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 02:01, 11 December 2003 (Lower Silesian Province (Prussia) - no consensus to delete, cm on Some More). 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

Subpages

copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories -- redirects -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

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


Boilerplate

Please add one of these texts to any page that you list on Votes for deletion, and to any page already listed that does not have one. The first example that follows can be added by typing {{SUBST:vfd}}

''This page has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]], where you can discuss whether this page should be deleted.''''

''This page has been listed as [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|a candidate for deletion]]. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Votes for Deletion]] page to discuss whether or not this page should be deleted.''

December 4

  • Chocolate (disambiguation) - An orphaned disambiguation page, which does not really serve a purpose since the two articles it links to are spelled differently, Chocolate and Chocolat (the movie). Mark Ryan 03:01, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no use. Onebyone 11:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I retract my vote - the page is now somewhat useful, and I don't have an opinion on the procedural issue of what the title should be. Onebyone 16:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I added VfD boilerplate text to the article. Bmills 16:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 06:14, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think a disambiguation page does any harm. If it was at chocolate rather than chocolate (dismabiguation) it would be different. Secretlondon 19:36, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep harmless redirect. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:38, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've made a poor attempt at making the article bigger. Checkout the latest. I'd still say KEEP. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete, I think new additions make it more useless. Rmhermen 20:17, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't really follow the definition of a disambiguation page: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflict that occurs when articles about two or more different topics have the same natural title. What exactly is the use of Chocolate (disambiguation). A search for chocolate goes right to Chocolate; a search for chocolat goes right to Chocolat. Kingturtle 23:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I realize that <Topic-related pages> is different from <Topic (disambiguation)>. I did a search and found lots of articles with the word "related" in them. So maybe the article can be renamed to List of Chocolate-related articles. Jay 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless retitled "Chocolate-related articles" and linked from the Chocolate page. That may be of some use, at least until full-text search comes back. Keep. Now it's useful - but should the link from Chocolate not be at the top? (Compare with Charles Taylor disambig.) Anjouli 05:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. You might be able to make a case for a disambiguation page at Chocolate (thanks for the effort, Jay). But at Chocolate (disambiguation)? It just doesn't make any sense. Anthropos 05:57, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Silly. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • This has been completely rewritten since most of the above votes were made (with the exception of Daniel's). I vote to keep. It's useful. Angela. 06:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, seems useful. --Delirium 09:07, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
      • If we're going to keep it as it is, it must be moved. The current name is useless. An article is not (generally, at least) supposed to link to a disambiguation page, and who, wanting to know about Chocolate would type "Chocolate (disambiguation)"? -Anthropos 13:23, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep (but rename) seems the best solution to me. It's not a true disambiguation. Rename to List of Chocolate-related articles seems best. UtherSRG 15:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm changing my vote. This is a valid use of the third type of disambiguation: "primary topic." Personally, I prefer to use "equal" disambiguation, but that is beside the point. This page isn't hurting anyone. Anthropos 18:07, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 5

    • delete - Mark Ryan 12:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If I'm not mistaken, there are about 1000 articles dealing with every single character and plot point in every Ayn Rand book, nearly none of which deserve an encyclopedia entry. Tempshill 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think efforts were made to move them into pages such as Minor Characters in Atlas Shrugged, which are incredibly long and contain such character as waiter: "The Waiter serves drinks to the Looters in section 131. " Maximus Rex 06:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, but before deleting move the content to some other place such as wikibooks, or transwiki, or even meta since someone certainly spent a lot of time writing it. Maximus Rex 06:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree, please move somewhere before deleting. This could be a good starting point for the first Wikibook equivalent of Cliffs Notes. --Delirium 00:39, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Good book. Save content (under the primary author's user pages would be fine) and delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Do NOT move to Wikisource- this is not source text. I don't know much about Wikibooks, but I don't believe book synopses are appropriate there. The user namespace is not for storing such things so do not move there either. Just delete. Angela. 05:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I couldn't care less about the book personally, but it seems a shame to delete so much work. The consensus seems to be that it doesn't belong in the main namespace, but can't it go somewhere?
    • There's no currently appropriate wikibook, but I could see this as useful for a future one. Any analysis of the book, or of Ayn Rand's works in general, could use a decent synopsis to work from. --Delirium 09:05, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I really don't see "being too in-depth" as being a solid reason for deletion. The amount of text is relatively tiny compared with the overall size of Wikipedia, so its not a technical issue. So the only issue at hand is a credibility issue - YMMV but I do not think we should delete valid content simply because we suffer a tiny dent in credibility because our coverage depth is not uniform across topic areas. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • NB the above comment doesn't mean refactoring into fewer articles wouldn't be welcome if someone wants to do it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • In an e-mail with Zanimum, I learned about Wikibooks, the textbook project. While there's currently just books being prepared on selected standards, so far Shakespeare, Sherlock, and The Once and Future King, the articles on Atlas Shrugged could be turned into a classroom text.

