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 06:44, 23 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)


December 18

  • 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)

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
    • It still needs a translation, but keep. --MIRV 09:13, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The "critique" is complete nonsense. (See Talk:O_Fons_Bandusiae.) But remove that and all you have left is an Ode (even if a translation [1] is added). Anjouli 05:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • 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)
    • I'd be inclined to keep it, although I'm certainly no expert. It's commonplace for corporations to avail themselves of subsidies and government-enforced monopolies or other advantages not found in genuinely free markets; this term is a name for that phenomenon. Michael Hardy 16:35, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with —Eloquence. This is not a standard term. Any usable content belongs on the "capitalism" page, not hanging out here. Also, this article is an orphan. Rossami 04:38, 23 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 [2] -- 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)
    • Delete. Phil 08:18, Dec 22, 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)
    • KEEP. 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
      • The classic Wikipedia double standard the private life of a child of a former Dem US Vice President one time perhaps future presidential candidate not worthy but of course it worthy for the current US Gop president. This group sure make sense.
        • Where do you gather that from (the double standard)? Evil saltine 19:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I'm not the individual who posted about the double standard, however if you look at page history someone removed all negative content from the Gore child article while similar content is still the focus of the Bush child article. Maximus Rex 21:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • If you don't think this group makes sense, perhaps you should leave it to those of us who think it does. I note you are using the 64.12.97.6 IP address. Might you perhaps be the same person who vandalized Paul Levesque and Script kiddie? Might you now be trying to generate strife? As for your so-called double standard, the children of a sitting president are more notable than the child of a former vice-president, and there is more material in the Bush article than there ever was in the Gore one. Tualha 00:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • Redirect. Agree w/Tualha Davodd 02:32, Dec 22, 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)]
    • Delete. Peace Profound. Optim 19:53, 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)
      • Thanks for the yazidi wikilinky. Optim 19:04, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Probably someone's invented occult philosophy or based on obscure fictional story. Exterminate. - Skysmith 19:35, 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)
    • With Sept 11, the immediacy of the info got high Google ratings. This shows the earlier in you are, the higher you'll rate. Even if its just a place holder, this site will be indexed by Google, and in 5 years, be given a better PageRank rating. - user:zanimum
      • I don't think we should keep or delete pages on the basis of trying to manipulate Google. Tualha 02:48, 22 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)
    • Delete. Optim 19:04, 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)
      • Undecided about first names. Do other encyclopedies include them? Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Optim 19:46, 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)
    • Del provided transferred to wiktionary, but only iff other users agree with the wiktionary addition, otherwise keep and expand. Optim 19:46, 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)
    • del.Optim 19:46, 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)
    • del Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 21, subsection 4

  • Illuminated, by the same user as Illuminus, is worthless. john 09:52, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete and transfer to wiktionary, but not is its present form (rewrite needed). if no transfer to wiktionary then DELETE. Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Why rewrite and delete? Let the Wiktionarians do it. Tualha 02:50, 22 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)
      • Delete provided transferred to wiktionary, but only iff other users agree with the wiktionary addition, otherwise keep for now. Optim
    • 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?
      • No. It is a statement of fact, with several purposes. (1) to identify the poster, since the posting was not signed. (2) to alert people to the possibility that it was posted by a vandal, perhaps to waste our time - without ruling out the possibility that it was posted by an innocent party using the same IP address, or that the former vandal has cleaned up his or her act. If you're not the vandal, you may want to get a username to distinguish yourself from the vandal - aside from the numerous other advantages. Tualha 00:10, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Undecided. How verifiable is the incident desribed in the last paragraph? The article must contain some form of reference or external link. Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to George W. Bush and redirect: This should go in a section of the George Bush article, because there is nothing significant about the specifics other than the twins relationship to him. As for the last paragraph, verify or remove. Rlvaughn 00:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There's no reason that this shouldn't be kept as a seperate article. They've chosen to make themselves more public than most relatives of presidents, and have earned themselves a place in history for it, one we should acknowledge. Dubya is only related to them, and so he really shouldn't have to worry about them cluttering up their page. Their actions are their own, and shouldn't be associated with the President's. -- user:zanimum
  • History of computers. It is currently a redirect to History of computing hardware. I couldn't move the 2nd article to the 1st, so I removed the redirect text in the 1st article, but I still couldn't do the move. "History of computing hardware" is a cumbersome attempt by a mathematician to distinguish the history of computers from the History of computing (the article's former title), which encompasses not only computers but pen and paper as well. His point is valid, but the new title he chose for the article is unnecessarily awkward. --Sewing 17:14, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am thinking whether History of computation is a better title than History of computing. btw There is a Timeline of computing, too. Optim 17:47, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree History of computing is not ideal. But isn't History of computation also awkward? Anyhow, it goes back to Michael Hardy's argument that "computing" (and "computation") is not just about computers but about mathematical techniques that precede computers. I think History of computers is the best option: it is simple and unambiguous. --Sewing 18:08, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • History of computation still seems nice and more correct to me. Optim 19:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think the term computation is more often (academically) used for the theoretical side of things (algorithms, complexity,etc.), computers seems better for the practical side to me. --Imran 22:17, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That's right. We can have a Computation article for the academic theoretical history and a Computers article for practical-business computing. how do u think? Optim 00:49, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Hector Tamayo - move to 9/11 wiki. Secretlondon 19:05, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes. You always do a good job cleaning wikipedia, congrats. Peace Profound. Optim 19:46, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, move to 9/11 wiki. -- Finlay McWalter 02:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Follow the money - don't know what this is about but doesn't look all that wiki to me... quercus robur
    • Delete. Looks like it has to do with financial motivations behind the American Civil War, written by User:Mosehastings. There's probably some useful content here, but I don't know where it would go (and its style makes me think it might be a copyvio). -mhr 21:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep unless someone finds evidence of a copyvio. It's very POV, unwikified, and sloppy, but it's an interesting theory and worthwhile if there's anything to it. I've asked readers of Talk:American Civil War to take a look at it. Tualha 00:39, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Good call, Tualha. It's fine, with a little wiki soap and polish. Keep. - user:zanimum
    • Keep Financial motivations behind the American Civil War. We can redirect the article to the new page on the Origins of the American Civil War. But deletion is not a good idea. The article provides a wealth of valuable, accurate information, which perhaps can be salvaged in other articles. 172 02:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The Follow the money entry should be used for something else, probably more general. General commentary on looking at financial motivations, or Deep Throat's famous advice, or whatever. I don't see why of all things it should redirect to the Civil War debate. -- VV 05:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Blender v.6 - rumor and speculation. No blender version exists with this number, and it's unnecessary to have separate articles on different software versions anyhow. -- Wapcaplet 21:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We have separate versions for Microsoft Windows. Is Blender so important to have separate enties for its versions? Dont think so. Optim 22:12, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Blender (program). Anything particular to this version should go there anyway. Tualha 00:41, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 22

