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 Anjouli (talk | contribs) at 19:20, 27 December 2003 (More paint.). 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

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{SUBST:vfd}} at the top of the page adds one automatically.)

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 19

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)
    • Would those voting "keep" please provide reasons for doing so? Other than the Ode itself, this is not factual. And we don't list poems.Anjouli 12:26, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete; encyclopedia articles should not be incomprehensible literary critiques. --Jiang 08:45, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not for source texts, and since the commentary seems to be nonsense, that would be all that remains. The objection raised by Anjouli needs to be addressed by those voting to keep. Maximus Rex 06:15, 27 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)


December 21

  • 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)
    • Delete. Davodd 07:24, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need to move to Wiktionary: an original studio album is simply an album that is both original and from a studio, much as a large white boat is a boat that is both large and white. --Delirium 07:31, Dec 27, 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)
    • Delete. Davodd 07:24, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Keep, who wouldn't be interested in the history of computers? Lirath Q. Pynnor


  • 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)
    • Agreed. --Jiang

December 22

  • 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: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. 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)
    • Keep. If this is ever finished - it will be fascinating. Davodd 07:26, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

December 23

  • Saint Paul Academy and Summit School - what has been decided about schools? Kingturtle 00:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. I dont see any problem with this being in WP. Optim 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Needs more history of the structures, alumni, etc. Davodd 19:51, Dec 24, 2003 (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)
    • Delete in the name of good housekeeping. Bmills 09:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Delirium 07:35, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Chomsky not the kind of information what will turn into brilliant 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)
    • Delete. Might marginally belong in a slang dictionary. Or not. Bmills 09:20, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Just moved all non-Talk links to Noam Chomsky Seth Ilys 00:17, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to Noam Chomsky. --Delirium 07:35, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • 1. Thomas Rank. Appears to be made up. Angela. 04:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • IMDB has nothing about this. Delete. Optim 04:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:16, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 18:01, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Every entry by this anon. User:68.44.158.138 appears to be nonsense. I'd say this is a vandal? - Marshman 18:06, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Posted a request to stop on talk page. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No trace on imdb for this person or for any of his motley collection of movies. -- Finlay McWalter 21:29, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rahma Salie - another September 11 victim. Adam Bishop 06:00, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete/move to the Sept 11 wiki. Bmills 09:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree: Delete/move. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • NialScorva - A 12-hour-old corollary to Godwin's law, posted on Slashdot, with the article title being the Slashdot username of the user who posted it. --Delirium 08:02, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 12:14, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 17:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Make a note in Godwin's Law and delete. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Don't make a note under Godwin's Law, this topic is completely made-up. Maximus Rex 19:56, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need to wait, either, IMHO. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought Godwin's Law was deleted already? Delete them both; just made-up stuff from Usenet discussions - Marshman 01:35, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Aliyah. Dictionary definition. Angela. 11:58, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an important Jewish cultural concept and could merit a much larger article. But I agree it's not up to much in its present form. Anjouli 12:12, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Added an external link. Can become a better article. Maybe I will fix it a bit in the future. Optim 14:15, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be just a redirect to Zionism. --Zero 05:38, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      Update: Given Danny's improvements, vote to keep. --Zero 06:52, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Just lost five paragraphs due to an edit conflict. I wanted to describe the first few aliyot (1882-1939), and how they impacted the development of the Jewish community in Israel/Palestine. Too late to rewrite them. I will do it tomorrow. Vote to Keep. Danny 06:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Knuckles' Chaotix - Contains no definition, hard to understand. Evil saltine 13:25, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Metasquares 13:48, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be deleted without listing IMHO. Just rambling - Marshman 17:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Something to do with Sonic the Hedgehog? Don't care. Delete. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Hasn't this exact same article been deleted before? Delete again. Salsa Shark 21:11, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like notes on some video game. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It is in fact notes on Sonic the Hedgehog and a group of characters within it. They're not particularly notable characters, so there's no point in them having an article to themselves. Delete. PMC 07:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Hello programming language - personal promotion. No Google hits -- Tarquin 16:06, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete ad. See also the very related Lambda programming language. Bmills 16:08, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • (At first glance) Lambda can at least be used to write more than one program. Keep it. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Self-promotion. Actually a good example of Esoteric programming language but an inappropriate article. - Texture 18:28, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. If that language only has one operator, what use would anyone have for it in the real world? - Denelson83 19:15, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Esoteric languages are one thing, but this is pathetic. Tualha 05:39, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The above comments leave me to believe that you did not see the joke in the article. I think it was hilarious. I also think it should be deleted. But it is a fine candidate for "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense". Jwrosenzweig 23:56, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think HQ9+ is superiour to the alleged Hello programming language, anyway. Κσυπ Cyp   00:04, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bibliography of Richard Vallance's Sonnet - The absolute most pathetic thing I've ever seen. - user:zanimum
    • That strikes me as Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. As such, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Raul654 19:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wacky. Delete. -mhr 19:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Half of it's in a foreign language, too. Delete it. Mike Church 21:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. FYI: Tried some ISBN codes and most of them work (i.e. they are real books). The French part is translation of the English paragraph. The line "© by Richard Vallance, July 25, 2003" is contained at the end of the... "article". Optim 23:01, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No one ever said this wasn't real, Optim. It's just redundant to have a bibliography to work, and work, especially this Sonnet thing. If we has an article on Richard Vallance or on Sonnet, it might be of use, but with neither, it seems silly. Couldn't people just go to a bookstore or library to see the bibliography? - user:zanimum