December 6

  • Some More - Delete. This song is not of importance. If it is, the article certainly doesn't tell us that. Kingturtle 02:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Songs are difficult to establish importance on. While some are clearly well-known, where does the line of importance get drawn? I'm inclined to leave these alone for now (keep) - Marshman 03:30, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Songs like American Pie are notable encyclopedia material, but I don't think Wikipedia has reached the stage wherein there's nothing left to do but write about our favourite songs. -- Mark Ryan 04:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, what are we going to do when we reach that point? Start from scratch? It's just a page on a real song. Keep. Wiwaxia 15:02, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If the article can't explain why the song is noteworthy, it probably isn't noteworthy. Ortonmc 14:20, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We don't need an article like this on every song in creation. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't see anything particularly wrong with a page for a particular song. Voyager640 11:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, or move content to album article. Makes album article more interesting. - Patrick 02:03, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to the album if it's too bothersome. Tuf-Kat 17:59, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (maybe merge). If it is merged with the album, the same should be done for the other tracks linked to from the album page. Angela. 02:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Angelian - A conlang without a user base, all google hits refer to pages created by one person -- JeLuF 05:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Some conlang creators have the obnoxious habit of advertising their creation any way they can. This guy isn't the first. We had this "Cimera" language a while ago too. --Menchi 05:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maximus Rex 06:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 19:38, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Terminology - one-liner dictionary defintion. Stub since February. Jay 07:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Davodd 08:38, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 14:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition (and not very accurate either). Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Noldoaran (Talk) 19:37, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Beowulf (text, translation, and detailed analysis) orphan, contains none of the content implied by the title, and even if it did wikipedia wouldn't be the place for source text and detailed literary analysis. Maximus Rex 07:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 14:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Someone started an ambitious project and gave up. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If this were complete, it would be a nice addition to Wikipedia. However, it isn't, and in this state, it's more or less useless. Metasquares 03:37, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley. Created in an attempt to circumvent the normal deletion process. This article was deleted at least 6 times already. Angela. 08:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Go for 7. Anjouli 14:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree. This is a user sub page. It is to the user to decide whether one of his sub page should be deleted or not. Ask Kyu, or wait for him to come back. If found offensive meanwhile, just blank it. Anthère
      • I think it is not a good idea to give as a reason to delete that page that it was a circumvent to the normal deletion process. If it was thought *then* (when it was created) abnormal to do this, it should have been refused as an option at the time it was done. It was not declared against the rules then, it was accepted that Louis did so; it has no reason to be declared unproper now.
      • There is here confusion between the decision of the community to remove from the community space (meta) or the encyclopedia space, a page that is either non encyclopedic, or copyrighted, or defaming, or irrelevant, in short a candidate to deletion, AND the fact the community has the right to make a deletion decision over a page, created by a non-banned user, in his own space. If we delete user sub pages created willingly by users themselves, then we officially declare the user space is not remotedly owned by its user. Unless I am wrong, this is not the general opinion user hold on their own pages; that is why for most users, except for the talk page, it is thought bad etiquette to edit them but for typos or link fixing. So on one end many consider bad etiquette to have their personal pages edited, and on the other end we discuss deleting a personal page created by one user with tacit aggreement at that time. I think it is not a good idea :-) If it is done, we may need to change policy on user pages :-)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Hey, it's just a user subpage. The worst thing about it was the insufficient fame of the person. On a user subpage, we can be as obscure as we want. And as for "circumvent[ion of]] the normal deletion process" . . . how is that any different from Mav's circumvention of the deletion process in deleting something that obviously didn't meet the criteria for allowed speedy deletion? Wiwaxia 15:07, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page in the User: namespace. I'm unclear why the reason it was made is relevant. Seems to me that deleting a User: page only makes sense in copyvio (or perhaps inflammatory) situations. -Anthropos 16:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. 1) I'm new but I'd hate to think that there is an ongoing effort to police user subpages (beyond restricting illegal content or reasonable size restrictions, if any), 2) Deleting it from the original page may be appropriate but deleting tame information about Wikipedia persona-non-gratas (sp?) from sub pages is too Orwellian. Texture 17:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • This is not about policing subpages. It is about saying that it is wrong to out people. If User:142.177.etc wishes to remain anonymous, why can he not be allowed to do that? How can you justify a page created to out, or to support the outing, of this user? Angela. 23:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • No, a comment on Louis etc's talk page saying "this is wrong, you shouldn't do it" would be saying it's wrong. Deleting pages which reveal our superhero's secret identity is enforcement, so it is policing those pages. Not that I'm saying that's necessarily disallowed (after all, we already police user pages for copyvios), just that it is what is being proposed. Onebyone 00:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • It is wrong to "out" people. That said... this page does not appear to "out" someone who is currently anonymous nor was the page created by the person who did/(or did not) first "out" the person. Those are the two circumstances I could not support. Many gay performers have been "outted" as gay by the media and you would never find an encyclopedia that would omit that. If Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein were to "out" the famous "Deep Throat", would this encylopedia fail to report that? Texture 00:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • To avoid duplicating my response to Texture, this is also discussed at User talk:Angela#Outing.
    • Delete. This article was deleted after discussion last month [1]. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 01:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 3Dlabs. Advertisement. RickK 08:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Copyvio [2] Davodd 08:42, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 14:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • OK as rewritten. Ortonmc 16:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • They are a known company. If it's a copyvio, delete until a contributor comes along who has something encyclopedic to write. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Rewritten version is okay, and no longer copyvio. -- Finlay McWalter 14:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Davodd 14:28, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Delete. Advert and still an advert. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia commentary and all its subpages [3] (Wikipedia:Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Avoid Cabals for example). Is there any reason these shouldn't all be moved to Meta? If they are moved, should the pages be deleted or left as interwiki redirects? Angela. 09:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Moved and deleted: things in the main namespace in particular should only be legitimate encyclopedia articles, not meta topics or redirects to meta topics. And interwiki redirects are evil as a general principle, not least because it's damn near impossible to edit them once set up (requires manual URL construction). --Delirium 11:19, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move. Noldoaran 20:42, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move and delete leftover redirect. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • U-commerce - idiosyncratic term, advert for a book written by the author(s) of the page. Daniel Quinlan 13:35, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Has moderate current use. (Google with the "u" in lowercase.) Anjouli 14:14, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't think the reference at the bottom makes the whole article into an advertisement. Ortonmc 14:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No analysis. Essentially a plug. Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't think this is idiosyncratic or an advert. "U-commerce" gets 3,300 Google hits even when you exclude "Watson", the author of the journal article referenced. Angela. 20:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - at present this is an idiosyncratic term but I suspect it will gain currency in the near future. If it dosn't, this article will probably be merged into another information technology management page. mydogategodshat 02:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Still think it should be deleted, advert. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Akihabara Station This is more a request for comment than a vote for deletion. All these stations being added may be somebody's labor of love - but do we really want to (potentially) list every train station in the world? If so, we will need a lot more hardware. Anjouli 14:07, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- unless something encyclopedic can be written about it. Is there something remarkable about this train station? Tempshill 19:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have lots of articles about UK train and tube stations, for example. More useful than all the articles about Pokemon, in my opinion.Secretlondon
    • Keep. I agree with secretlondon that I'd rather see an article on every train station in the world than an article on every trading card in the world. Onebyone 19:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm the original author of the article mentioned here. This is one of the 29 stations on Tokyo's Yamanote line, which is a central orientation point in Tokyo. It's as relevant or irrelevant as e.g. Tottenham_Court_Road_tube_station. I will admit I'm a bit of a newbie here and I think I should probably have either marked the article as a stub or waited until I've got some more text. There is also a Japanese version of the article. User:Ianb
    • Keep. I don't know whether we really want to list every train station in the world in English Wikipedia. But Japanese Wikipedia is trying to complete about 10,000 stations in Japan. In fact, Japanese Wikipedia looks an encyclopedia of railway, manga and other subcultures for me. --Nanshu 01:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Okay, you convinced me. Let's keep them. Anjouli 05:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Merge into smaller number of articles and delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Diao Chan - content is "Diao Chan was the Lu Bu' girlfriend". Andy Mabbett 21:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This turns out to be true. I've written a stub. Keep. Onebyone 22:14, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Her story is like "be a girlfriend of Lu Bu and change the world" :P. It is important, literally if not historically, in China. wshun 00:10, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the current version.. Gentgeen 02:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, seems fixed. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Re Kevin - validity of marriage of transsexual - source text referring to Australian court case. Secretlondon 22:02, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems to be an important case, and is linked to by two articles. Delete if not rewritten to be an article about the case. Morwen 22:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it, but it does need work Dysprosia 22:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, source document is entirely inappropriate, could be moved to Wikisource, but I doubt anyone cares enough. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

