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 Isomorphic (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 12 December 2003 (copyvio?). 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 the top of any page that you list on Votes for deletion, and to any page already listed that does not have one. This can be done quickly by entering {{SUBST:vfd}} at the top of a page.


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)
    • If a song doesn't need a page all to itself, it should be redirected to the page on the album, and all the useful material moved there. -- Oliver P. 18:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia commentary and all its subpages [1] (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)

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)
    • Keep. Why should we be forbidden from learning what hotels there are in Delhi? -- Oliver P. 18:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Awesome stuff. BL 20:17, 12 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)
    • I think this page may serve a somewhat valuable purpose: Keeping the medicine pages from getting too cluttered with criticism. moink 04:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Name might not be NPOV, but the topic exists. BL 20:17, 12 Dec 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)
    • Keep. BL 20:17, 12 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)


  • Acting Sheriff - orphan, an unsold tv pilot from 1991 [2] -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)
      • If content from a page is merged into another, the page should be kept as a redirect firstly in order to preserve the information on authorship (this is a legal requirement, as well as a Good Thing), secondly to enable people to find the content, and thirdly to enable people to link to that content. Having said that, I don't know that this couldn't become a larger article over time, so I would recommend leaving it alone for now. -- Oliver P. 18:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 18:31, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is exactly the stuff WP was made for. BL 20:17, 12 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)
    • Keep. Good reading. AFAIK, the user wasn't banned August 10. BL 20:17, 12 Dec 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)
    • I'm in favour of deleting redirects out of the article space, as long as they have no history. -- Oliver P. 18:12, 11 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)
    • 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)
    • The information is referenced and seems accurate enough, so I don't see a reason not to keep it. ("Encyclopadic" means "comprehensive", by the way. I checked in the dictionary... ;) -- Oliver P. 18:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • What every "human interest" story in every tabloid newspaper? Do you subscribe to The Sun? Would you like people to send you their local newspapers? Secretlondon 16:44, Dec 12, 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)




  • 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)
    • Keep there are a lot of google hits on the subject it just needs some work its a good stub Archivist 18:35, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Probably better renamed to Mel frequency scale. It is a valid topic worthy of an entry, though. -- Tlotoxl 18:52, 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)
    • Delete Secretlondon 16:44, Dec 12, 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)


  • 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
    • Keep. It's just an ordinary disambiguation page. It should never have been listed here. --Zundark 14:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • 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)
    • Delete. Even if it were a term, this isn't an encyclopedic article. Tempshill 03:43, 12 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)

December 10

  • 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)
  • 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 [3], 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)
  • Clinton Swaine - seems to be a personal vanity page bordering on self-advert, only 11 Google hits. Daniel Quinlan 09:02, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Real-estate magnate just over the borderline of importance. But needs extensive editing to remove subjectivity, a lot of unimportant details, and subtle POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 12 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)
    • 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)
      • This particular article is about Pop culture images of Salvador Allende. 1) Are pop culture images of him different than other images? Are pop culture images of him important enough to merit a unique article? 2) Why can't that image simply be added to Salvador Allende? 3) An article written about this would have to discuss specifically why Salvador Allende's pop culture images are important and distinct from other images of Allende, and of other pop culture images of other people. Kingturtle 02:06, 12 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 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)
    • Keep as stubs. Main users of these pages are likely to be kids. Some justification for a simple language synopsis of the book, and links leading them into the main subject. Could be beneficial. Anjouli 13:59, 12 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)
    • I've added the definition, but even so, I don't think it's worth keeping here. Wiktionary, maybe. Or maybe not. Wait and see if the word catches on. Delete. Ortonmc 03:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I had a description already up. It is not truely a real word yet. Words aren't considered 'real' until posted in an official dictionary. None of you however are making a strong point on why it should be deleted, except "it doesn't belong here". So I am saying to keep Fizscy46 04:09, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think it doesn't belong here because it is not an encyclopedia article, it is a poor dictionary entry for what may or may not turn out to be a word. Bmills 09:18, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Of course its poor, I started it 24 hours ago. You have to give it some time to accumulate, rather then immediately delete it.Fizscy46 14:40, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this only valid as an example of a word made up for political reasons, and if anything should be a redirect to page describing this. The article admits it was made up by a lobby group. The word itself does not deserve an entry - as if we do that we are just helping their campaign to bring their creation into common useage. (maybe compare with the US use of homicide bomber instead of suicide bomber, and the British use of asylum seeker rather than refugee.) Secretlondon 14:56, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Marginal neologism but political significance (motivation behind) of coinage justifies article. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not encyclopedic -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Logarithm homework help - not suitable here, perhaps Wikibooks Dysprosia 22:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't agree. I expect many people type "logarithm" into the search box wanting to find help with their maths homework, and the current logarithm page doesn't provide this. I take the point that wikibooks would be a good place, but this loses the immediacy of a wikipedia entry. Also, the entry has the potential to become arbitrarily long, which would support its deletion, I guess. I'm new here, I can't even vote to save it anyway! Robinh 23:10, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Robin, as the author of the article, you do have the right to vote here, no matter how new you are, but it's not really about voting but deciding whether this is suitable for an encyclopedia, and I think in its current format it is not. It would need to be rewritten in a way which is both encyclopedic and helpful for those doing their maths homework. Angela. 02:05, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not Wikipedia content. Fuzheado 17:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the content could be placed on wikibooks and the Logarithm article could simply link to it for homework help. Tempshill 19:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 12

