. Would have to be rewritten to point out flaws in theory before I'd want it to stay around as it is almost all speculation - Marshman 02:51, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - It is clearly stated that it is only a theory, that the theory is disputed, and that it is a conspiracy theory. It should be treated in the same way as the theory that America invaded Iraq in order to "liberate" it's citizens. We should not delete an article because there is no hard proof of it's truth. If we did that the religion and politics sections would be much reduced. mydogategodshat 03:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, oil conspiracies are very real and persistent accusations, and deserve an entry. However, this article is terrible, which led me to put it in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and much later (when that did nothing) to NPOV it. It would be great if it was improved, but sadly I fear it should stay as is (with NPOV notice) until that is done. -- VV 07:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Will eventually evolve into a good article :ChrisG 16:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV title of article. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • Rename "Oil imperialism theories" - mydogategodshat 00:53, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's merely a driving factor in at least the US involvement in WW2 (the Japanese desire for oil resourcs in the PI and expected US military response required destruction of the US ability to intervene) and many other imperial adventures over the last century or so. This article is rather short-sighted and doesn't yet consider the longer history but that's something which the normal wiki process will deal with. Jamesday 19:06, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Present solution (redirect to Imperialism) is the completely wrong solution. Oil imperialism refers to conspiracy theories, not the practice of colonization. Renaming is reasonable, the current approach is not. -- VV 20:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • The automobile's effect on America - a school essay. delete. Kingturtle 00:52, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like a decent base to build from. Why not leave it? orthogonal 01:03, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. If it is free to keep, then do so and improve - Marshman 02:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't look like an article suitable for Wikipedia SD6-Agent 02:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not bad, it's an interesting topic, I like it. Maybe it should be a section under "Automobile." Dpbsmith 03:04, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Perhaps a school paper, but a decent one, and mostly appropriate here. I agree that it might be best merged into automobile. Jgm 13:29, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though I suspect it ought to be rewritten at some point to tbe Automobile's effect on industrialised society. :ChrisG 16:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Scholarly topic. Agree that it needs to be more generalized. I'd probably put it under urban planning though. That's the area of research that is richest (at least that I know of). Rossami 17:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not for original essays or research.
    • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to automobile. - Arthur George Carrick 20:23, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - article needs work but this is an important topic in sociology. mydogategodshat 00:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hypofixx "Hypofixx is a heavy metal musician based out of New York City. His music is just beginning to garner national attention" (emphasis orthogonal's). How about we wait until he's actually garnered national attention, so as not to unduly influence the nation's taste by allowing Wikipedia to be used as his free PR firm. orthogonal 01:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing the pattern here. Delete - Marshman 02:43, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • And it looks Bradfordistic. Delete. —Frecklefoot 15:19, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This VH1 bio suggests there's merit to about this much coverage of this artist at present. Jamesday 19:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • A little googling suggests that the bio is posted on the VH1 site, but was written by Hypofixx or someone doing PR for Hypofixx. The same text shows up at http://www.hofrec.com/hfx/bio.shtml, Hypofixx's label's web site. As it seems unlikely the label would appropriate copy written by VH1, it seems a case of VJ1 re-printing the label's press release. orthogonal 21:24, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Influence - dictionary definition already copied to wikitionary. - SimonP 02:43, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Practically Einstein and Brad Pugh - local band and its lead singer. More Bradfordistic vanity. As the band page contains little more than a link to the band's web site, seems an advertisement designed to take advantage of Wikipedia's high Google ranking. orthogonal 05:04, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 15:57, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the group. Press at [2] and [3] suggest that this degree of coverage is about right at the moment. Redirect the lead singer to the group - doesn't seem to merit individual coverage. Jamesday