December 7

  • Roy Roger's. Yet again another ad for a restaurant chain, plus the name is wrong. The apostrophe is in the wrong place. Do we want to have a disambiguation page at Roy Rogers? RickK 00:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, fix the name. We have lots of sites about businesses - it could include history of the business, etc., to make it encyclopedia-ish. DavidWBrooks 02:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Again, there is a whole list of these, should we delete them all? - Hephaestos 02:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it and create a disambiguation page at Roy Rogers. As has been said, we've got a bunch of these already. - Metasquares 03:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's better than having an article about a single pub or restaurant. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, major chain. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Have eaten at this major chain more than once. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hotels in Delhi - wikipedia is not a travel guide; this would belong in WikiTravel. The listing in the article contains no additional information and is not entirely inclusive. --Jiang, Talk 01:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Noldoaran (Talk), 06:13, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lists like these are of encylopedic value. Also see List of buildings in Bucharest. Jay 11:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • How specifically are they encyclopedic? Hotels, expcept old ones, are not by themselves tourist attractions. People do not go to the hotel for the sake of visiting the hotel. Besides, links to Raddisson are generic in nature. --Jiang | Talk 23:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Jiang on that. Hotels are not synonymous with tourism. Hence the article can be renamed to List of buildings in Delhi rather than Tourism in Delhi. Jay 09:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Hotels are not synonymous with famous buildings. If you renamed it, almost the entire listing would have to be changed to something different. Therefore, it is necessary to delete. A move won't do with the current content. --Jiang | Talk 06:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Assuming that a famous building is a building that has a Wikipedia article, Hotels in Delhi is a right candidate for deletion because none of the entries have articles on them. My point of reference was List of buildings in Bucharest, the entries in which are not Wiki links either. Jay 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This would belong more in a page like Tourism in Delhi or something like that. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RK
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Didactic. Dictionary definition. Onebyone 02:38, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm, is that page a meta-didactic page? Voyager640 11:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't seem to have much substance to it, does it? - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RK
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Criticisms of modern medicine wikipedia is not a place for editorials and criticisms, it's an encyclopedia. ThereIsNoSteve 05:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Save. This page was setup for failure by RK, but I saved it and removed the POV by a simple re-edit.Deleting it would be an act of POV.--Mr-Natural-Health 07:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Whatever can't be reasonably merged into Medicine and Homeopathy should probably go. But perhaps bits can be salvaged that way. Bryan 06:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Content is already better covered by other articles. This is not an encyclopedia topic. Fine for some other site. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If you want separate criticism articles, then I suggest you pay a visit to Internet-Encyclopedia where it is not only encouraged, but it is required. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This "article" is just one man's POV essay. RK
    • Rant, delete. Morwen 16:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Ranting. Throw anything that can be salvaged -- anything that's not just Mister Natty Aitch's ranting: stuff that can be attributed to named, reliable sources -- into Medicine or Allopathy; delete the rest. --Mirv 19:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, POV title, POV content. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Ariddia. Undeleted. [4]. Angela. 05:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 05:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Completely bogus, even more imaginary than most imaginary micronations. Maximus Rex 05:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only 3 results on google. Noldoaran (Talk), 06:12, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • NationStates is a game. Ariddia is one of the fake countries made up in order to play the game. It is not even a real "micronation". Why was it undeleted? RickK 07:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Procedures are working well, both RickK and Angela did the right thing IMO, first deleting complete nonsense and then undeleting for discussion when challenged. But it is in fact nonsense, so delete in due course. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I was once amused by these kinds of articles. Once. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Micro-micronation does not cut it! Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Mauro Gandini. Created by an anonymous user and current content seems to indicate a vanity article. The statement about him being a fan of some football club is not Wikipedia worthy. RedWolf 06:21, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any notable references on Google suggesting this person is notable. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simple enough. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Religion-driven politics is a screed about something that doesn't even really deserve to be a topic, and basically contains NO FACTS. Dump it. Meelar 03:21 Dec 7, 2003
    • I removed some NPOV material from it. I think it has some potential, if someone fleshes it out a bit. Voyager640 11:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No useful content, not a suitable topic. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It could have some potential for looking at the influence of religious groups over various governments )(such as the Roman Catholic church in Ireland and Italy). It looks as if somebody intended to continue this article, but it's been almost five months, so I doubt the author will be back to finish it. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge the 1 or 2 useful phrases into Theocracy (which is thin) and delete. Davodd 13:22, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This "article" is no good. RK 15:52, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Needs to be NPOVed but the topic has been discussed in the anthropology of religion and the sociology of religion for half a century. To delete it is a POV act. - Keep, NPOV, and Merge into Sociology of religion. mydogategodshat 19:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've changed my mind. I started to re-write it but found it to be a monumental task. Just dump it. mydogategodshat 07:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Tego Calderon in Spanish. To top it all, to those of us who understand Spanish, it seems like the man wrote it himself because it says something like to all who talked about me, you will have to face me, Calde. He IS worth an article, just not anything like this. Antonio 10,000 sex partners Martin
    • Keep. If he's worth an article, you should at least be able to write a stub saying why. Replace the current entry with it. Andrewa 11:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the title, not the text. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Just delete this one, it's babble. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Buss - To buss actually means to kiss. Neither of these quite similar meanings presented on this disambiguous page, which is an orphan, are usages for the word Buss. Kingturtle 11:30, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (The Arabic for "kiss" is "boosa")Anjouli 06:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You can add that origin too in the article. I have cleaned up the article and added more entries. Jay 09:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've added the 'kiss' meaning. Buss also stands for other things, so more entries can be added. Jay 12:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Currently a dictionary definition plus the rather silly "buss is a misspelling of bus". "Aardvark" is a misspelling too if what you meant was "bus", but that fact isn't mentioned on aardvark. Move to Wiktionary and delete. Onebyone 13:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Changed my mind now it's improved. Keep. Onebyone 11:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep: valid disambiguation page. Martin 16:28, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. dictionary and slang. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine - the entire article is a photo caption. Davodd 11:37, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Should be part of Wikipedia:Cleanup. Jay 12:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • That's why I nominated for delete. There is nothing to clean up. Davodd 12:58, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
      • Oh well ! nothing to clean up. Delete. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Should we really have articles for faculties of each university? Even if there is to be an article with this title, it certainly shouldn't be what's there right now. - Mark Ryan 13:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not an article. All the text has been directly lifted from an Indianapolis press source, so it also may violate copyright.Dogface 20:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We already decided ("decided"?) university facility articles can be merged unless it's particularly noteworthy and if it's just a photo caption, there's nothing to merge. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Accumulation - orphan, and I can't imaging any situation in which the word "accumulation" (by itself) would be better linked to a Wikipedia entry than a Wiktionary entry. Anthropos 12:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with Anthropos. Accumulator makes for a good article, accumulation is somehow too generic. Delete. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Acting Sheriff - orphan, an unsold tv pilot from 1991 [5] -Anthropos 13:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. At best, it should be a sentence in an entry on the actor mentioned. Deserves no entry on its own.Dogface 20:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge, then delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Turing Machine simulator - there must be hundreds if not thousands of such projects, and this is not an interesting example. Morwen 14:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected. Deletion unnecessary. Martin 16:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect okay. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Michael LaLonde - vanity. Secretlondon 18:08, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Onebyone 20:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Obviously he made it himself. But, his website is pretty popular, so this isn't complete vanity. Someone could make an article for the website, and make his name a redirect, or something. Isomorphic 22:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, devanitize. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • AOLiza - a year-old stub w/ nothing more than Wiktionary content. --zandperl 21:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or redirect. Either ok with me. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Order No. 227. Stub, no context. If it can't be expanded, delete. RickK 21:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Is this better? I'm sure there is a lot more that could be written. Secretlondon 21:26, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Even though short, this was informative. Rossami 20:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, stubs are okay. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Political dispute - supposedly a draft policy, but one that no-one other than User:142.177.etc has agreed to. Angela. 21:43, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it is an interesting piece. Though it probably should be on meta, because it applies to all Wikipedia projects :ChrisG 23:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's just an old rant from a banned user. Don't move to meta, just delete. Maximus Rex 23:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete ok, maybe move to his user page area. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Destiny Completely Thorough Encyclopedia. Moved to Meta. Angela. 23:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, from both en and from Meta, this vanity page. -- Mattworld 23:01, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Created by Sterling D Allan out of pique because his vanity page has been listed here. RickK 23:04, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is meta being used as a dumping ground? Or is that its purpose? Maximus Rex 23:09, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, there are a lot of similar rants on Meta, so that seemed the place for it but maybe not. Angela. 23:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, and it should be removed from Meta, too. David Sterling is trying to use Wikipedia to support, advertise, and promote his own nutty free energy schemes. He made his own WikiProject, which I'm about to list here. Everything he's written needs scrutiny. Isomorphic 23:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Isomorphic has not even paid close enough attention to see that my name is Sterling D. Allan, not David Sterling. Is that any indication of his standard of "accuracy"? Or does it prove a tendency to a knee-jerk reaction without first giving a matter serious consideration. I've seen working devices. All he has is his prejudice. Vote him off the island. He has no business being a sysop with his narrow-mindedness. It's people like him that stone the prophets and torture the bearers of truth. He's the one that is out of line. Sterlingda 09:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • For the record, I apologize for giving your name incorrectly. I do, however, know your user name and your work quite well, which is what matters here. Please note that I don't know most other Wikipedians' real names either, although this is because they don't create vanity entries, not because I've misremembered them. Also, since you're concerned with accuracy - I'm not a sysop. Isomorphic 10:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • After posting my comment and retiring to bed at nearly 3:00 am, it dawned on me that you might not be a sysop, and I should have checked that before posting it. Sleep won over accuracy that time. Tit for tat, you got me back. Let me ask, though, how much time have you spent reviewing my FreeEnergy.GreaterThings.com website. Sterlingda 17:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete; create permanent forward instead; I moved it to within my user directory. User:Sterlingda/Wiki_All where it is obvious that it is a personal opinion. I spent a lot of time composing that piece specifically for Wikipedia. Your objectivity is called seriously into question the louder you cry for censorship of critique intended to help Wikipedia become even better. Sterlingda 09:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. And beware of utopians. Bmills 10:13, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • "beware of utopians"? It's bad to dream of a better world? I feel sorry for Bmills. Where would this world be without its dreamers? Sterlingda 17:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or move to user's area. Do not keep redirect there. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Ownage - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dysprosia 23:32, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Ugh, 13375p34k. |)31373. --MIRV 23:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Incorporate into leet. Leet isn't reason enough to delete it on its own, but the article is neither well written nor very informative, but wouldn't hurt to put into leet. --zandperl 01:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • "0wn" and its variant "pwn" are already in leet -- I see no problem with incorporating this variation.--MIRV 01:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository for slang definitions. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

