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 Onebyone (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 11 December 2003. 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. A short example can be added by typing {{SUBST:vfd}}

December 5

  • Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Chapters 1-5, Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Chapters 6-10, Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Section2, Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Section 2A, Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Section 3, Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Section 3A, Structure of Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia is not the place for such indepth analysis. These articles should be deleted from here and posted at wikibooks. Kingturtle 04:55, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • m:Transwiki? -- Cyan 05:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete or move DJ Clayworth 18:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikisource or Wikibooks. --YACHT 09:09, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • 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.
    • Keep. Deleting this stuff seems like a terrible waste. Can't you find somewhere on wikibooks for it? JackLynch 05:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Look at this Wiki is not paper JackLynch 08:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Move to wikibooks, and place a link to it from the main article.

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)
  • 3Dlabs. Advertisement. RickK 08:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. Copyvio [1] 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 [2] (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)
  • 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

  • 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)
    • Delete. Move to the Wiktionary. r3m0t 15:42, 11 Dec 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)
    • I know nothing about alternative medicine, but the article Interventionism contains information on a similar subject by the same author. If it is eventually decided to delete the "Criticisms of modern medicine" article, someone more knowledgeable than me might want to look over the related edit to Interventionism. (If the Interventionism edit is kept, though, I might try separating the article into "Interventionism (politics)" and "Interventionism (medicine)", as the two concepts aren't really related.) -- Vardion 10:20, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 04:35, 11 Dec 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)
    • Keep disambiguation page. Angela. 02:57, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The first four entries are just definitions, suitable for Wiktionary. Fifth is fine. Sixth is fine, but the page it refers to doesn't exist. Given that, I see no need for the disambiguation page. Ortonmc 04:25, 11 Dec 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) Jay 09:01, 11 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)
    • Delete. No useful content. Angela.
  • 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)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. Ortonmc 04:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Acting Sheriff - orphan, an unsold tv pilot from 1991 [3] -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)


  • 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)


    • 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)
    • Keep. Short, but informative. Ortonmc 04:31, 11 Dec 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)

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)
  • 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)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. Ortonmc 04:41, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 04:41, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 04:41, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 04:41, 11 Dec 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)
    • Keep. Ortonmc 04:41, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. To quote the Cognational Anthem, "I'm against it." Ortonmc 04:50, 11 Dec 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)


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)
    • Merge JackLynch 05:06, 11 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)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 05:00, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. I left a note on the creator's talk page, so maybe that will help... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 05:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • KEEP! Dear Ortonmc et al.: There is no clear Deletion Policy guidance with respect to what is acceptable or not on talk pages. Wikipedia's own Purpose of Talk Pages article (which I recommend be linked from the Deletion_Policy page) indicates that our discussion was clearly within the scope of what a Wikipedia talk page should do:
  1. As noted from the outset of the Student Pugwash talk page, the purpose of the discussing therein was precisely to "improve the contents of the main page" [4] and to provide "commentary on the main page" [5].
  2. The entire dialog on that page is about how to better frame the mission statement for this 20 year-old organization. Consensus on this talk page (just on as operates on wikipedia as a whole) will result in an update of the wiki article it is talking about -- i.e., to revise the mission statement expressed in that article. Thus, this dialog also directly meets Wiki's Talk_Page standard for "arguments relevant to changing the text" [6].
  3. If it is the cultural concept of framing that concensus in terms of a "memo" which offends Ortonmc, I can remove all reference to the term "memo," but please keep the overall discussion intact. The alternative of censorship is counter to Wikipedia's intent of allowing for pertinent (inoffensive) free speech on an article's Talk page, including "commentary on the main page."
      • People discussing clarifying communication about the subject of a wikipedia article is clearly within the scope of what a Talk_Page is expected to do. I urge my fellow "wikipeople" not to err on the side of censorship with regards to such communication.
      • Thank for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Dann 14:00 to 16:30, 11 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)
  • 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)
    • Delete. ~~ oops, that was me. Ortonmc 05:01, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. Ortonmc 05:00, 11 Dec 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)
    • Delete. If it's rewritten as a history of the company, I'll change my vote. Ortonmc
    • Move to Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. No way to know if the contributor / Synopsys employee owns the copyrights to the company website page, unless the contributor responds. Jay 09:01, 11 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)
    • Keep, and agree w Leumi. Regardless of their respective contents, this is a far better Heading JackLynch 05:06, 11 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)
    • Keep. This is not a daughter page of List of fictional cats but rather List of fictional animals. If a selective subject has enough material on it for an article, then its valid. After all thats how some article namespaces grow, from generic to specific. This article hasn't been worked upon much probably because it had only one article linking to it. There are many sections waiting to be filled. Jay 06:43, 11 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
    • Delete, original essay. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Very long-winded dictionary entry. Ortonmc 04:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Replace. Intent has a specific meaning in criminal law, which does have a place in the encylopedia. --Raul654 10:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Raul654's point may well be valid but has no bearing on this. The entry presently has no content wort keeping and needs to be deleted. If Raul or another contributor wishes to recreate it at some future time with more appropriate content, then that's fine. It's difficult to see how it could make an actual article as opposed to a poor stub, but if someone wants to do it, so be it. Meantime, a red link is much better than the present bumpf. Delete. Tannin 12:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 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 [7], 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)
    • Delete. It fails the Google test and the dictionary test. The only references to "odiosus" I could find were in Latin, and don't appear to have anything to do with demons. Although I have to admit, googling "dancing limes" was rather entertaining. Ortonmc 03:47, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, Dec 11, 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)
    • Keep. Google shows hits in several languages, so he appears to be known in several countries. Ortonmc 04:18, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-advert. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, Dec 11, 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)
    • Agree, not an article. Delete - Marshman 05:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, move to wikisource is optional. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, Dec 11, 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)
    • Keep. VfD'd on its first day? Give it a few to grow. --zandperl 03:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advert. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