      • Please note the header on the second link (emphasis mine) "Self-publishing by and for the Metro region's music community" orthogonal 22:11, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Critique of e-Bay business model - a critique is POV by nature, no? Isn't something like this better suited to be written in http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml ? Kingturtle 08:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. "How ebay could improve their business" isn't really our area of expertise: we're not business consultants. --Delirium 08:19, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:24, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. This in an inappropriate venue for this approach to improving the world - Marshman 17:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original essay. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - I wrote this before I was aware of WP policies. Also, the people at eBay have already seen it. mydogategodshat 00:44, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Grafici climatici is just a collection of bar-graphs concerning weather. -- Khym Chanur 08:37, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • In Spanish as well. delete Secretlondon 09:56, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • Actually it's in Italian, even the title. Bogdan 14:39, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It would be really nice to have these climate graphs (in English), but without any source information, I'd suspect they have been lifted (copyvio). Delete - Marshman 17:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not English. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Ciao, I'm the author of these graphs, I utilize a template that I have drawe with "paint", the template is now insert with the other. I thik that it is no so difficult to make some green rectangle or a blue line. If the problem is that are all in italian, I remember you that italian wikipedia haven't a space to insert italian picture and the only way to have image in our encyclopedia is use english space as support. Bye Renato
      • Renato is saying that those graphs were hand-made, thus original and not copyvios. Please don't delete them. The Italian wikipedia is still running on the old UseModWiki software, and the only way for us to include images is to upload them somewhere on other wikipedias and link them using html. As soon as the .it will be moved to the new software, the images will be moved there too, and deleted from this one. I'll move this page under Renato's personal page. If I have the time, will look into an automatic program to generate similar graphs in the various languages - they are nice. At18 11:54, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep where they are now, for reasons above. Renato, can you make 2 versions, one with no text and one in Italian? If you do this, other people will be able to use them for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries by adding labels for each language.
      • If it's to be kept, it should be moved to meta. RickK 00:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Bit rot is basically a duplicate of link rot. -- Khym Chanur 09:28, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • The term is used more generally, and in fact the definition it gives is not one i've seen it used as before. It refers to the discovery of bugs in code that seemed to be working fine for a long time... and upon investigation, you cannot see why it ever worked in the first place.... Morwen 09:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As it stands, they are, but Bit rot refers to something completely different, so I'll attempt a rewrite or a FOLDOC port. Dysprosia 10:48, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Done, keep. Dysprosia 10:54, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid term, a bit Wiktionary-ish, but whatever. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Hearst doctrine -- a google search suggests there isn't such a thing. This doctrine supposedly delineates the subset of the Bush Doctrine which calls for American military power without equal (making reference to Hertz corporation's purported "We're Number One" slogan). technopilgrim 10:32, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • gotta love it when people try to make an article out of a pet phrase and then don't even get the phrase right. Delete. Jgm 13:29, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reads like it was totally made up - Marshman 17:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bogus article and title. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's real US policy, though it needs to be moved to Hertz doctrine. Jamesday 19:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Monday Report - from Cleanup. Reads like a press release, about a TV show to be aired in 2004. Secretlondon 14:26, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia:Cleanup:
      • Monday Report
      • - reads like a press release Secretlondon
      • - Bah, it isn't even on the air yet. It's an ad. I vote for deletion, it can come back when some people have seen it. Tualha
        • I'd previously fixed it to not be a press release, and I've reverted to that revision. Keep. Morwen 14:36, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The other edits by this IP are fine (though use of preview would be nice!) and that suggests that this one will be updated when the show is broadcast. It appears to be a genuine contribution rather than a deliberate ad. Jamesday 03:43, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The anon contributor has now created Rick Mercer's Monday Report with the exact same content, apparently to avoid deletion. -Minesweeper 16:13, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
