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 The Fellowship of the Troll (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 9 January 2004. 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. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here even if it is obvious.

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 -- maintaining this page

All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at Talk:List of recipes/Delete

December 27

December 30

January 3

  • Propaganda model - looks like someone posted his SOC 101 class assignment there. --Jiang 14:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • A useful article could be written here, but this is not it. moink 21:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete someone's notes. Maximus Rex 19:45, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep [if copy edited] JDR
      • Have you looked at it? It's unredeemable: "The film we are watching today is an edited version of the three-hour film documentary made by a Canadian film company." It's not in sentence form and it's about a documentary. Maximus Rex 22:58, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Better? mabey not ... =-\ ... JDR
    • Should actually be deleted under the "no useful content" guideline. --Jiang
  • Florentin Smarandache is a vanity page. If not delete, can't there be some disclaimer along the lines of "the information in this article is unverifiable" at the very least? but I'd like to see all vanity pages deleted. Especially since there such things as home pages and, here on Wiki, talk pages. Ensiform 15:50, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • He seems to have published quite a few books, or so the article says. Were they published by a vanity press, or are they recognized? At the least the article needs some serious NPOV editing. moink 20:59, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Quite a bit to this guy, see http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/view_profile.php?user_id=91&lang=en Fred Bauder 21:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I might be wrong on this. The link above only leads to links on the guy's own home page for "support" of the claims; however, Amazon does have a lot of books by others on his work. My point (plaint?) about vanity pages, however, still stands. 68.90.10.4 23:49, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like a vanity page, quacks like a vanity page... Coren 00:41, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • The big problem with the page is its unverifiability. It seems from User:Smarandache fan and this old mailing list post that one person was adding lots of stuff about this guy (everywhere) back in June. This page should probably be deleted since it cannot be verified, or at least cut back to a minimal stub if reliable information is found. Maximus Rex 01:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • We've been through all this before. Florentin Smarandache is annoying in his self-promotion, but annoyingly well known. A number of researchers have taken up his idea of three-valued logic, and have put it to useful application. A number of people have studied the sequences he introduced. Check the talk page for the archived text of the first VFD listing. -- Tim Starling 10:07, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • From Florentin SmarandacheThank you for your e-mail.The article on Wikipedia is not a vanity page; many people have added, deleted, edited a text put by one of my former literary agents - without telling it to me in the beginning. As a prove to the fact that many people have worked in my mathematical and literary ideas, people who also contributed to Wikipedia, you can see the books that are selling in Amazon.com, or the books in many libraries - for example at the Library of Congress, Washington DC. Those people who contributed to some pages of my work were stigmatized by wikipedians who could not believe so many people have written about my work. I am not interested in Wikipedia because they are not fear, they look to be in some way against my work; I don't care what they do with that page. Dr. Florentin Smarandache. (Response in e-mail Fred Bauder 18:56, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC))
    • I recommend deleting the Smarandache page. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's quite verifiable - external links are provided, and a number of people have already gone through it for verifiability. Keep, but add a wikipedia:inclusion dispute header (yes, I know that's red). Martin 19:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It's still a vanity page and so it should be deleted. I'll remind you that there is already a very large amount of Smarandache vanity material on the web; Wikipedia is just the latest chapter in a history of self-promotion. We needn't tolerate it here. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. JDR