December 24

  • Deloping. Source text. RickK 02:35, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added VfD to article. (Where did the VfD tag and notes at the top of this page go? It was handy and a reminder to newbies. Somebody restore pls?) Anjouli 04:00, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • They were deleted 18 Dec by MyRedDice, along with my request to use them, with the comment "(remove instructions again - KISS)". No one seemed to mind (and/or notice) at the time so I didn't bring it up. People did seem to put the notices up more for a while. Tualha 05:15, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agree. Not everyone here has memorized the tags or knows easily where to find them. Anjouli 17:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The original text above "the text of the code" is fine - also larger and better than some things we have voted to keep. Might be better to link to the text of the code as an external link [13] (NB a later, slightly different version) or move to Wikiquote. User is unregistered, but apparently has a few useful contributions. Don't bite the newbies. Anjouli 04:13, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Lipan Apache: 2 or 3 speakers, (1981 R.W. Young). Whether or not this article deserves to be kept, it certainly doesn't deserve to be kept under this title. RickK 03:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added VfD tag. (Title suggests this may also be copyvio.) Anjouli 04:24, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not sure how this poorly written statement could be copyrighted; but the title is wrong. Move to Lipan Apache to discuss its merits there. Is it a "real" language? - Marshman 04:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Rectitude. Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:14, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. Anjouli 04:19, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (Added VfD tag to article)
  • Elon Peace Plan. The article is nothing more than an advertisement for a program of ethnic cleansing by someone at the far right of Israeli politics. It used to be a modest and reasonably nonpartisan report on this (quite unimportant) "plan", but a fanatic has taken it over and deleted everything that is not straight out of the plan's propaganda blurb. I tried to prevent this, to no avail. We should not allow Wikipedia to be used for political activism in such a blatant fashion. --Zero 04:51, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Deletion is not the solution to an edit war. Would some sysop please revert and protect the page while this is sorted out? Tualha 05:08, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Some NPOV editing would be good. Especially about "Population transfer was used successfully between the Greeks and the Turks in Thrace". It should be changed to something like "according to...". Optim 06:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • That's some pretty crazy shit. It's basically implying that the Armenian genocide, Pontian genocide, and related "population transfers" by the Turks were something that should be emulated. Wow. --Delirium 07:19, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, put into NPOV and protect once its properly edited. PMC 07:43, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The page describes a serious attempt to solve the core issues of the conflict. NPOV editting should be performed as needed. Please note the current form of the page, with exerpts from the plan document, was done in response to Zero0000 claim that the page did not reflect the content of the plan. OneVoice 11:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • See what I mean? OneVoice is editing this page so as to promote this "plan". He admits it! Can someone please explain to him what Wikipedia is about? --Zero 12:01, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to pages needing attention. -- Finlay McWalter 12:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and fix. --Raul654 04:09, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Things that open the door to Demonic Oppression. Ideosyncractic rant. RickK 07:04, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Davodd 07:09, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, pointless and excessively POV. PMC 07:41, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, unless it's copyvio. Jesus Saves! 10:14, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Unrepairably POV. Delete. Salsa Shark 10:16, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Utter tosh. Delete. (Note also Christian demonology and sub- pages thereof.) Andy Mabbett 10:19, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Pathetic. Delete. Pfortuny 11:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bollocks. -- Finlay McWalter 12:08, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • What an interesting article. I find these things quite fun to read actually. It's utter tripe, of course so delete without reservation... I would also suggest Modern Deliverance for deletion. -- Francs2000 15:16, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • These are part of a long series under Christian demonology, with some better written (less POV) than others. Seems like we are going to need to decide where to draw a line, since some should probably be kept or merged - Marshman 01:31, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There are some strange people out there... Tualha 15:48, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Also Power of the demons. -- Tarquin 18:00, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Somebody maybe can fix the crap and make it encyclopedic by providing