      • and blanked the original Secretlondon 17:59, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have long had articles on upcoming films. - SimonP 16:25, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms - Source material -- JeLuF 16:29, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agreed. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • Not sure why. Is the excerpt of the law too long? I thought of putting only the preamble at first and write something like: "See external link to read the full document". However, I also did think that people would want to know what's after the preamble so I included the first few articles. Is putting only the Preamble more reasonable in your opinion? I mean, I don't see why a government would sue us for putting an excerpt of a law especially since the reference to Publication Quebec (official editor of the Quebec State) is at the bottom of the page. Mathieugp
      • This is item 14 of Wikipedia is not, which unfortunately doesn't give the reasons. I can't remember where they are discussed, but the gist is that (1) encyclopedias do not contain large quantities of source text, they contain information about important texts, and (2) the wide-open nature of Wiki isn't really appropriate to storing source texts, where every dot and comma must be preserved without modification. Onebyone 11:02, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove the source text, include and external link to the source text, and this is fine. --Minesweeper 11:06, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, without the source text it's a reasonable stub, keep. Onebyone 11:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Ok. I'll remove the excerpt. I'll add a paragraph detailing the history of the Charter instead. -- Mathieugp


  • Kafe_44 just some bar in Sweden. No contents, just link to its website and chefmoz. Mrdice 19:11, 2003 Nov 20 (UTC)
    • Delete. orthogonal 19:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, probable advert, not encyclopedic anyway. Please, let's not create advertisements for every bar or restaurant everywhere. Daniel Quinlan 19:31, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • EPortfolio - advertisement added by person who sells a product trade named "EPortfolio". Not encyclopedic either. Daniel Quinlan 19:24, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Can you provide any evidence that it is a product trade named ???. ePortfolio is a concept derived from portfolio that is currently leading many innovative initiatives in the field of education and life long learning. (see [[4]]). If the 'style' is 'not encyclopedic', the content certainly is and I would certainly be eager to use a more 'canonic' form of writing if you would be kind enough to point out my mistakes Serge Ravet 19:24, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • This has been rewritten to explain what ePortfolios are. It's not an advert. ePortfolio isnt any particular product. It should be kept. Angela 18:44, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • A vinculo matrimonii, A mensa et thoro, Ab initio - legal definitions. The content may be appropriate somewhere, but I can't think of anything to write under those names. -- Cyan 23:19, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think they are important definitions that people should be able to find out about on wikipedia. They are also internationally used terms, though 'divorce a mensa et thoro' has I believe been replaced by a new concept of judicial separation in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed after all the Easter Bradford collection of vanity pages it is good to see proper encyclopædia articles for a change. I am a little suprised to find them listed on the VfD page. FearÉIREANN 23:27, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • They aren't proper encyclopedia articles, JT, they are verbatim legal dictionary entries. -- Cyan 23:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into a single legal terms article and redirect (it will be more interesting and just as useful, you can even use headers for each term so you can redirect to the specific definition if you want). Stand in awe of my brilliance. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 23:37, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • I shall do so. -- Cyan 23:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • We are not worthy of your presence, O Most Powerful and Illustrous One. All hail Daniel, the light that shineth into the darkness of wikipedia! :-) Or in Star Trek-speak: 'make it so!' FearÉIREANN 23:51, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed, merge, unless there is sufficient history behind the term (e.g., Habeus corpus) to justify an article. orthogonal 00:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 21

Some users are prepending new entries at the top of this daily list, and some are appending at the bottom. While I'd prefer appending, I'd mostly like to see consistency. orthogonal 22:43, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Bromley Contingent. "consituted the fashion avant garde of the early UK punk rock movement". They constituted' the avant garde? There was nobody else? RickK 05:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
    • I dont think it should be deleted, maybe reworded? The bromley contingent were an important part of punk history! Steeev 21 Nov 2003