  • Statistical probability -- not a phrase used in the statistical or probabilistic literature. My basis for that assessment: having read some dozens of articles and books on probability and statistics topics; also, a Google search for "statistical probability" yields Wikipedia and Wikipedia copies among the top links, a number of accidental conjunctions of "statistical" and "probability", and nothing that could be called a basic source. The Wikipedia article itself doesn't bother to define "statistical probability" but rather only contains a collection of links to other articles. As such the article is unneeded, uninformative, and redundant. See also my comments on the talk page. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:00, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move content into probability interpretations and redirect there. Onebyone 02:01, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd like to suggest that there be no redirect page: of the pages that link to Statistical probability, most are lists of the form "See also FOO, BAR, and Statistical Probability"; the only one that occurs in article text is a misdirected link -- specifically I mean the one in the final sentence of paragraph 5 of Multi-valued logic, which goes [[Statistical probability|probability logic]] -- that should just link to probability logic. So I think all links to Statistical probability can be erased; no need for redirection. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:35, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep [n' copyedit; define "statistical probability"]. JDR
      • The point is that there is no definition to put there, because there is no such technical term "statistical probability". Wile E. Heresiarch 06:52, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Communist government - oxymoronic. Communism means the absence of government, thus a communist government is an oxymoron. You can have a socialist government (like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). You can have a communist party, or a communist society. But you can not have a communist government, it is an oxymoron. This page should be deleted, or at the very least moved to socialist government or communist society. If there is a detractor, can you please explain to me what a "communist government" is? This is the most inherently POV page I've seen yet from the title alone. It's kind of like saying Christians are people waiting for Jesus to return, and that he has returned, and he has renounced Christianity, and that all of this is a fact. -- Lancemurdoch 20:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Name has been changed to Marxist-Leninist dictatorship to deal with any ambiguity about ideals of pure communism.Fred Bauder 03:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think we have to go with common parlance on this one and keep. -- stewacide 21:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Regardless of what one or another group of people think "communist" ought to mean, a meaning which it actually has is "the parties of government in certain countries including the USSR, China and Cuba", and that is the meaning used here. Hence there is no contradiction. Onebyone 01:41, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. You can have a Communist government (capital c) as in government run by the Communist Party. Now located at Marxist-Leninist government. Do explain more clearly how this term is not accepted by communists. --Jiang 02:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move Marxist-Leninist government to Communist-Party government to stay as close to the "common parlance" as possible w/o ambig, and keep Marxist-Leninist government, Marxist-Leninist dictatorship and Communist government as redirs to it; IMO this answers the concern raised. --Jerzy 22:36, 2004 Jan 6 (UTC)
      • "Communist-Party government" is a bad idea. What's the dash for? "Communist government" is a standard political science term used in non-communist (whoops!) countries. We only need to state in the intro that Marxists object to this term. --Jiang 23:56, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. (loosely, Communist government = "Pinko" governments) JDR

January 4

  • Danish and Norwegian alphabet - orphan (hence unnecessary) disambiguation-style page, cannot be made into a sensible redirect. However, does contain edit histories for Danish alphabet and Norwegian alphabet. Onebyone 05:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. A note on each page (DK alpha + N alpha) to say it's similar to the other, definitely, but this one isn't even a disambig page. -- Francs2000 06:40, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'd prefer we move them back to here, in keeping with the way we have one page on Cyrillic alphabet instead of a dozen pages on each slight variation. It's highly confusing to have such redundant articles: instead have one article that in a single sentence points out that they differ in a grand total of one character. --Delirium 01:30, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Age of cattle features a quote from a book that "may not be accurate", and nothing else. -- Francs2000 08:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is probably a copyright violation. Compare with Original Article and read the terms and copyright. They say: "5. Use on Other Web Sites. The Contents are licensed only for the personal, household, educational use by a single individual. Reproducing Content on another site or redistributing Content is forbidden. Taking Content from this site and editing it and posting it on another site is also forbidden. Framing of this site is forbidden.". Thanks to User:Chadloder for locating the web source (this was done on 24th January 2003, do we really have a copyvio publication published here for a year???) .Optim 10:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The copyright claim is invalid because the Household Cyclopedia, being published in 1884 is in the public domain. Toph99 12:31, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article should be merged into an article on cattle or cows or bovines. However, I would be a bit wary of "technical" info that is this old. Still, it could be moved with the 1884 tag until someone with knowledge about aging cows comes along to correct - Marshman 18:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Move to wikisource if you like it, since the information is too outdated to be reliable. Maximus Rex 20:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Telling the age of cattle was well established by 1884. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Techno-oligarchy: fails the Google test: 83 Google hits, mostly from mirrors of this article. The Anome 10:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Mostly just BS - Marshman 18:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to technocracy. If they are slightly different concepts add a note to technocracy. moink 21:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete without a redirect, as it's an idiosyncratic term. --Delirium 01:30, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

January 5

  • Verdict. Normally I'd say more to Wiktionary, but this sub-stub definition is misleading. There are certainly other verdicts besides the two listed. RickK 00:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Then expand, please. - Patrick 02:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Reversible. Move to Wiktionary? RickK 01:27, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Might be useful, although it's weird to have an adjective as an article title. Move to reversible process. moink 22:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Useful but should be entitled "reversibility". In any case, "reversibility" and "reversible process" should point to the same pleace, and I do not think the article "reversible" deserves a page. Pfortuny 11:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Reversible is a very common term in thermodynamics, makes for easy linking. A redirect to reversible process is probably best though. Polychrome 18:13, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved this to Reversible process DJ Clayworth 15:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Pro Tools. Advertisement. RickK 01:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Kill it. Onebyone 03:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but needs to be rewritten. Pro Tools is like the Visicalc/Excel for the music world. Fuzheado 03:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; massively popular/famous program. --Delirium 03:41, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, advertising removed, let's see if it's popular enough for anyone to say anything about it... Onebyone 03:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there an article on digital audio recording that this can be merged into? mydogategodshat 05:02, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: Pro Tools is the de facto standard in the radio industry. TMC1221 18:31, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


