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 Optim (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 21 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


December 16

  • Settlers of Catan, Great Crossing maps, Settlers of Catan, Into the Desert maps, Settlers of Catan, Four Islands maps, Settlers of Catan, Greater Catan maps, Settlers of Catan, New Shores map, Settlers of Catan, New World maps, Settlers of Catan, Oceans maps. Non-canonical, fan-created variants of a (very good) board game. Should, at the least, be merged into one article until the need for multiple articles is demonstrated. Note also the existence of Settlers of Catan, Variants, which describes several variants of a different nature. As someone familiar with the standard game, but none of the variants, I say that these two types of variant should be kept separate. Smack 00:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • All twenty-three boards are official, designed by Klaus Teuber. You just don't own the rest of the game suite. There are four official expansion sets. Get with the program. ~ stardust 01:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No need to be insulting. I vote to delete. RickK 01:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia's VfD mechanism is not for sophomoric users. It should be used with care and consideration. More than you have just exercised, with a shameless disregard for what you know to be true. ~ stardust 02:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Currently no content. Give the author a day or two to build them up before listing them. However, I've said it before, I think these pages, and all game strategy guides, should go to Wikibooks. Gentgeen 04:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into one article or delete. Angela. 07:06, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Concur with Angela. Morwen 08:03, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • As do I, tending towards the second option. Bmills 11:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. UtherSRG 16:49, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete all. RickK 01:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Too much information to merge or delete. I think, waiting for the author to fill in the content before making such a decision would be just the normal process. Same thing for moving to Wikibooks: At this point there is just the idea of the game guide, so why delete this article right now? -- Jose Antonio Fernandez 10:43, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Please note that this comment was the above user's first post to Wikipedia, and his second was a modification to Settlers of Catan. I smell a sock puppet. RickK 03:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Fernandez is in Germany, while I'm in the U.S. Resolve our IP addresses and see for yourself. ~ stardust 09:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree. We should keep it. It's too much important work just to throw away. --Chuck SMITH 23:22, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep! Give Stardust more than three days to finish his grand project. And do you really want to kill this: Settlers of Catan, Oceans maps????? If you do, I hate you. BL 09:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm a she. And, this project has a wider scope than being any one person's project. Note the progression of the korean and portuguese translations. Likewise, players with expertise on the sea maps have joined Wikipedia to develop those pages. The suggestion to merge was made and seconded without knowledge of how much information the pages have been designed to contain. ~ stardust 09:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Shrug. I don't see why we need a separate page for each set of maps, but then I've only played with the original map anyway. Let's see how they turn out. Tualha 04:19, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • All articles containing a single link and are devoid of any other content qualifies for immediate deletion. --Jiang 07:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, "Oceans" has been filled out. Presumably Stardust will do the others at some point. Of course she can still do so if they're deleted. I am concerned about "Oceans" though, it looks like it might be going somewhat beyond "fair use". Is there a lawyer in the house? Tualha 20:38, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Those with no content could be moved to the user namespace until they are further developed. The resulting redirects from the main namespace should be deleted. Angela. 21:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or move to user subpages for the author and delete the trailing redirect. The pages are currently empty. Maximus Rex 09:06, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bambuco written in the foreign language of Alta-English. Propose deletion unless anyone wants to provide a good translation. DJ Clayworth 22:50, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Machine translation. In its current state, delete.  — Sverdrup (talk) 23:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Has been listed in cleanup since Nov. 14 but hasn't improved much. I'm guessing that no one knows enough about it to rewrite properly. We could replace with a grammatical stub, but it would probably just be filled out the same way again. So delete. Hopefully someone will come along who can write it properly. Tualha 14:07, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Turn into a grammatical stub if necessary. Not everybody has good english. Secretlondon 22:49, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. --Jiang
  • The Kings Arms - advert (perhaps redirect to pub names or public house?) Andy Mabbett 11:40, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • VinnieWhy do that? It's not an advert it's an old traditional pub in Portesham that represents what English pubs are all about. Don't delete beacsue you may not understand something. Yes here is a url pointing to the pub, but having said that the homesite is quite informative. I am sure they wouldn't mind linking back here. I actually sent the owner an email he wanted it here as he has the oldest pub in Portesham and is a promoter of portesham in every sense of the word. +
      • Please don't try to blame me for a supposed lack of understanding. Andy Mabbett 12:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
      • Gee, the owner of the pub is glad to have free worldwide advertising. Why am I not surprised? Delete or make it into a universal article, as has been suggested. RickK 01:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • Delete, Agree with Andy. References to specific pubs (as opposed to just common pub-NAMES) are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Spellbinder 12:09, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • Can I vote to alter the redirect? Because 'The Kings Arms' is a popular pub name in England, and is it obvious in the public house article why this is? How about turning it into an article about pubs with that name in general, or 'the something-or-other's arms', and explain what that means? Francs2000 14:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
      • Presumably different pubs bear the arms of different kings? To my mind, the signs are at least as interesting as the names. Maybe there needs to be an English pub signs article to bind them all? Bmills 14:39, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
      • "How about turning it into an article about pubs with that name" - You (or anyone else) are welcome to write such an article, at that page. Andy Mabbett 15:29, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • If someone writes a basic article on the name in 7 days, redirect there. If not, delete. I've been to this pub and its not that special. DJ Clayworth 19:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC) +
    • Keep this page. theres nothing at all wrong with it 207.44.154.35
    • Didn't this get discussed a couple of weeks back when I also put this page up for deletion? If it stays can I write an article about the Spread Eagle in Southend on Sea which is my local, and The Hamlet Court, which isn't, but i often go in for a pint whilst waiting for a take away from the curry house next door? And the Golden lion, which nobody ever goes in??? And the Bell, which is a dump but the only pub I pass on the way home from work???? quercus robur 17:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