December 8

  • Language Policies - A list with nothing in it. Angelique 23:47, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Equivalent linked to but doesn't exist on French Wikipedia. Was it deleted there? Delete unless it has something in it in a week, and provided also that the categories of policy listed are not idiosyncratic. Onebyone 00:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This topic could develop into a good article. Give the original author another week in order to place something meaningful in here, otherwise delete. - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This looks liek a valid entry; could we get someone in here to fill it up? The groundwork is very good; someone just needs to expand it. - Litefantastic 15:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This looks like the basis for a very good article. I suggest it will take more than a week to write it though. If the categories are idiosyncratic then they can be easily changed. Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • I am the original author. I will put some contents very soon. I was slowed down because I needed to ask permission before using copyrighted information. This page could indeed be very useful to many. The source I have (in French) contains stats on the linguistic situation in most States of the world and the use of language legislations by these States. What do you guys mean by the categories being idiosyncratic? (Sorry, English is not my first language). -- Mathieugp 17:34, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe there are other good sources in English that I am not aware of? Everyone is more than welcomed to contribute to this article with me. -- Mathieugp 18:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, if it helps, I'm a native-born American in college and I don't know what 'idosyncratic' means.
    • Keep for now. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Pupilos De Chavelo - personal anecdote of AntonioMartin, not encyclopaedic. --Wik 23:52, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be moved to his personal space. I'm currently cautiously in favour of keeping redirects to such things, I don't see that they do any harm provided they don't result in an ugly disambiguation page. Based on a google search, I don't think this will. Onebyone 00:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move the content to his user page, but don't place a redirect here. This article isn't about him. - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to user space and delete redirect. --Jiang | Talk
    • Move to personal space and delete (no redirect). Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Energy - I'm very uncomfortable with the notion of a WikiProject dedicated to flooding Wikipedia with fringe science. Isomorphic 00:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It just seems that this guy wants to use part of Wikipedia for his own Wikipedia-within-Wikipedia. Delete. - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - sounds like a magnet for original research (and controversy) -Anthropos 18:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - it will be a magnet for unencyclopedic fringe science.
    • Delete - Marshman 04:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:42, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete. This feature could be the seed that grows into one of your most famous contributions to the pool of valuable human knowledge. Sterlingda 08:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • comments originally posted at User_talk:Sterlingda
      • Hi, the Free Energy Wikipedia Control Panel seems a good idea. I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Free Energy Wikipedia Control Panel that the page be moved to a title which conforms with other WikiProjects, which as far as I can tell is what this is. Angela. 10:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I did not make this comment in regards to deletion. I just wanted the page out of the main namespace and don't have a strong opinion either way. Not being NPOV isn't a reason to delete though if there is a way in which it could be made NPOV. Angela. 20:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • [comment] Replied at my talk page (probably a lot in common with what Angela just said) Dysprosia 10:50, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) [Does not imply approval or disapproval]
        • If Sterling can write about various free energy technologies that are well known (something like the hydrogen-water thing is good, there is current interest in this now, so nothing esoteric), and from a neutral point of view with appropriate mention of criticism then I have no qualms, but the contents and progress of this project may need to be closely monitored for appropriateness and not a location for primary research. Dysprosia 10:57, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • You will see on my FreeEnergy.GreaterThings.com site that I provide both point and counter point, including links to skeptic pages even when I myself believe the technology to most likely be legit. In the Pure Energy Systems open sourcing encyclopedia project I have launched, objectivity and solid scientific rigor will be our goal. Remember, as items are submited to Wikipedia, you will have an opportunity on a case by case basis to scrutinize them. I think that scrutiny would be a good thing.
      • I agree with Angela, the Free Energy project is a great idea. I look forward to reading about the topics it suggests. Tarquin 10:26, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • comment: This page has been copied here: User:Sterlingda/Free Energy as an preview of how it would appear in a back-up form if it is deleted from its present location by Wikipedia. Sterlingda 08:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Simple: Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • comment: Here is something I just published today on my FE updates website -- I cite it as a sample of my objective reporting skills on the subject: Genesis World Energy Under Investigation for Fraud - NJ Attorney General's office engaged in full investigation into likely securities fraud. Eyewitnesses say one of the bench-top model used by GWE for proof of concept demos is nothing more than a slight modification of a fuel cell device sold at Hammacher Schlemmer. Sterlingda 07:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 09:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless it is changed to agree with the NPOV policy, and the original research and advocacy elements removed. The Anome 13:04, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Zoomie. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. RickK 01:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This should be in the Wiktionary
    • Maybe we need an article on military slang - if there is not one already. Copy the contents to somewhere.Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of an article on military slang, but "zoomie" should probably not be in it. Term not actually used by any US soldier or marine I know. (And I doubt any other country's soldiers would either. Interservice terms have to sound derogatory or they're not any fun.) Rossami 20:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No comment on whether it should stay or go, but just to interject; "Zoomie" is historic rather than current slang. Think 1960s or thereabouts. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 22:09, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, again it's slang. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Heroic medicine: needs to be NPOV'd or deleted.
    • Keep. It just needs to have someone knowledgeable add to it, and keep it balanced. - Mark Ryan 03:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. DJ Clayworth 15:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems neutral enough apart from the last sentence which is misleading. Keep it but keep an eye on it. ping 07:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, POV title. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Florence Daniels - nice human interest story. Not encyclopedic subject matter. Anthropos
    • Maybe there is an article somewhere about crime that this can be merged into as a kind of case study about bag snatching? I know it's becoming a crime wave where I live. Otherwise, delete. - Mark Ryan 03:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete. This is a nonsense and belongs in a tabloid newspaper maybe but not in an encyclopedia. Such things happen everyday, non notable. Secretlondon 13:04, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Fluff - self-referential. Anthropos 02:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless as an encyclopedia article. - Mark Ryan 03:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Almost as fascinating as my belly-button lint. Isomorphic 03:43, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Noldoaran (Talk) 19:41, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's fluff. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)