  • BlogApathy - another neologism, this one almost totally unused (16 google hits). Onebyone 02:55, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fuzheado 08:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Rice and meat soup - m:Transwiking to wikibooks. Gentgeen 06:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Recipes to Wikibooks. Fuzheado 08:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Bmills 09:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should have been more specific. I've already transwikied it to wikibooks, this seems like a cantidate for speedy deletion. Gentgeen 01:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Romance (novel) - what is this, exactly? - Hephaestos 06:45, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Something that is either an original work or a copyright violation, either way it should be deleted. Gentgeen 07:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: not an article. Bmills 15:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • St. George's High School - unimportant. Fuzheado 09:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 09:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wikipedia:Wiki is not paper Jack 00:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. A very short article about an unimportant school. Maximus Rex 00:31, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. As Jack said. Length has nothing to do with it. Real facts about a real place; importance in the eye of the beholder. Jgm 02:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. Davodd 05:43, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I'm not opposed to an article about this school, but this sub-stub isn't it. --Imran 22:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Don't delete stubs, Imran; fix them, or leave them for others to fix. Meelar 06:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Ditto. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jumping in Quake - content moved to Quake. Fuzheado 10:07, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. In fact, the poor prose that was in it barely deserves a (short) paragraph in Quake. Coren 11:42, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep the redirect that is there now. Actually I am told that jumping really is a big deal amongst serious Quake players.. copyediting the "poor prose" now in Quake is not a matter for VfD. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:51, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep redirect. If content has been used, its authorship information is in the history of that redirect. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolute pressure - dictionary entry. Bmills 13:07, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Useful concept in fluid dynamics. Keep (though needs improving). DJ Clayworth 15:36, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm undecided on this one. I agree with DJ Clayworth that it's an important concept, but as long as pressure defines both absolute and relative pressures, there's no need for this. If someone can make it longer than a definition, keep; otherwise delete and redirect to pressure. moink 18:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jason Allen Alexander - content is "Jason Allan Alexander is a brawny, small-town, church going boy, who married his high-school sweetheart, Britney Spears on January 3, 2004, and was annuled two days later" magicker71
    • Okay. Get this-- he did. [1] Watch the news buddy. Even check the article on Ms. Spears here self. I'll get to explaining the situation of the marriage, but this is real and valid. - user:zanimum
    • Keep. Optim 14:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, much as I hate to say it about a nine-day wonder like this. Bmills 15:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's utter trivia, but topical trivia. Secretlondon 19:10, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. Davodd 19:20, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - when no one cares anymore in a couple of days, the article will be just as useless as it would have been when no one had heard of him. Just mention it in the Britney Spears article instead. Adam Bishop 20:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment/Status: All the information about Jason Allen Alexander is now contained in the Britney Spears article under the heading "Marriage with Jason Allen Alexander". His full name gets 59 Google hits. Do we expect him to become more famous? If not, I think Jason Allen Alexander can become a redirect to Britney Spears. Let's wait a few days to see what will happen and whether he will get more publicity... ...Optim 21:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I've turned it into a redirect (which won't work whilst it is on VfD). This hopefully will contain it to the Britney page. Secretlondon 21:38, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with Optim. -mhr 21:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer to keep as a separate article. Sure, he's done nothing noteworthy but briefly marry a famous person, but that's past our threshold I'd think. If, say, somebody had married Marilyn Monroe for two days, wouldn't they deserve at least a 2-sentence article? --Delirium 03:25, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Jim Dougherty was Marilyn's husband for a good deal more than two days... and yet...no article.--Binky 06:37, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • That's simply because no Wikipedian has had the initiative, time, or information needed at hand to create the article. Not that he doesn't deserve one. I had all three of the above criteria for Jason, and that's why he's here. -- user:zanimum
    • Whether it should be a redirect or a full article doesn't need to be discussed here. As long as there is a consensus that something should be there (and of course there should!) we can move this debate off this page and onto the article's talk page. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Johnny Wakelin - Can't make heads or tails of it. -- user:zanimum
    • Keep, makes sense now. Onebyone 16:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, onebyone, but only because I deleted all the confusing information after listing it. Who is he? How is he relevant? For all we know, these records and this article worked out of a garage. - user:zanimum
        • Apologies, since I'd heard of Pye Records, to me is was as good as a lot of other musical barely-stubs. I was judging based on the reasons stated for deletion - if you also want to delete it because it's too short to be worthwhile then that's a slightly different issue... Onebyone 00:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Johnny Waeklin Recorded "In Zaire", a song about The Rumble in The Jungle. Auric The Rad 17:23, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Suara Sosialis. Discusses something that doesn't exist. Huh? RickK 16:38, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This was created by an anon yesterday, claiming that that indonesian party doesn't exist. I'm going to attempt to verify that information. If it doesn't exist then of course delete. Secretlondon 18:55, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Confirmed that it no longer exists - and was a translation project not a political party (despite an official web site claiming it was). I've turned it into an orphan.Secretlondon 19:09, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)