    • Needs editing but deleting this is almost unthinkable. Bromely Contingent were very important. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Even I've heard of 'em, and I'm a Yank. Reword and keep. Malcolm McLaren probably ought to be mentioned as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 23:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Replaced vfd note with stub warning. there is no reason why this article shouldn't be included on WP. the article as it stands is mot inacuarte either, the Bromley Contingent WERE the avant garde that pushed the pistols into the limelight. Granted article could be fleshed out alot (I will do it if I get time), but in the meantime I vote it's better than owt. quercus robur 00:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • You know, although I have no problem with leaving the article in, I strongly object to removing the VfD notice before the article is removed from this page, which is supposed to be 5 days, right? I'm going to restore the VfD notice until it's removed from this page. RickK 19:31, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
        • Well said that man! -- User:Steeev
  • HMPS. Another school that doesn't need its own article. RickK 05:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Please do not delete. It is an important school. will shortly update it. Hemanshu
    • It's no more an important school than any other school in the world. No elementary or high school needs its own article. RickK 07:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • What about Eton? ;) How important is this HMPS? -- Tarquin 17:29, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep unless it is decided at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools to delete all schools. Angela 18:10, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Courtisanerie - this was in CLEANUP for ages. Is it encyclopedic or dictionaric? Kingturtle 23:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. Rossami 17:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a dictionary entry. Moved to 21st from 19th after I added the VfD notice for the first time today. Jamesday 16:27, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • DCide "is a Washington, DC based independent record label most noted for releasing various compilations of unsigned artists in the Washington, DC area." There are lots of independent record labels, given how inexpensive it is to press CDs with modern technology. This seems another case of Wikipedia being used for Google-farming. orthogonal 00:22, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Gregor Brand and Siegfried Alkan - vanity page, self-advertising by same internet persona. Only 63 hits on Google, 1000 if you include German pages. He added a page about an ancestor of his, Siegfried Alkan, who only gets 3 google hits from Brand's own free web-hosting pages, so it poses verification problems. Advert also includes link to a genealogy site claiming he's related to another historical person. User has also linked his article into a variety of list articles over the last few days from a variety of IP addresses: User:193.159.25.80 User:212.185.253.71 User:193.159.25.22 User:62.227.254.4 User:62.158.143.175 and more for the other article. Daniel Quinlan 01:13, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Since I'm no expert on .de poetry, I hesitated. But adding himself to 1957 makes my decision much easier. Is "Brand" German for Bradford? Delete. orthogonal 12:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself: Why should a poet who is listed in more than 10 national and international literature lexica or biographical works (See my page: www.angelfire.com/art/gregorbrand/Biographie.html)have no entry in Wikipedia? I don´t see this as a case of vanity. GregorBrand
      • Correct me if I'm wrong, but your user name isn't an homage to Brand, is it? You're actually the person in question. So I guess you are literally "speaking for yourself". Bad form, old boy. And very clearly vanity. If you're actually of note, someday someone who isn't you will come along and note you. Let us hope for the arrival of that happy day, but not anticipate it. orthogonal 21:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Vate - a Mexican electronic music outfit. They are linked to from the list of notable electronic music artists and DJs despite the fact that they don't seem to have made any significant contributions to electronic music (unless those contributions are simply unknown outside of Mexico). Their main repository for mp3s is mp3.com, and they only have 13,000 views there. -- Tlotoxl 04:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Power level DragonBall, but too generic to be a redirect. DJ Clayworth 20:48, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, of course! wshun 23:26, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hexaware Technologies - unwikified advert, first edit by anonymous IP. Daniel Quinlan 22:34, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Lir has transformed the original advert into a reasonable wiki entry, so I think the question is, is Hexaware Tech significant enough to be in an encyclopedia? My thought is, no. Delete. orthogonal 22:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I think that most of the information is suitable for a small article, but realistically the info on their alliances is irrelevant. A simple statement of what they do, where they are based, how many employees they have woudl suffice. I fail to see how linking to technology etc is useful. Most of the information on teh page is erroneous or unverifiable. Its an obvious advertisement. And LIR, do not edit other peopels entries. AQBachler 01:04, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, a company which employees 1700 people is encylopedic. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Can't see any strong argument for deletion. Keep. Jay 06:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 22

  • Michal Arkusz - seems to be a wannabee-politician, no google hits.