references (if they exist) and performing NPOV editing. Only some parts need to be deleted. These articles belong to the canon of human knowledge, in this case your christian religion, just to the most extreme versions of it. In case you are questioning, I am neither christian nor religious. I see no point in deleting something that can be fixed. Maybe sometimes deleting is just the easy solution. But my formal vote is neutral, so feel free to do whatever you like with this terrible crap, i dont care. Optim 18:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV mumbo-jumbo that cannot be fixed - Marshman 01:24, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Obvious trash, unless this is wikichristianmythoencyclopedia... Jesus Blows Goats 06:10, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • delete the whole series. Mythological characters deserve one paragraph of explanation, seldom more. ping 07:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Mount Sinai (disambiguation) - Currently a redirect page to Mount Sinai, Egypt. Nothing links to it. To quote someone or other, "Delete in the name of good housekeeping." -Anthropos 17:30, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it can be deleted if it is unused. Question: what is the problem with unused redirect pages? I need to know. Optim 18:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. To answer Optim, commonly, redirect pages won't have anything link to them. That's because they're there for the search engine (and potentially for links in from outside pages), not for linking within the wiki. WP has an explicit policy about this; see Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect?. We should IMO avoid going on a Jihad to delete redirects unless there's real evidence that they're never used. As the saying goes, "It wastes your time and annoys the pig." -mhr 18:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much for the immediate reply. I tend to create some redirects for my articles, so I was afraid whether I was doing something wrong! For example for AKS primality test I create redirects such as AKS algorithm, or for Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis I create AMORC or AAORRAC (alternative names). I often try to eliminate links to redirects by changing them to link to the real article, I think this is also good for WP. I hope I do the right thing. Optim 19:10, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • the problem I see is that this page states it's a disambiguation page in the title, when it really is a redirect. There should be a Mount Sinai disambig page, as I can think of more than one, i.e. the mountain on the Sinai penunsulia, a prominent hospital in the U.S. Gentgeen 19:15, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Now it's a small disambig page with three articles it points to. Gentgeen 06:51, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Useless page -- Redir to Mount Sinai Davodd 07:36, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...and thus we come full circle! :-}
I don't have any emotional attachment to deleting (or keeping) the page -- I'll quickly bow to the prevailing thinking. However, shouldn't this type of disambiguation page be used for "primary topic" disambiguation, and thus, should it not be linked from the primary topic? See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types_of_disambiguation. I don't see the point of having this page if we're also going to have disambiguation done at the Mount Sinai page (which is currently a disambiguation page). -Anthropos 08:03, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Get off my phone Somewhat approximating a dictionary definition, tiny, and not going to get any bigger. moink 18:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No vote. Who can verify this info? Optim 19:07, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Seems legit but apparently not used outside of Glenn Beck's radio show. TMC1221 19:23, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary and delete. I have worked in broadcasting for years - it is real [14] -- but this is a dictionary definition of regional industry lingo at best - not worthy of an entry here. Davodd 19:24, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Davodd, Wikitionary and delete. PMC 19:49, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete after move to Wiktionary - Marshman 01:21, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Optim 07:02, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Protestant and Catholic Dialog on Eucharist - not an article. Evercat 19:04, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! Optim 19:09, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. What is this? Pfortuny 19:21, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Davodd 19:24, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! TMC1221 19:40, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, load of POV bunk. PMC 19:49, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Some of the material could be merged into Eucharist or related articles. Jesus Saves! 00:08, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Not hardly! Just delete - Marshman 01:17, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Or does wiki keep all transcripts of all debates of any covered subjects ? Sounds limitless path to go down... Jesus Blows Goats 06:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Ray Gardener was created by an ip with a history of vandalism. --Jiang 22:52, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Seems to be an advert Archivist 22:58, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 01:17, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 25