December 11

  • Pop culture images of Salvador Allende - What Wikipedia is not collection of photographs. Kingturtle 04:27, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 11:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added missing VfD tag. Anjouli 11:43, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Would be fine if a few sentences of commentary were added. --Zero 12:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Only written yesterday. Maybe we should leave it to see if we get more, rather than proposing instant deletion. It's only one image - it just needs the commentary.Secretlondon 13:28, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
      • Well I did not mean instant by my vote. Happy to pull back my vote if it imrpoves anytime in the next 5 days. Anjouli 14:20, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete if not fixed in 5 days - if it was created with more images ready to be added, fair enough. As a "stub" though I don't think it's helpful. Onebyone 17:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The following were created from Timeline of Quebec history, done arbitrarily and without consensus. Breaking up a clear and precise one-page history makes it harder for Wikipedia users to do research. But, breaking it up makes it more difficult to monitor someone with a demonstrated agenda such as User:Mathieugp whose goal is to manipulate the various articles to his distinct point of view. Delete the following:
  • Angelique
    • I agree it's hardly a "timeline" if it's spread across many pages. Nothing wrong with linking to specific articles from a timeline, but that's not happening here. It's just a fragmented timeline. With or without the need to monitor POV editors, this is not good. I say delete and revert. Angelique, can you or somebody else put a VfD on the individual pages please? Sorry, I don't have time to help right now. Anjouli 14:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I have done so. -- Cyan 14:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am neutral on this question. I note that Timeline of United States history has been in this format for several months. Does this nomination for deletion attempt to promulgate a Wikipedia-wide principle, or is it concerned only with the Quebec history pages? -- Cyan 14:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm loathed to intervene in the political edit war that angelique is one of the main actors in. If the articles can be made big enough so that having them all on the one page is unmanageable then they should be split. However I don't believe the listing here is due to the practicalities involved. All sides seem to be crying Wolf! Vandalism! POV! Secretlondon 14:52, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't see what's POV about splitting a page which is too large into smaller ones. Timeline of United States history and Timeline of Afghan history are split into subpages in the same way. Angela. 15:15, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The division is reasonable. VfD is not the correct forum for settling edit wars or conflict between users. -- Finlay McWalter 15:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am the guilty one who split the Timeline of Quebec history, using Timeline of United States history as reference. The page is, unlike stated above far from being precise and clear. The whole point of this subdivision which was discussed in Talk:Timeline of Quebec history was to clean up the mess. The article was awfully long an disorganized (see the history of the page) and it included full paragraphs that didn't belong in a timeline. User:Angelique stated that she would object to whatever I do by principle, because she says I am pushing a distinct POV, unlike her who of course does not. This fact makes it impossible to arrive to a concensus. In the most recent parts of the discussion, I agreed with User:Adam Bishop that my proposed subdivision was not good. After seeing it with my own eyes, I agreed that some subdivisions could be merged together, such has 1001 to 1533 which has only about 4 items long! I invite you all to compare this with the Timeline of United States history and also consider that beginning the history of Quebec with either the British Conquest or the French colonization is in fact pushing a POV in itself. Didn't many peoples live in Quebec for milenia before Jacques Cartier arrived? I think including everyone qualifies as NPOV. I think using an existing timeline subdivision as a model is NPOV. -- Mathieugp 15:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep; but each page needs navigation bar at top and bottom, linking to previous/ next in series. Andy Mabbett 16:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The subpages (not the page itself) of Horrible Histories, such as The Angry Aztecs, which dont say nothing else than they belong to the referred colection. Muriel Victoria 14:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe keep but add stub boilerplate to all of them I'm biased as my kids love these books. Bmills 14:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe you could convince them to write something? ;) Because i dont see how they could evolve to proper articles, hence the listing here. I can aleways be surprised... Muriel Victoria 14:47, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (alas). As they're fundamentally history textbooks, any of the actual historical content should surely belong in the appropriate main page (Aztec or whatever). What remains is the unique Horrible Histories style, which can surely be captured adequately in the main Horrible Histories article. I just can't think of what content one would add to a specific book's article that wouldn't better belong elsewhere. -- Finlay McWalter 15:08, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If they are deleted, the main article will need to be de-wilified. Otherwise we're inviting the next person who comes along to start recreating them. Bmills 15:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Onus - dictionary entry. Bmills 15:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Killographic "...is a new word spawned on Monday December 8th"". Andy Mabbett 16:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Beat me to it. Delete. Bmills 16:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Could be redirected to Video game controversy but if it isn't a real word, I'm not sure there's any benefit in that. Angela. 16:45, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1932792"