December 17

  • Camberwell Chronicles - ad for an as yet unpublished series of books. Originally blanked as a copyvio, but apparently submitted by the original author. --Delirium 07:23, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unpublished? Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 17:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Lumos3 13:25, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ad. Three google hits: the homepage, and WIkipedia. Tualha 23:03, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ad. Optim 00:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bistromatic drive - apparent copyvio from Hitchhiker's Guide, or one of its sequels - I'll check for sure when I get home from college this evening, my copy is at home. In any event, it's not marked as fictional, or wikified, and I wonder if it deserves to be. Pakaran 18:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 18

Dec 18 subsection 1

  • Train of Thought (2003 album) -- Almost entirely POV, essentially it's just a personal review of this Dream Theater album by an anonymous user. -mhr 01:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. It's a review, not an encyclopedia entry about the album. Pillsbur 01:52, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless someone replaces it with a proper article (or does that go without saying, here?) Tualha 02:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: not an article. Bmills 11:21, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rojam -- advert. Pillsbur 02:04, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an advert, yes, but it's not POV. It can be made into an article, if someone can be bothered. If nobody does within 7 days, delete. -- Timwi 04:24, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Notice added. Posted on cleanup. Tualha 04:54, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by fixing it."BL 09:42, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic with room to grow. -Anthropos 13:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Andrew_Vachss -- Seems like an advert. Pillsbur 02:08, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, send to Cleanup for more content & elim copyvio: well enough established paperback author (have never read him, but recognized his name immediately) that it's plausible his non-writing work is a calling rather than a livelihood. --Jerzy 02:46, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)
      • Er, what copyvio? Tualha 05:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Er, i Er-red in basing that on a quick glance at language that was identical for a shorter length than was my impression. Tnx for asking. --Jerzy 17:37, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)
    • Seems like a reasonable stub to me. I've read a couple of his novels. -- Cyan 03:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep even if stub, important figure in child sexual abuse field, ISTR NY Times Magazine ran an article on him. Notice added. Posted on cleanup. Tualha 04:54, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Work-for-less -- POV is extreme, nothing additional over Right-to-work. Wake 03:49, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Notice added. Tualha 05:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- stewacide 02:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. POV is basically the same as right-to-work page. Like in the abortion debate, where there is pro-choice and pro-life, right-to-work is the anti-union jargon - so the anti-union people get their page and the pro-union people don't? I suppose a solution would be to move the right-to-work page to the work-for-less one and redirect it, but I'm sure they'd be unhappy with that. Also the complaint seems like a trap - it's called an "extreme" POV, although it doesn't seem so to me since it's the same as the right-to-work one. Then it says it doesn't have much more info - but if I put any more I'm sure he'd deem it "extreme", so he's trying to set up a Catch-22. This seems politically motivated to me, this fellow just wants one point of view shown, not a neutral one or two POV's combining to make a neutral one anyway. -- Lancemurdoch 13:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree that right-to-work is just as POV, but that it the common term. "Right-to-work laws" turns up ~9900 Google entries, "Work-for-less laws" turns up only 153 (almost all of which are in the context "right to work for less"). -- stewacide 18:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Timothy Zenker - personal page. Evil saltine 07:22, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What, he doesn't deserve an entry just because he turns up no Google hits and has done nothing more noteworthy than admissions counseling? Delete. --MIRV 07:27, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 15:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 16:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This was added as a link from some gossip put on the George W. Bush page but quickly reverted - Marshman 02:51, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dec 18 subsection 2