  • Vinod Scaria - this article is self-promotion. and although Vinod Scaria retrieves many hits in google, most of them seem to be other bits of self-promotion. Kingturtle 04:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Language style makes it obvious he wrote it himself. Delete. Isomorphic 07:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, snap crackle vanity. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Writing an Extemp Speech - inappropriate and original research Dysprosia 04:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Badly written and not encyclopaedic. What is an "Extemp Speech"? - Mark Ryan 05:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Supposed to be "extemporaneous" - using a slang expression is just the start of the problems with this effort. delete - Marshman 06:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't even understand "extemporaneous" - is that "very good", or something?. Delete anyway. Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • "Off the cuff", roughly. "Writing" an off the cuff speech seems to be something of a contradiction. Delete. -- Finlay McWalter 18:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think that was the authors point: here is how to "cheat" at presenting an extemporaneous speech before judges - Marshman
    • I agree. If the contributor wants to have another go, they could start with an article explaining the concept. Deb 17:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, original essay and research. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Scott Turow - useless one sentence stub. - Hemanshu 05:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have enlarged it with a list of books he has authored. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Cleanup is the best place for such articles. -- Cyan 05:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Cyan made it look more useful. --zandperl 13:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've added a thing or two myself, and I think it's worth keeping at this point. Jwrosenzweig 22:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep now. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)


  • Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands - someone just created this page as a redirect to Social Democratic Party of Germany just because Giessen contained a link to it. I've fixed the link in Giessen, so it is now an orphan. -- Timwi 12:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • P.S. Sorry about the misleading edit summary.
    • I created it because I think that political parties should have a redirect from the name in the original language, I was suprised that the German SPD didn't have one. It's a redirect and it's doing no harm to anyone. Secretlondon 13:21, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Obviously useful to have around as a redirect, as the author of Giessen can attest. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as long as it is only a redirect, and not the home for the article. Rmhermen 15:34, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • They way I've set up political party artcles is that they are always under the English language name - and the native language name is a redirect. Secretlondon 16:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • The German name of the party is Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands. -- Timwi 16:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We should have a policy on this sort of wrong language redirect, though. It doesn't seem particularly useful (nor wise to have a lot of these). Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Sangir- This may or may not be something that can be used. It is a stub and has little content, but what is there seems accurate enough. Thoughts? - Litefantastic 19:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikipedia:Cleanup. Jay 20:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Had no VfD boilerplate on - one added today - needs to be moved to December 9th. Secretlondon 13:09, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Stubs are okay! Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Cognation - nonsense. Secretlondon 19:34, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • While this article did take me to micronation, a concept I did not know about before, it seems from the context that this is a "category 2" example of a micronation - "exercises in personal entertainment or self-aggrandizement". Not encyclopedic. Delete Rossami 20:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • How silly. Hard to believe there exists any connection between a serious researcher (or research effort) and this "concept" - Marshman 03:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Mechanism - needs a proper article. This isn't even close. - Hephaestos 20:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't delete. It's barely a stub, but there should be an article there, and something is better than nothing. Isomorphic 07:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Mechanism (philosophy). This is something of a stub--and a stub that only deals with half of the ultimately intended subject-matter at that. But I should hope it's informative enough to work for now. Radgeek 21:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)


  • Nag's Head, London - it's a pub, except that it isn't any more. It's just a bus stop. Secretlondon 20:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's factual information, and could be expanded. No reason to delete - it may be a most significant local landmark. You don't know, so don't risk losing rare information. 80.255 00:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unverifiable, hard to maintain, too unimportant. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Which Nag's Head? This should probably be renamed to Nag's Head Market, or Nags Head Shopping Centre. Other Nag's Heads: a well-known pub in Belgravia, and a strip pub in Aldgate High Street... the one in Camberwell Road? The one in James Street? -- The Anome 13:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think any content could be made into a sentence on Holloway Road, as it's that Nag's Head that it refers to. Secretlondon 13:17, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a part of London, after all, and could be added to. Francs2000 13:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind, keep. Needs work to find out more about the pub. There are other areas of London that are named after former pubs, Dulwich Plough in East Dulwich comes to mind. Secretlondon 13:32, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Assessment of Adolf Hitler -- unbelievable page. It contains two things right now: a mostly amateurish psychoanalysis of the man, then immediately dismissed as "of limited value", and an explication of Daniel Goldhagen's all but discredited thesis as though it were fact and widely accepted. Any good info here could easily be merged into Adolf Hitler, which I should add also gives an explanation of Hitler's rise to power which is very different and far more accurate. -- VV 22:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The psychology of Hitler is a perfectly good subject for an article. The fact it is by no means a perfect article is irrelevant, it just needs work like many others. It is a daughter article of Adolf Hitler. There probably should be an Adolf Hitler series table to keep the relevant articles linked. : ChrisG 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm not opposed to daughter articles per se, but they should have enough content to warrant detachment, such as History of the United States. The actual usable content in this article is no more than a few sentences, which can just be a section or part of a section of Adolf Hitler. I'd feel differently if it was an expansive entry on his psychology (and then probably named Psychology as per suggestion below), but until it is we don't know that it ever will be. -- VV 21:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's embarrassing, but there are lots of worse articles in Wikipedia (alas). --Zero 04:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This makes a stab at being accurate, but there really is no way to know; therefore, it relaly isn't good for anything. Delete. - Litefantastic 12:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Had no VfD boilerplate on - added now - so needs mving to Dec 9th. Secretlondon 13:04, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • I forgot to do that, my bad. I'm not sure the fourteen hour delay is worth worrying about, though. -- VV 21:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As mentioned in the article's talk-page, renaming of the page to Psychology of Adolf Hitler would help. Else the article would appear to be Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not (Personal essays). The content seems ok and needs some NPOV. Jay 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Here's an example (and summation) of its content: The fact, if it is a fact, that Hitler was emotionally or psychologically disturbed does not explain how he was allowed to seize control of a great and cultured nation and lead it to total physical ruin and moral degradation. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV and unnecessary, not to mention not terribly well written. All the contents seem to be idle speculation with little in the way of genuine fact. Anyone could make up something like this. Unencyclpaedic, without a doubt. 80.255 21:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Attempts at retro-active or remote psychoanalysis are unreliable to the point of negligence. The article presents guesses and inferences as facts. (This is an inherent problem with attempting to psychoanalyze historical characters.) The analysis is uncheckable and can not be considered fact-based. By its very nature it cannot be made NPOV. This is not an appropriate article for a fact-based encyclopedia. The few useful (and provable) facts in this article should be merged back into the main article. (If the collective decision is to keep this horrible article, at least move it to Psychoanalysis of Adolf Hitler.) Rossami 02:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We have a fine article on Hitler, this crap is unverifiable. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