    Remove also references on 1981 and March 31 -- JeLuF 00:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to Delete. The article appears to be autobiographical. I think that the neutrality of the article is also doubtful, by the way. Lord Emsworth 00:44, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've listed this on Cleanup for added exposure. I agree that this person ought not to have an entry in Wikipedia. -- Cyan 00:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. See also Sanacja, Jozef Arkusz, Naczelnik and other edits by User:68.98.126.213. Andy Mabbett 01:01, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Michal Arkusz - I don't see why a current politician cannot have a referance about him in relation to the political party he heads. As for Jozef Arkusz, he is listed in both Polish and International Encyclopedias, so there is no reason for his entry to be deleted. Censorship should not be selectively applied, on here or in real life. Sanacja
    • Delete. Hesitant I first, reading that "Sanacja.... claims (as of November 2003) to have 39 members" makes it pretty obvious that this is Bradfordistic. orthogonal 01:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Again, why is it that other small political parties can have references on here, yet our party cannot. The site on Michal Arkusz is a reference to a leader of a political party, which albeit small is a real party. Why censor it? Sanacja 01:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Which other small parties are you refering to? Please respond on my talk page. -- Cyan 02:06, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Folks, this is a new user who doesn't yet know our conventions. Let us be gentle. (I'm not saying anyone hasn't been gentle, just that we should continue to be.) Sanacja, the essence of the objection to this entry is simply that we prefer people and political entities to be well-known before they are recorded in Wikipedia. -- Cyan 02:13, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification. You can remove the link to Michal Arkusz then, since I admit that he is not known. But Sanacja is a very well known party that played a crucial role in Poland during the interwar period. I represent the renewed Sanacja party, and I thought it only appropriate that we include some information on our fledgling politics. Sanacja 02:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's accurate though. Sanacja is a fairly well-known and historically important Polish party. Is it widely recognized that the party you represent is in fact the same party, not a new upstart party that has coopted a famous name? I could, for example, start the United States Whig Party, claiming it to be a revival of the United States Whig Party, but that would not necessarily make it so. --Delirium 02:29, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
      • That would definitely not make it the United States Whig Party, which I revived and am Maximum Leader of. orthogonal 03:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If you went through all the motions of starting the political party, along with recruiting members, holding meetings, discussing policies for fundraising and growth, you would indeed be a political party. The fact is that there is no Sanacja party in Poland, and the Polish community here in Arizona decided to renew it under the same name. What is wrong with this? Sanacja 02:35, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • " there is no Sanacja party in Poland". Well, quite. Andy Mabbett 02:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • That does not mean there is no Sanacja!Sanacja 03:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • [[Sanacja]]has just added this to my User page: "I provided citations for the information that was disputed, as for the parties current status you can come to one of our meetings and find out for yourself. Stop slandering us and altering our information." Andy Mabbett 03:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This entire argument is with one person who seems intent on portraying Sanacja as a party that has something to do with Hitler. Andy Mabbett why? Like I said, you can come to one of our meetings and see that we have nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, or anything else you wrote about us. I'm not going to play this game of you adding, me deleting, you adding, me deleting slanderous material. Also, I cited sources that verify the accuracy of the information provided, and you still keep adding disputes and deleting my comments. Again, why? What do you have against Sanacja, and what is your problem? Sanacja 03:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • A fallacious and disingenuous response. Andy Mabbett 04:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • OK, whatever, I'm done with this argument. Edit the page as you will, it doesn't alter the truth. Sanacja 04:03, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. More self-aggrandizement. The secret is out, toot your horn here. Daniel Quinlan 04:46, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • I have changed the page to include as little information as possible, and to be as neutral and censored as I can without making it useless. Do as you wish with it. Sanacja 05:55, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • In regards to the Sanacja page I say keep it, but I would agree that the Michal Arkusz article is a bit too obscure. an entry in Modern Sanacja would suffice at least until the individual is of some larger importance. The exclusion of an article is not saying that it is an unimportant subject per se, but merely that it is too obscure and not generally relevant to warrant its own seperate article. Every human being on earthis important, but we cant turn this into the white pages. AQBachler 06:28, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ann Danielewski -- Only 14 Google hits, the first three of which are Wikipedia or Wikipedia screenscrapers. orthogonal 21:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Search for "poe album haunted" finds "about 12,300". I'll move to Poe (singer). Andy Mabbett 21:54, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If it's legit, l;eave it at Ann Danielewski. orthogonal 22:29, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Do we have pages on Reg Dwight or Harry Webb? Andy Mabbett 23:39, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1796500"