  • The House On The Hill (poem) - just the text of a poem. Possibly still copyright? Bmills 09:20, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Until 2005, it would seem. (In the US - not sure about elsewhere.) Tualha 15:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Putting on possible copyvios page. Bmills 16:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Christian_views_of_gambling - content presently "Christians take a wide variety of views on gambling..." and not much more than that. Fuzheado 17:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • there is a serious article to be written about this, but this isn't it, and I don't have the time at present (too busy sorting out the cod). Is it worth keeping as a stub? seglea 17:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge into Gambling as a section (on religions in general, not just Christianity) and change to a redirect. I will, if the consensus agrees. Tualha 19:55, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Good idea for now, Tualha - Marshman 02:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Merge Jack 05:53, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Done. Only dealt with major western religions, though. Tualha 16:42, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rainer W. Kühne - 16 Google hits (either form of name, with "physics" or its German equivalent); physics PhD apparently unemployed in his field tho he has some professional pubs; significant only bcz of his interest in fringe- or junk-science topics like mag monopoles, cold fusion, transmutation, and Atlantis. --Jerzy 20:41, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)
    • I think someone should undertake the difficult task of writing an NPOV article that amounts to "this guy is a crank" :) Tualha 23:17, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 02:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Jack 05:53, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Chinese plane tree - there is no plane tree native to China. There is an article now for Oriental plane. I suspect that this article came across a misunderstanding of the term oriental, the current understanding especially in the US (East Asia) being mistaken for the older use (east of Europe). Imc 21:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (nonvote)If it's a reasonable mistake for someone to make once, the same could surely happen again. So this sounds like a perfect case either for a redirect or a disambig (and it sounds like you're the best person to write such a disambig) -- Finlay McWalter 23:20, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Trouble is, it's probably not a reasonable mistake. This may well be the first known instance of the term Chinese plane tree! Imc 23:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Agree. No hits on google (except all the Chinese airplane articles) - Marshman 01:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I can work on getting the info somewhere where it will be correct. The furthest east on Eurasia that the Oriental plane tree is native is Iran. Then I'll delete the article. No point in keeping an error like this as a redirect unless someone can state that the term "Chinese plane" is commonly used in say horticulture - Marshman 01:37, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) There is no longer any useful information in the article and should be deleted - Marshman 01:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 19

  • 25th century, 27th century, 28th century, 29th century, 31st century - these have been deleted before. They are a magnet for vandals, and currently lack content other than the boilerplate. - Hephaestos 04:04, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete...again. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:51, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete. Tuf-Kat 04:54, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless. PMC 05:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need for them. Tualha 05:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am afraid deletion is not a feasible solution. They will only be recreated again by someone, who hasn't read this. The only Final Solution (tm) for this problem, is to have them and all the future dates as redirects to one mother of futures article; let's say Future milennia, centuries, decades and years. Then you could add sections for those years decades or centuries you have valid info for. The beauty of this would be that it would be open ended, you could add stuff about gazillion milennia forwards. Also, once some year or decade got enough material for a solo article, it could easily be spun back onto it's redirect. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:52, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Off-road transport POV crap. Davodd 16:56, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • A ramble. Delete - Marshman 17:15, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Gosh, I didn't know they'd given Ted Kaczynski internet access. Delete. Tualha 00:56, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I had put it on the cleanup page, but I'm OK with it being deleted too. Samw 02:05, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • junk, delete -- Infrogmation 02:43, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Garbage. Delete. Kosebamse 07:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete text and replace because the title is ok as a stub Archivist 00:30, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