  • [[../../../../../]], [[../../../../../etc/passwd]]: What are these? Seems like a hacker's code.--yacht (Talk) 01:56, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh, have been deleted. :) --yacht (Talk) 01:58, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Probably someone trying to break in. I think that stuff only works on Windows. Any developers reading this? Tualha 02:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Work on Windows? I think they work on Linux. Am I right? :o) --yacht (Talk) 03:07, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
        • Don't really know, just have that impression from when I read about that kind of attack. Tualha 03:45, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • It's a pretty poor attempt, given that the software does not work the way the would-be attacker thinks it does. -- The Anome 03:01, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Lazy, just incase nobody noticed. Incredibly poor dictionary definition, with 2 pages linking to it (which I'm changing to point to wiktionary) --Steinsky 02:32, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • VfD added there. Any ideas of rewriting? If no, delete. ilya 02:43, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Nah, I can't be bothered. Delete -- Finlay McWalter 02:45, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Don't think there's enough that can be said about the word to justify an article. Delete. Don't bother moving to Wiktionary, they'd hate us :) Tualha 02:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete
    • Delete. Dictionary defination, and a poor one at that. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:11, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • Creole from Spanish or Machaco language -- ostensibly English, but I can't understand a word. Has something to do with Spanish dialects. Tuf-Kat 04:42, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • The article is awful but I suggest to keep it. Maybe Spanish Creole would be a better title. Someone MUST perform a rewrite ASAP (well if I have time, I will do it, but I cannot say for sure). Some links from google, I dont know if all of them are relevant but may be useful to somebody who is going to rewrite the article: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Peace Profound. Optim 05:11, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
btw I can understand the main notion of the article. Well I will perform a small rewrite now just to make sure it's proper English, but I dont have time to do research on the web, I will just read and rewrite what the article says in better English. Somebody else plz fix it and make it better. Optim 05:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Great work! I change my vote to keep, and move to Spanish Creole or other more appropriate title. Tuf-Kat
    • Keep it. Although I can not understand papa about the dictionary text in the article, the subject is interesting and I myself, a Spanish speaker all my 31 years of life, did not know this existed in Colombia. But it needs work, perhaps someone who knows about the subject can help? Antonio Falcon Martin
    • Keep and list on cleanup or pages needing attention. Bmills 12:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Spanish Creole. Optim 03:14, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Please have a look at Talk:Spanish Creole and let's take a decision on what to do with this machako thing. Should we add this info in Spanish Creole? Obviously Machako does not need to be a separate article. Optim 04:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Talumena, homemade conlang. No significant Google hits. --Menchi (Talk)â 11:39, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not widely used enough. Angela. 12:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe move the info in a list of constructed languages? Optim 21:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move basic info to Constructed languages and redirect. Rlvaughn 21:59, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like this language has only one frase written in it (see site). If yes, delete. ilya 23:46, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree. Rlvaughn 02:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Tictiger No significant Google hits. --Menchi (Talk)â 11:39, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not a real word. Angela. 12:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Same reason. Bmills 12:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • McDonalds urban legends- Again, another unneccessary and pointless article about an aspect of McDonalds, that could easily be added to the main article on McDonalds.
    • Keep. Yet another unneccessary and pointless VfD while an article is incredibly new. -- Finlay McWalter 22:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, there are enough of these to be significant. PMC 23:36, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • We should probably give this article more time to develop, but I have to admit some skepticism. 1) Is the content truly encyclopedic? 2) Is there really enough that it can not fit in the main McDonalds article? (or perhaps the Urban legends article?) 3) Can this page be maintained with an NPOV tone? (Current version reads like a press release from McD's.) 4) Do we want to open up the precedent for every company on the planet? Does this create a risk that Wikipedia will become a battleground for every corporate rumor and rebuttal? Rossami 04:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Copy to McDonald's Corporation and delete the pages. Open another thread of discussion on whether urban roumors are acceptable in WP. Optim 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Children's_rights_attorney An entire interview, obviously data-dumped from someplace. Does this have any value at all? Mrdice 00:36, 2003 Dec 23 (UTC)
    • Well, that's quick. Already removed due to copyright. Mrdice 00:41, 2003 Dec 23 (UTC)
  • Talk:Comoros (old article) -ancient and therefore forever useless. It's a waste of time for anyone ever venturing to that page. --Jiang 01:12, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Chomsky not the kind of information what will turn into brillian prose - should redirect to Noam Chomsky. --Jiang
    • This looks rather similar to the Santorum brouhaha. -- VV 05:45, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. Optim 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2027620"