  • Ghost of the Robot Greenmountainboy 04:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Why? --MIRV 09:13, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Why? Anjouli 14:05, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to cleanup for wikification and NPOV. Nontrivial band (lots of disparate googleation) and lead-singer is the estuary-english vampire from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. -- Finlay McWalter 14:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Flour fire ball and Flour bomb. What is Wikipedia's liability with stuff like this? RickK 04:15, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of pages like this (see School chemistry experiments and demonstrations) and I don't see the danger aspect of it being a reason to delete. You could add a risk disclaimer. Angela. 04:18, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What she said. (Damn she's fast!) -- Cyan 04:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Some people think she's a Perl script :). I said a while back in VP (now gone) that a more obvious disclaimer on the main page might be in order to protect us. But I understand many users disagree. Anjouli 14:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You could hurt someone, or start a fire, doing some of this stuff. In particular, there's one demo involving blowing rubbing alcohol from a straw into a candle that I've heard can char a wooden table if aimed downwards. We just need a disclaimer. I don't think there's reason for deletion, though. Speaking of really dangerous experiments - some of the worst things involve folks who accidentally carry cryogens in closed containers. -- Pakaran 04:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What about Pipe bomb? (That article fails to mention you must grease the end-cap before screwing it on to the pipe, otherwise gunpowder can get in the thread and cause premature detonation.) Anjouli 17:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • List_of_US_Presidents_by_estimated_IQ Snopes says this is a spoof. Quincy 08:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, POV hoax Gentgeen 08:24, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Misinformation. Delete. --MIRV 08:34, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Even if it isn't a hoax it should be deleted because "IQ" is a totally unscientific and reactionary piece of crap. :) Adam 08:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete (despite the fact that i actually agree with the positioning of GWB) Muriel Victoria 13:17, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Very funny. But delete. Sorry. Anjouli 14:07, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep in current form. Pcb21 has replaced the hoax with an article about the hoax. Rossami 14:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • In the unlikely event that we decide to include email hoaxes, the text of the e-mail should be included. Anjouli 17:40, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep now modified artcle about the hoax. Reproduce the original hoax in this article. 80.255 20:34, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, Rename so "Hoax" is in the title, Provide a link to page history for people than want to see the e-mail. mydogategodshat 21:09, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, title is POV and indicates it is about a real article not an article about an insignificant and rather nonconvincing hoax. (Democrat average IQ is apparently 156 and Republican average IQ is apparently 115, Republicans are 5 dumbest presidents and Democrats the smartest 3. I'm really impressed by the sophistication of this.) Daniel Quinlan 21:31, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Not a very useful article by itself. Maybe it could be part of a List of e-mail hoaxes? Angela. 21:41, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep info on hoax, as own article or as part of another; I for one have heard this rumor several times. If own article, move to some other title; "List of..." is clearly not appropriate for the new version. -- VV 22:44, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Punter Was a redirect to John (prostitution), which is clearly inappropriate. The vastly more common meaning is someone who bets on horse races (indeed, the local prostitution meaning is probably derived from this one), and it can also mean one who poles a boat in shallow water. None of these meanings are worthy of an encyclopedia entry. This is, after all, not a dictionary. Tannin 13:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Rossami 14:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to add that, to Americans, a punter is somebody who kicks a football.  :) It could be redirected to Glossary of American football. RickK 16:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • or made into a kind of disambiguation page to all of these various meanings. Gentgeen 16:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Opposition, for the reason Gentgeen mentioned. It has become a pretty standard disambiguation page now. I was, however, surprised that nobody added the actual meaning of punter: Someone who punts ;-) -- Timwi 16:56, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, it has now become a good dismbig page. Tempshill 18:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Angela. 21:41, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Signuno -- the third completely obscure homemade conlang I encountered in the past 5 months! It has about 200 hits [6]. It is described at Gestuno (with 2000 Google hits), as a conlang "about which we still do not know very much at this stage". --Menchi (Talk)â 14:23, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Saurabh Gupta -- contributor's user profile. He's also added himself to List of Indians. Jay 15:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 16:44, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to his user page? Certainly delete from wikipedia. Tempshill 18:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It was submitted by an anon IP, so there is no user page to move it to. Angela. 21:41, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • RFC 1459, RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, and RFC 2813 Extreme, permanent stubbiness. All are basically repetitions of the title and the summary paragraph of the RFC. There is no real need to turn these into nonstubs: the RFCs are used for technical detail and can speak for themselves. – Olathe December 12, 2003
  • Channel cricket on DALnet We don't need information on every single channel on every single IRC network. This channel has no sufficient historical importance to support giving it its own article. The users of the channel can get a web page for the channel to hold information about it. – Olathe December 12, 2003
    • Delete. Tempshill 18:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 18:57, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • MÄ?dhyamaka-kÄ?rikÄ?. Broken . Page history etc doesn't work. Does that make it a candidate for speedy deletion? Angela 21:10, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Be careful you don't delete M when trying to delete this. Angela
  • CompUSA - Looks like an advertisement, text is from CompUSA website. Ortonmc 22:04, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I just did some NPOVing on it. It's not really that bad after deleting a few useless sentences and rewording a bit. Isomorphic 22:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Neutral - I created page because dead link to it already existed from Dallas page. Wasn't attempting to advertising. Thanks for killing the POV material. Happety
      • Question though... if the text is from the CompUSA website, do you have authorization to use it, Happety? Could be a copyvio. Isomorphic 22:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Xeriscape - weird semi-advertisement with no definition of the term. Tempshill 22:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I just changed it to a link to the much more detailed Xeriscaping. Tempshill 22:52, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1942919"