December 20

  • O Fons Bandusiae
    • The page that was at Carmen by Horace. I think the consensus was to delete it, but I'm not sure if that was mainly because of the title, so I've moved it. If there's no opposition to deletion now that it is at this title, that's okay with me. -- Oliver P. 04:02, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep: ilya


  • Verisimilitude. Dictionary definition. Maybe move to Wiktionary? -- Vardion 07:30, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Not the sort of word one could write an article about. Tualha 14:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Verisimilitude was previously linked to from The Alamo and Timeline of fictional events. It is explained in the Theater terms article. Redirect it there? Angela. 02:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If the links in The Alamo and similar are pointed to the entry in theater terms, it might be okay, but the word "verisimilitude" can be used outside drama, and so I'd be hesitant create a redirect to theater terms for the word itself. But it does seem that "verisimilitude" is used mostly in drama (or at least, in drama and literature), so it might be okay. -- Vardion 06:10, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • YPK - Unable to verify that this isn't completely made up. --Delirium 09:19, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I am not aware of any YPK prophecy originating from Asia. No references in the articles. No hits in google or yahoo. Asked other people who could know more and they said they have no idea about YPK, one of them checked dictionaries of chinese mythology with no results. Optim 10:38, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Smells like BS to me. Delete. Tualha 14:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The Anome 23:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Anthony Dallmann-Jones, PhD aka Dr. Zest - nonsense. Morwen 12:36, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • The link is real, it's an ad for this guy's pop psychology program. Delete. Tualha 14:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Jack 21:47, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Just looks rubbish Archivist 22:31, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Some guy's idiosyncrancy, also seems to be (self)-promotion. Maximus Rex 22:59, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Pseudo capitalism - POV, idiosyncratic term.—Eloquence
    • Keep. Looks legit to me, if not as well written as it could be. Tualha 14:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Term is not used and content far from uncontroversial. Criticisms of capitalism should be included where they belong.—Eloquence
        • There are a fair number of google hits if you hyphenate it. I wouldn't say it's a criticism of capitalism so much as of systems that call themselves capitalist but aren't very. It seems to be applied to Russia a lot. Yes, it's obscure, but I'm not sure it's too obscure for WP. As for being controversial, so what? Tualha 16:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • You can slap "pseudo" in front of everything. That doesn't make it a scientific term. You call 76 hits, all of which refer to something different, a "fair number"? This usage of the term is idiosyncratic, not backed up by any reference and POV. It's pseudo-useful.—Eloquence 16:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge what we can with Capitalism. Pseudo- can be attached to anything (I suggest we do a review of all Pseudo-articles while we're at it. -- stewacide 18:52, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too idiosyncratic. pseudo-Angela 21:33, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Pseudo-pantheism - almost no Google hits, most from this page or mirrors of it. Looks idiosyncratic. -- Karada 15:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to me the same issue as above. Lets be consistant. Either merge and delete, if thats what we want to do w "pseudo" articles, or keep, if its not. Jack 21:47, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Pelastration - moved debate to Talk:Pelastration. Tualha 22:41, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Guess I should have made that /Delete. But there was no talk page yet anyway, and it looks like the only person who wants to keep it is Mu6. Tualha 23:25, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Undecided. If Lewin was truly a co-founder of Akamai Technologies, then I could see having an article about him. This probably isn't it, though. -mhr 00:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • (not voting) Akamai's corporate history page confirms his being one of its founders [1] -- Finlay McWalter 00:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lewin is cofounder of Akamai (worlds largest distributed bandwidth company-they're the people whose servers distribute super-high bandwidth material like video election coverage and big movie trailers), was ranked in the 25 most influential chief technology officer by InfoWorld.com, ranked 7th in the Enterprise Systems Journal power list. Also note that he was a former member of Israel's counter-terrorism unit and was the passenger who was stabbed to death by Satam M. A. Al Suqami (at the time there was suspicion that he may have tried to stop the terrorists or that one of them may have recognized him). I think either of these alone would warrant him an article. Although I agree with mhr that it needs some work. --Imran
    • Keep. You want to add all that to it, Imran? Presumably you have the references. Assuming we keep it, of course. Tualha 03:29, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --ilya 03:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, as he's known for something significant other than 9/11. One of the few 9/11 individuals that should be here. Fuzheado 05:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 21