December 9

  • Palestinian views of the peace process -- The little of objective value in this rant should be merged with another article and the remainder given a timely burial. -- Viajero 01:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The article was created as an op-ed piece and there is no chance that it could ever be fixed. --Zero 04:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 05:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, POV. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, but most definitely partially merged with another article, such as Proposals for a Palestinian StateLeumi 04:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Mel Frequency bands - just some copy and paste high-level talk with a google link. silsor 02:50, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless someone knows that this is indeed useful. DJ Clayworth 03:21, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I listed it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention because the topic sounds potentially worthwhile. Delete if no one works on it before time is up. Isomorphic 06:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, little or no content, not even a stub. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Student Pugwash USA. As I just said in the mailing list, I normally don't object to things on Talk pages, but this is an exception. RickK 03:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Can you expand a little on your resons for objection? Anjouli 05:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a chat room. RickK 04:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It looks like the author of Student Pugwash USA used the talk page of the article as a forum for some of the org's members to review a proposed "mission statement". Accepting this would not be a good precedent. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. (oops, forgot to sign. This is my comment. Anthropos 13:38, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC))
    • I abstain. Seems a worthy cause and there are worse things happening on WP. I agree it should be discouraged, but I would not go so far as to delete.Anjouli 13:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Can you say off-label use of Wikipedia? Daniel Quinlan
    • Delete. Clear abuse of the talk page for non-article related purpose. If for some strange reason someone thinks this should be kept, imagine the terrible precedent it would set. Maximus Rex 04:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Carmen by Horace. Huh? RickK 03:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Added Vfd text to page. Anjouli 05:41, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Um, nice brief analysis of Horace's Ode 3.13, but it lacks a translation, it's mistitled, and it's not very encyclopedic. Delete, or move to the appropriate place. --MIRV 04:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not even convinced this is Horace. About 45 years ago I used to know Carmen Saeculare (Phoebe silvarum Diana potens.. blah blah - or something like that.) Could be wrong, but I certainly don't remember this bit. Not much point in quoting a bit out of the middle without the rest anyway. Anjouli 05:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Just looked it up in The Oxford Book of Latin Verse. It is Horace, but it's Bandusia, not Carmen Saeculare. (They never made me learn that one!). Delete - for various reasons. Anjouli 05:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This is actually Odes 3: 13, just like it says in the article. It is also a new users first article, so let's all jump on it. I think it could be usefully merged with Horace and the author, who clearly knows his/her Horace, might be encouraged to improve that somewhat inadequate page. Bmills 09:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm all for encouraging newbies, but it is titled Carmen, which it is not. It is another work entirely. Do we let that pass? And what's all this about the possible influence of Montenegran folk-tales on this Ode (or odes)? Montenegro did not exist before the 75th century [6] and Horace died in about 8BC. Anjouli 12:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Someone who knows enough about Horace to be sure it's the right thing should move it to Bandusia or whatever title is appropriate. Then either delete, write about Carmen Saeculare, or point it back to Horace. Onebyone 14:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • carmen just means a poem or song (thus Carmina Burana, etc.). Horace didn't give his poems titles, and carmen is not the title of this poem/ This belongs wherever Horace's odes are discussed. There's no more reason to have Carmen by Horace than Poem by Horace. Binky 21:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. 80.255 21:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Sounds like we should delete. Unless someone really fixes it, delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Close, Binky, but no cigar. Carmen Saeculare means "Secular Hymn". It is widely used (often abbreviated to Carmen) in academic circles to refer to a specific work by Horace - not this one. (Just Google on Carmen Saeculare to verify). And Bandusia is an ode anyway, not a song or hymn. The stuff about time-travelling Montenegrans influencing Horace is balderdash, as is the bit about Illyrians not sacrificing goats. If anybody wants to keep this suspect and mistitled article, please provide some references and a translation. (There's a good one on this page -> [7])Anjouli 07:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have half a mind to move this article to the proper name, add a translation and remove the suspect analysis. But then it would be just an Ode. Do we want Odes? Could it be a stub for somebody to add some sensible commentary? Anjouli 10:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not at all sure what the analysis is about, but perhaps this might be a candidate for http://ps.wikipedia.org ? The annotations about ancient Illyria --- I don't read it as referring necessarily to contemporary people in Montenegro, only that it refers to customs formerly practiced in that territory --- may or may not be legit. And I'm not sure what ought to be in ps.wikipedia.org about annotated source materials, but the text surely, and the commentary perhaps, ought to be preserved there. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The above is very educational. Thank you for the information. RickK 16:30, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Marquee Moon - Impressionistic article on the album by Television. Unless anyone wants to make an article out of it, it should go. Bmills 10:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • AIDS kills fags dead - It's back. This time as a Lest We Forget lament for AIDS victims. Not an encyclopedia article. Bmills 11:53, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) (content before blanking is at Talk:AIDS_kills_fags_dead -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC))
    • Mr. Bmills, you are right. This is a hideously POV page and rather nonsensical. --Merovingian 11:58, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • How about changing the text to '"AIDS kills fags dead" is an annoying article that keeps reappearing on Wikipedia even though we keep deleting it'? That'll stop it reappearing all the time... Otherwise delete... Francs2000 12:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • A nice little personal essay, but it has no place in an encylcopedia. Delete. Tannin
    • It doesn't even pretend to be encyclopedic, does it? Kill this article dead. --MIRV 12:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Also, we should decide here and now that the next time someone recreates this entry, it may be deleted immediately, with no requirement for yet another seven-day wait. (And I don't care what content it sports, the title itself is sufficient cause.) If it comes back, let's just delete it right away. Tannin 12:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Absolutely! Purges must be necessary from time to time. A chronic problem needs an immediate solution: deletion, no challenge. --Merovingian 12:29, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • I concur. Dysprosia 12:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • And I. At least this version is not offensive. I note that Tannin has blanked the article, which I think a bit unfortunate. The least offensive bit is gone while the offensive title remains. Bmills 12:39, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a very sweet essay written under a homophobic title which the author presumably had to recreate as no normal pages link to it. It was written/created by Radgeek who's only been on wikipedia for 24 hours. It all seems very bizarre. Secretlondon 12:33, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • The rotten newbies are bizarre by nature. --Merovingian 12:39, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
        • It's never a newbie. Secretlondon 12:47, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
        • Now that you put it that way, you're right: first they're IP #s, then they get themselves names, then the Wiki dies... --Merovingian 12:53, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