  • Léon Goossens- Leon Goosens- English Oboist only content. Antonio Lil Mis Thang Martin
    • It's brand new... give it a few days to see if it develops. moink 04:04, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Is that better now? Secretlondon 23:12, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • Not really...keep though, see if it grows any more. PMC 06:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 26

  • Iraqi Information Minister - not an article, doubt if it'll ever become one. --Jiang 20:29, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Someone could find info on what the job description is, etc. Questions of whether the minister dealt in "information" or "propaganda" could also be explained. moink 20:37, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, that belongs in Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. --Jiang 20:44, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I disagree. A job description and its evolution is different from a particular person who did the job at one point. moink 22:12, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to cleanup. Potentially an interesting article, but certainly not one now. If cleanup fails, then deletion is appropriate. -- Finlay McWalter 20:40, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Actually, listing on vfd and threatening to delete it is more effective than listing it on cleanup. We'll see how this goes after a couple days.
    • Keep. Optim 01:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but convert to a redirect. Anjouli 17:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Bambuco - listing this for several reasons. (1) It's empty. People shouldn't be offered links to an English article that doesn't exist. (2) We've deleted this some time ago already, and back then it contained a machine translation of a Spanish text. (3) Apart from Interlingua, all of the inter-language links are useless. It contains a nonsensical machine translation of that same text on the German, Galician, French and Dutch Wikipedias. The Italian link leads to an equally empty page. -- Timwi 23:04, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article is an hour old - give the contributor a few days to do something meaningful with it. The subject gets sufficient google hits to suggest that it may well become an interesting article. -- Finlay McWalter 23:09, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It's an hour old now, but since it's going to be listed here for a few days, they have enough time anyway. :-p -- Timwi 23:11, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I deleted it before I discovered this listing. If the other language articles are garbage too, then there's no need linking to them. I was not the first to delete this on the same day. --Jiang 23:37, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • At Talk:Spanish Creole I have posted some info about this thing. Bambuco is traditional music from colombia and somebody who doesn't speak English posted this on en, fr and other wikipedias in the past. He/She was posting automated translations from his/her spanish articles in the spanish wikipedia. It was then deleted from en. on fr other users took care of the article and turned it into a useful and informative encyclopedic brilliant post. Somebody must write about this on en, sometime. See French Bambuco Article too. Optim 01:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Made an initial stub. Davodd 08:00, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