December 21, subsection 1

  • Ainariel Arnatuille looks dubious: see talk. -- Karada 01:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I was just trying to comment that! Ainariel Arnatuille and corresponding link from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (movie) -- suspect this is a fictional entry as there are absolutely no Google hits to either this character name or the name of the actress who allegedly played her. Article and link to it created by User:66.76.99.242. -- Arwel 01:32, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, if it's the bit part the article says it is, there might not be any mentions on the web, and she might be uncredited. Anyone planning to go see it soon who could keep an eye out for her? The other question is, is she is real, do we really need an article for such a minor character? Tualha 01:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've seen it twice, I remember the scene the article's referring to and I can categorically state this character does not exist and is not mentioned in the movie. - Arwel 01:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Well then, delete. Tualha 02:14, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK 02:18, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Would it be a spoiler to note why she couldn't be where the article says she is? :) (By which I mean delete) Adam Bishop 06:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (movie) has some additional info. I bet this is either a gag or some fan trying to make a name for herself. -mhr 06:55, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 21, subsection 2

  • Al Gore III. Three paragraphs about this kid, one about a car accident and two about a marijuana arrest. If this is all we can come up with, then delete. It seems to me like it's more an attempt at smearing his father. RickK 04:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't you have privacy laws in the US? Gore 3 is a private citizen and his misdemeanors are not the public's business. Adam 06:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not that I know of: in fact we have freedom of speech and freedom of information laws stating the exact opposite. Since he appeared in open court, the information is a matter of public record. That said, I make no vote on whether this article should appear, but if not, it should be based on Wikipedia deciding he is not worthy of an article, not based on privacy concerns, since what he did was fully public. --Delirium 06:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Do we have articles on Bush's daughters who I believe have also been in court on minor charges? Adam 06:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • We do. Barbara and Jenna Bush. Maximus Rex 06:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Well I would delete that article as well. I am opposed to having articles on private citizens whose only source of interest is that they have the misfortune to be related to someone famous, and particularly the children of the famous. This is just voyeurism and serves no legitimate purpose. Adam 06:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I'm not voting either to keep or delete, but to answer Adam. The only possible legitimate purpose I can see is as a test of the hypocrisy of the parents. These are people who advocate draconian punishments for using harmless drugs that ruin far more lives than the drugs themselves. If Gore or Bush were to advocate the same punishments for their children that they advocate for our children, I would vote to delete. Mcarling 10:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The place to say that is under Bush article, as in "Bush advocated the death penalty for littering, but when his daughter was arrested for littering he made excuses for her," (or whatever). It doesn't mean that the daughter deserves an article to catalogue her misdemeanors. Adam 09:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • We also have Chelsea Clinton. Many wikipedia biographies are on non-government officials. I don't see a reason to delete, but I'm not in full support of keeping. --Jiang 09:30, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. He is historically significant because of the 1992 Dem. Convention, which I added. I changed the article to remove the arrest record, which is of dubious historic importance. Davodd 09:38, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Chelsea Clinton is a public person in her own right and by her own choice. I am not aware that Gore III or the Bush daughters have done anything in their own right. Besides which Chelsea doesn't have any misdemeanors that I am aware of, so an article on her isn't just a vehicle for attacking her father, as Mcarling admits he sees the Bush daughters article as being. And what did Gore III do at the 1992 Convention, when he would have been ten years old? Adam 09:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect. It's interesting that his accident affected the Democratic primaries, but that's more about Al Jr. than Al III. I've merged it into Al Gore and I vote to make this a redirect to Al Gore (note that deletion policy deprecates "merge and delete"). Tualha 16:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move relevant into into Al Gore but keep as redir. Could become an article if he ever does something meaningful besides smoking pot.—Eloquence
  • Satyendra Dubey. Does this person rate an article? RickK 05:29, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's informative, no reason to delete. Maybe it will become a better article in the future. Stub designation added. Peace Profound. Optim 05:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I Rewrote the whole article. It's not a stub anymore. Full biography added. I added the VfD Notice, but I vote to keep the article. Peace Profound and happy Winter Solstice. Optim 06:58, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely seems newsworthy enough for an article. Fuzheado 05:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Should I (or anybody else) remove the msg:vfd notice now? I think the article is ok (if u can make it better, please do so). Does anybody still wants to delete it? Optim 12:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, good article. Tualha 16:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Our Posthuman Future. Rant. RickK 05:43, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This is actually an interesting subject which deserves a serious article. But not this one... Adam 06:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree with Adam. Any serious discussion probably has to mention Vernor Vinge somewhere! -mhr 06:55, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It already has a serious article. Redirect to Transhumanism. Tualha 16:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 21, subsection 3