        • While generally in favour of being kind to newbies (just starting to not be one myself, IMO), I think this discussion is irrelevant here. Newbie, oldie, this title should go. Bmills 12:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Nuke this thing. Regardless of content, 'AIDS kills fags dead' is just not something we want to show decent society. Die! With avengence! - Litefantastic 12:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Precisely. You wouldn't find something like this in Britannica *snork*,... now would you? Appearance is everything. --Merovingian 12:46, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Make the subject a protected redirect to Bigot. Otherwise, it will keep returning.Dogface 13:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • That's a good idea, or block it in some other way. Francs2000 13:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Blockage = relief. --Merovingian 14:46, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think Radgeek should be pounced on, he's made good contributions to philosophy articles. If this page was going to be redirected and protected, the logical target is Anti-gay slogan, where all other variants of AKFD redirect to (such as the capitalised version). It's not logical for different pages with essentially the same title to redirect to different places. However, I believe it was decided a while ago to delete Akfd entirely... Evercat 13:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry for the anti-Radgeek attitude. Your redirect suggestion is quite good. --Merovingian 14:46, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • "No normal pages link to it" (Secretlondon)? What about Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States, Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K (!), and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans)? And if we had not been so hypocritical and left AxelBoldt's (absolutely NPOV) article at AIDS kills fags dead we wouldn't have any problems now with users -- whether newbies or not -- recreating the article. So the best thing to do would be a redirect to wherever the original text is hidden now. --KF 16:09, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's a surprise for you, eh? In point of fact, the reason I posted this was primarily because I encountered the link under Wikipedia:Top 10 Google Hits, A-K and, after considering a researched NPOV article about the AIDS holocaust, and then decided that I have better things to do than educate anyone who would go looking under that headline. So, instead, I just posted what I posted so that some measure of sanity would be there until the article was tossed into a (hopefully permanent) garbage bin and the associated links were tossed along with it. Wildly unprofessional? I suppose that it is; but it's something that I feel very strongly about and that leads me into rash actions. In any case, I'll atone by adding some more philosophy material. Ciao. Radgeek 21:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete this piece of garbage. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, delete. --Minesweeper 09:26, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. And do not redirect! See Talk:AKFD/redirect. Angela. 23:53, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • ROSS advert; unpopular -Anthropos 12:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know sir, this looks innocuous; clarification? --Merovingian 12:54, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an ad. Anything that begins <foo> "is the most powerful..." blah blah blah blah blah is nothing but a blatant advertisement. Destroy with extreme prejudice. Dogface 13:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • You're right there. It is an ad... --Merovingian 14:48, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Useless stub; advert. —Noldoaran (Talk) 17:23, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Yoko Syndrome - unwikied orphan; the subject alread treated in articles on Yoko Ono and the Beatles. This specific phrase gets 19 hits on google. -- Infrogmation 13:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Obviously a rant. I took one least-POV sentence from there as an offering to The Inclusionists and put it in Yoko Ono. Gee... they really hate this woman, huh? Give it up and get over it! --Menchi (Talk)â 13:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. As a non-Christian, I have to say the (Bob Dylan anyone) Christian-period dig at the end is off focus and unnecessary. Bmills 13:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, very POV title. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Synopsys - Huge POV company profile. Company is important enought to justify an article, but this ain't it. Anjouli 13:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like a lift from the company Web site. Delete. Bmills 13:46, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Copyviol, perhaps. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • opird from here. My guess would be that someone from the company created the page and they own the copyright, so not really a copyvio. Bmills 13:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Could they be this pathetic? They are quite a large company, I think. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The IP 207.83.113.69 that wrote it is from Synopsys's network. Definitely self-advertising. -- Jake 14:23, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Delete. Secretlondon 17:18, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and rewrite. Isomorphic 19:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all adverts. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep but rewrite. Revenues of $1.8 billion might put it on the small side of significance for an encycolpedia, but we have good articles on smaller. Contents appear to be lifted from an SEC filing which would put them in the public domain - no copyvio. Also, I don't think that you can call the article an advertisement just because the author works for the company. Who else is going to start the article? Will we forbid every member of the military from contributing to articles on the US Army? A POV article just means the rest of us have an obligation to fix it. It's at least a usable starting point. Rossami 15:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think it was called an ad because it replicated the contents of the company Web site which presumably exists to promote the company. Bmills 15:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • PAW An orphan that disambigs between four obscure acronyms, none of which has an article. DJ Clayworth 14:13, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • One of them has an article now. Don't know if the others ever will though. Wait and see. Isomorphic 19:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a TLA and usuefull as such. I'm going to write another article. // Liftarn
  • Palestinian refugee - merge what is of value in Palestinian exodus, delete the rest (cf, this comment from Talk page: This edit war seems to be a rehash of what has already been rehashed at Palestinian exodus which in my humble opinion is a better article to rehash the rehash. BL 12:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)) -- Viajero 15:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a good idea. Bmills 15:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Disagree. It's a legitimate article designed to discuss the definition of Palestinian Refugee. Furthermore the term "Palestinian Exodus" is NPOV. If anything, that article should be brought into this one under this title.Leumi 21:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. (I hope I don't regret this.) Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. : ChrisG 10:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Anglo-Saxon Military Coalition - the term has no currency as a title, just as a descriptive phrase. Google knows nothing beyond Wiki-derived items. Anthropos 17:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Secretlondon 17:18, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If the term ever becomes current usage, then someone can write an article. Bmills 17:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • List of fictional tigers -- Certainly we could split List of fictional cats into wild cats and domestic cats, but just tigers seems a bit too selective, and it doesn't have much on it anyway. -- Timwi 19:23, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Can we delete the ones for monkeys and so on too? Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think it's a valid stub and kind of cute. Anjouli 07:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Salem bin Laden
    • After removing the vague, contextless, POV, there's nothing left. Tuf-Kat 21:09, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • A rant - delete it. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Does this even need to be discussed? Delete, clearly. -- VV 21:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Overhaul, remove POV comments, but keep. If the information is accurate there's no need to delete an article for simply not being well-written. 80.255 21:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If anyone wants to, they can always start again. Onebyone 22:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Revised article is fine, keep. Onebyone 11:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Make it go away. If someone wants to write a real article there later, great. Isomorphic 06:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Rewrite is good. Isomorphic 17:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems fair and accurate after the edit. Please have another look guys? There are lots of people in the Binladen family (thousands) and it would be wrong to label them all as devils. Even if Salem is a baddy, what's the objection if this is accurate? Anjouli 10:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added VfD to the page. Anjouli 10:30, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Post-rewrite version is good. -- Finlay McWalter 16:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Archinatural - I have no idea what it is, and neither does Google. It was anon. added to Architecture in September 2002, and quickly separated into it's own page. Anthropos 21:53, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • This page would disagree with you:http://www2.odn.ne.jp/kagami-hirokazu/works/preview/archi-natural-house.html Wiwaxia 18:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I apologize for exaggerating. Aside from Wikipedia-derived content, Google finds 1 hit for "archinatural" - www.archinatural.com - which if you click on it takes you to Network Solutions' "Site under construction" page. For "archi natural", Google finds two Japanese sites (one of which is listed above), and one site of unknown (by me) content, the Google exract of which reads "... gorgeous legs had felt md thereabouts they'll seeming they sc this free inside jap schoolgirl piss toy adult naturist photo archi natural penis enlargement ... " So while it is false to say that Google "has no idea what it is" (anthropomorphism aside), I think it is safe to say that Google provides no evidence that Wikipedia should include an article on archinatural. - Anthropos 20:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Trecky At most this should be a redirect, but it's a pretty egregious mispelling, as Star Trek doesn't have a "ck". Isomorphic 23:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect. Not sure it's really needed, never seen this misspelling before, but it does have hits on Google. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)