December 27

  • Brooklyn NFL: The title makes no sense and follows no conventions. Delete this page. I created individual pages for the particular teams. Kingturtle 05:17, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Power of humans on demons -- More christianwiki Jesus Blows Goats 06:11, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Load of POV crap. Delete. PMC 07:08, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with Demonology, remove POV, then delete. Davodd 07:22, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, preserving anything worthwhile on Demonology. This article and the others you note below seem to be a semi-scholarly exploration of elements of Christian mythology. They might belong here in some form, but I don't think this is it. -mhr 07:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Power_of_the_demons -- More christianwiki -- Can this crap be moved to a christianwiki somewhere ? Jesus Blows Goats 06:15, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as well. So close to worthless it hurts. PMC 07:08, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with Demonology, remove POV, then delete. Davodd 07:22, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -mhr 07:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Modern_Deliverance -- As mentioned above, this is (arguably) another in the demon power series, which I now affectionally call "christianwiki". Jesus Blows Goats 07:30, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • The_Antichrist_and_the_last_days -- Another (arguably) in the demon power series, which looks to me like a Bible commentary. Jesus Blows Goats 07:32, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • We should get this guy (Whoever it is) a website of his/her own for a present...then s/he'd stop plaguing us with this nonsense. Same as above, put anything useful someplace else (Apocalypse or Antichrist perhaps) then delete. PMC 07:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • All of these articles were created by User:The Warlock, who (to my knowledge) has since left wikipedia. --Raul654 08:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • ...and whose User page is offensive. Andy Mabbett 16:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it: it's preaching. Andy Mabbett 16:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with Christian eschatology Jesus Saves! 17:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • New Age Ancient Near East Chronology -- The body of the article is unrelated to the title and the rest is demeaning in Kenneth Kitchen-ite style thus neither is is NPOV. Any useful relevant info can be moved to relevant pagest such as Sea Peoples and Phoenicians while the rest is already said in a much more objective & detailed manner on the David Rohl page. Zestauferov 08:29, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Lourdes Leon Ciccone -- this person has done nothing of note -- Tarquin 13:25, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • (non vote) can we come to a consensus on whether or not to keep articles if they're for nothing more than children of famous people? It would save time rather than listing them here individually. Francs2000 17:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Good idea. -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Jon Perconti - Sept 11 victim, listed here since August, apparently. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Joseph Zaccoli - Sept 11 victim, listed here since August, apparently. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Joseph Vilardo - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Thomas Damaskinos - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Sep11wiki -- Tarquin 17:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Nicholas C. Lassman - Sept 11 victim. Andy Mabbett 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Why not just move all of the above to 911 Wiki with link via September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/City_of_New_York_casualties, or other suitable cat? I see no reason why you should not just do that. IMHO, should not need a vote. Anjouli 17:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Vote to move all to 911 and delete here. There are many good reasons 911 victims should be there not here. Most important - the 911 wiki doesn't have to be NPOV (so if some 911 victim was a deadbeat dad or convictions for coke dealing then the 911 wiki doesn't have to mention that, but a full encyclopedia entry would). Moving these folks' entries to their proper place saves them the Mother Teresa treatment. -- Finlay McWalter 17:59, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Note: when these articles are deleted, please remove the links to them, also. If its not ok to have an article about someone, it shouldn't be ok to have a red link to them, either. Morwen 18:01, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
      • Since they've been listed before, they can be immediately deleted. --Jiang 18:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, people seem to accept that. Anjouli 18:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Other than this page, User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects2 and Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles, nothing seems to list to the sample I've just checked. Andy Mabbett 18:37, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • If we take the last one, for example, it turns out that the casualties list above had a red link to his full name, Nicholas Craig Lassman. Ouch. Morwen 18:45, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Forest Kelley redirect to DeForest Kelley - a churlish repsonse to my inclusion of the latter on Forest (disambiguation). Andy Mabbett 18:04, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep (common misspelling). But make into an automatic redirect. Anjouli 18:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It was an automatic redirect until someone made this not work by adding a vfd header to it. This should go at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion, anyway, shouldn't it? Morwen 18:18, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are right. (Did you get a Who's who for Christmas :). See you've been busy!)
        • This should go at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion, : Done, thank you - I wasn't aware of that page. Is there an appropriate "boilerplate"? Andy Mabbett 18:41, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I think no boilerplate, as anything else on the page destroys the automatic redirect. As the original poster I understand etiquette now lets you remove this block from VfD if you wish. Anjouli 18:44, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Etrécissements This appears to be yet another in a long line of previously posted (and subsequently deleted) painting techniques known only to a couple of obscure painters. Anjouli 19:20, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2049071"