  • Illuminus. More Illuminati personal views. RickK 05:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Rubbish Adam 06:13, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -mhr 06:55, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Note that New World Order has related changes that should be rewritten or reverted - don't know enough about it myself to tell if there's anything that should stay. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Order of Melek Taus. Nonsense. RickK 06:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • More rubbish Adam 06:13, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete --ilya 07:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I am not aware of any "Order of Melek Taus", but even if it was existant, the article is garbage. Optim 10:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. "Melek Taus" is not nonsense, see Yazidi. But this article is bull. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • U.S. presidential election, 2008. There is no useful information here, save the date of the election. john 07:05, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. In a couple of years this will be filled with enough info. --ilya 07:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, but in a couple of years we can create a new article. The current article is useless, and cannot be improved for a couple of years. john 07:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The next opportunity to add substantial content will be when the winner of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary is known -- probably either 3 Feb 2004 or 2 March 2004. The next opportunity after that will be when the winner of the presidential general election is known -- almost certainly early November 2004. Mcarling 10:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • How will knowing the Democratic nominee in 2004 give us any useful information on the election of 2008? I don't think there's any reason to have this article until after November 2004, at earliest. john 09:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Information already in 2008. Peace Profound. Optim
    • Delete for now; keep after the 04 elections are over. --Jiang
      • Yes, this sounds right to me. john 09:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Mcarling is being a bit over-enthusiastic - there won't be anything except rumours to report about the 2008 election until after the 2006 congressionals. Adam 09:48, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete until we have worthwhile information to put in. Placeholders are pointless. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Mijyoka - no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Notify Japanese Embassy and delete. --ilya 07:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Slang or dictionary, and, uh, pretty obscure at that. Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hypocoristic. Dictionary definition. Has been moved to Wiktionary via m:transwiki. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Note that it's linked from James and Tanya - do we want articles about personal names? Tualha 17:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Original studio album. Dictionary definition. Not sure if it's worth moving this to Wiktionary. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Theoretically could be worth an article, except the term is so glaringly self-defining, with so little (as far as I know) nuance it doesn't seem worth it in practice. Ditto the other terms mentioned in the article. -mhr 07:21, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Paddler. The exact same text exists at Wiktionary. Angela. 07:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Fuzheado 08:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Testa. Dictionary definition. Has been moved to Wiktionary via m:transwiki. Angela. 07:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Fuzheado 08:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Accordion pleat. I can't see this ever being an article. Angela. 11:20, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. No opposition to delete nor keep. Wiktionary maybe? if it is a general term it can be moved there. Optim 12:06, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Hard to say whether the topic deserves an article. I put it on cleanup, let's see if someone can fill it out. Tualha 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Barbara and Jenna Bush see above discussion on AL Gore 3rd (Note: this was posted by IP address 64.12.97.6, which is sometimes used for vandalism. Tualha 16:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC))
    • is that an attempt to discredit the listing of this?
    • Keep. Verifiable, informative. Martin 15:31, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, they're significant and well-known. --Jiang
    • Keep, they're public figures, that plus being Bush's daughters makes them notable enough. Tualha 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -mhr 18:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2015562"