  • Intent isn't really right for an encyclopedia, so I didn't really want to attempt a rewrite. Meelar 21:57, Dec 9, 2003
  • Post-colonialism in literature consists of 2 references to books, has been on clean-up for a month with zero progress. Maximus Rex 04:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Concur with Maximus Rex - while a potentially interesting article, it's languished on cleanup long enough. -- Finlay McWalter 04:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, I changed my mind about this one, I voted to keep last time to give it a chance. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

December 10

  • William West Skiles - 1 sentence, culled from article on town in the county whose article the editor had just vandalized. Editor saved it, then vandalized it& has edited no further. Subject has 18 Google hits (no sign that omitting or initializing middle name still produces hits on same person. --Jerzy 04:14, 2003 Dec 10 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub, seems somewhat verifiable. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Is there any hope of finding more on this guy? If not, then it doesn't matter if the little that's there is verifiable, it's too little to warrant an article. I'd say delete. Isomorphic 06:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del: 18 Google hits?! --Menchi (Talk)â 06:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete.Anjouli 07:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect - this guy's notability is solely in terms of the town. Ambiguity isn't a problem, as it seems to be an uncommon name. Onebyone 11:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 15:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Odiosus. Looks bogus to me, and I don't see any evidence online (other than here and one article clearly derived from here) that "Odiosus" is [1] the name of a female demon, or [2] the name of a demon that is capable of possessing inanimate citrus fruits. - Binky 06:39, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. The word is Latin, and also German or something I think. So when you Google [8], that's what you get: Results unrelated to any demons, except our WP article. --Menchi (Talk)â 06:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. (Think I ate one of those oranges yesterday.)Anjouli 07:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Jan de Weryha-Wysoczanski - incoherent text - Hemanshu 10:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have tried to tidy it up, but wonder if there might be a touch of vanity about it? Bmills 11:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 15:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Casti Connubii - wikisource? Secretlondon 14:10, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Not an article. Delete. Bmills 14:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Replace with an article about the encyclical. --MIRV 15:12, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 15:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Strangelite - single sentence sub-stub, sub-ad. Bmills 14:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by fixing it." BL 15:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (this time around) - 5 days isn't necessarily long enough to give a brand new stub a chance. Onebyone 16:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • BOGO - orphan, stub with no apparent hope of becoming anything more. -Anthropos 16:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No real growth in 4 months. Bmills 16:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Taken care of. Since BOGO is a pricing gimmick it was moved to the gimmick article (where it should be less lonely). :-) –radiojon 01:25, 2003 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Bonnie - belongs on the gibberish Wikipedia. Bmills 16:26, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Please do not delete, I have bad English, someone please help translation ~~James, Munich Germany
      • Could you paste the German text on my user page? Sorry if I was too hasty. Bmills 16:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Please give this more than 5 minutes! It was originally written in German, they've machine translated it after I'd listed on VfD/foreign language. Yes of course it needs work but the other stuff this IP is submitting on female mathematicians seems fine (but may need fact checking). Machine translation often produces gibberish... Secretlondon 16:32, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • I have found some English information ~~James
      • I just hope that it is your own material (ie. nobody else owns the copyright on it) --snoyes 16:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Nothing came up on google. Please don't bite the newbie. Secretlondon 16:52, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. In it's current form, it doesn't look bad. —Frecklefoot 16:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, LBB Is not well known; here in German universities, we try to spread the information about LBB ~~James
      • This page was already deleted, as was the related Slope field. The only Google hits for the equally related Jayne Bryleigh are [9] wikipedia references to the deletion of a closter of related pages around these subjects. Bmills 16:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (although a website link or two, even in German, would be sch&ouml;n). -- Finlay McWalter 17:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC). Abstain, in the light of Bmills/Snoyes evidence. -- Finlay McWalter 17:29, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Bonnie was incorrectly instantly deleted by someone today. I undeleted it. Not all knowledge of the world is on google. I agree that we could do with verifying them but they may well be true. I am not a mathematician. Secretlondon 17:03, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
      • A German woman sitting down stairs from me here says that the 'German' text on Bonnie is not actual German. Can anyone else confirm? Bmills 17:06, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Also note the discussion of these spoof articles and the same 'German' text here dating from last May. I suspect a prankster. Bmills 17:12, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I happen to speak German. Which is also why I instantly deleted the text: The words are German (and not anything else), but it is gibberish (at least gramatically). I am also concerned that this might be a copyright violation, as I find the statment that the author "found" something to suggest that he found it somewhere else and then copied it, instead of finding it in his head. --snoyes 17:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The current content is by the same author of Bryleigh's Theorem (see below). --Zundark 17:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Nobody worked on complex analysis in the 17th century. Hoax, delete. Onebyone 17:24, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. (retracting my previous abstention in face of evidence). Original poster is from Frederick, MD, perhaps explaining his "archaic" form of German :) -- Finlay McWalter 17:39, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete everything by this user. --snoyes 17:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bryleigh's Theorem - This is nonsense. It was deleted before (some months ago), but has reappeared today. --Zundark 17:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Belongs to the same cluster as Bonnie, Jayne Bryleigh, etc (see previous item). Delete the lot, an elaborate hoax. Bmills 17:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • How odd. Delete. Might make a copy at deleted nonsense though, as it fits the bill perfectly. Isomorphic 17:23, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You have my word that this article is correct and not fictional. Please do not jump the gun. ~~James
    • Gun has been jumped by me. -- Cyan 17:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm...sounds like another (in)famous German that wanted all knowledge banned except that which he promulgated.
      • Sophisticated argument, anon. First person to claim that it's POV to refuse to tolerate deliberate fabrications wins a cookie. Onebyone 00:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Let me be clear: Bryleigh's Theorem, Jayne Bryleigh, and slope field have all been summarily deleted by me, as they are, in my judgment, obvious fabrications. My opinion is that the anonymous IP who signed as James is having a bit of fun at our expense. Since Bonnie has been tagged by Secretlondon as not a candidate for speedy deletion, I have left it alone. (My judgment is based on my training as an engineer, which gives me some familiarity with mathematics, and my amateur interest in the history of mathematics.) -- Cyan 17:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree this is a hoax now. Secretlondon 18:38, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Hamlet (place): I've just gone through and disambiguated Hamlet and separated Hamlet (US place) from Hamlet (UK place) because there are distinct differences between what the two countries define as a hamlet. Then someone decided to lump them all in together, never mind the fact that I was in the process of disambigging several hundred pages to the two individually... So can we please remove hamlet (place)? If not, can I have a volunteer to go through and change all the links I've just spent the last two hours disambigging? Francs2000 20:49, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm unclear why you wanted to create two pages from one (if that is what you did) considering that the topic is pretty small and almost a candidate for Wikitionary? - Marshman 21:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The original intention was to disambiguate everything that didn't have anything to do with the play "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". Two were originally created because there is a distinct difference between what the US would call a hamlet (where it's a size issue) and what the UK would call a hamlet (where it's an ecclesiastical issue). I really don't mind either way, I'm just voting for correctness. Francs2000 21:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Actually, don't worry about it. It's easier to just have the one article just in case other countries than the US and UK use the word hamlet. I'll just redirect the links I created to Hamlet (place). Sorry to be so indecisive. Francs2000 00:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place for crusades: after I raised a question about this page (posted as humorous, I believe, by BL), BL posted on the talk page that it could be deleted, and blanked the page himself. I wasn't sure what policy was--the page's only edit history is BL creating it and BL blanking it. I couldn't find any matches with the criteria for speedy deletion, hence my listing here (being ever-cautious, as I am). Jwrosenzweig 22:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question- why was Banana-Spirulina Pancakes deleted? seemed a reasonable page to me, no worse than any other recipe page... Deletion log says 'see talk page', but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that at the deletion log quercus robur 00:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's precisely the point: it was a recipe. The consensus appears to be that recipe pages are not appropriate. I think there's a WikiBooks recipe book though, and it may have been moved there. Isomorphic 00:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There's a List of recipes, which is in the process of being moved to a specialist cookbook. Given that, I personally don't see the point of listing individual recipes for deletion unless that project has stalled. Onebyone 01:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Veld Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete for the same reasons Lekker was deleted. [11].Angela. 01:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1927810"