  • MediaWiki:Disam. MediaWiki:Disambig already exists and it is used almost exclusively. I think it would be confusing unless we remove the former. See also MediaWiki talk:Disam for a discussion. I have not put the VfD note on purpose as this is a MediaWiki page and the note would show up if someone did use the message somewhere. Dori | Talk 19:16, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nelson's Column, Dublin - completely misnamed article. The monument was called Nelson's Pillar (or more correctly but rarely Nelson Pillar). It was not called Nelson's Column and there is zero chance of anyone ever using it as a redirect, any more than there is the slightest chance of people looking up Nelson's Column in London as Nelson's Pillar. (The only google links available are from this article in wikipedia or copied from wikipedia by other freesource encyclopædias. It is worrying that a completely wrongly named article here has set off a string of wrongly named articles in other 'free' net encyclopædias.) In a google search, the results are
    • 24 for Nelson's Column, Dublin (almost all from wikipedia or taken from wikipedia, one from a notoriously unreliable non-wikipeidia source).
      • 346 for "Nelson's Column" Dublin"
    • 509 for Nelson's Pillar
      • 16 for "Nelson's Pillar, Dublin"

(from among other sources RTÉ, The Irish Times, UCD Press, Dublin Civic Museum, History Ireland magazine, National University College, Cork History Department, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Notre Dame Archives, National Library of Ireland, Dublin City Council, Limerick Leader, Irish Historical Archive, etc.) Clearly keeping this nonsensical reference even as a redirect risks misleading more people into believing that this is a valid name for the monument and not an erronious one. FearÉIREANN 20:53, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Well as I wrote the article, I think I would have used it as a redirect? I thought it was called Nelson's Column officaly, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote the thing. Redirects are useful if even only one person would use it. User:Astrotrain
    • Keep. As someone who stood at the top once, I'd say that the most common name amongst us Dubs was quite simply 'the Pillar', but the official name was Nelson's Column, so this is a perfectly valid redirect. Bmills 09:25, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I'll automatically agree with the guy who lives there :) --Raul654 09:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Which one of us? :-) Though unfortunately I was denied the chance to climb the thing by a group of republican idiots with explosives, though I can see its replacement, the Spire of Dublin, from the window as I type this. As to the name, I have not been able to find any sources to substantiate the Nelson's Column claim. Even the drawings by Johnson when he designed it don't seem to use it, and it never crops up in any official documents than I can find. I doubt if there is a person in Ireland who ever called it Nelson's Column. And redirects are only useful if there is a chance it will be used. There is zero chance in this case and zero usage. All it can do is add confusion and mislead people. FearÉIREANN 19:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I thought it was called Nelson's Column, thats why I wrote the article!!!! Now I know it is more offically called Nelson's Pillar, fair enough. But surely if the redirect to the pillar already existed, then the article would never have been created? Redirects should not be deleated merely to appease your point of view. User:Astrotrain
        • For Column, try this[From -architecture.com or this or do your own google for "Nelsons Column" dublin. Bmills 16:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • About 12 matches for "nelson's column in dublin". That's not "zero", so keep redirect. One of the uses of redirects is to prevent people from putting articles at dodgy names by pointing them towards the Wikipedia standard name. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Alkaline Ace two lines about a brand of battery. DJ Clayworth 22:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This should be covered under the battery type not a "brand". Delete - Marshman 23:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 6

  • Crambo about a cover band from Scotland that used to play in a pub. Apparently made no records and have now broken up. Maximus Rex 00:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete PMC 00:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 18:49, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Alice Is Talking Again - sub-stub about a poetry book, the author of which is so unimportant he doesn't even have his own page. PMC 01:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • orphaned, del --Jiang
    • Many very important poets do not have Wikipedia pages yet. Dale M. Houstman is a minor surrealist from Minneapolis, and Wikipedia seems to attract surrealists. He is obscure, but not entirely unknown, probably no less worthy of a place here than Easter Bradford. Move to Dale M. Houstman and lets see if anyone will add more info. Bmills 11:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The poet should probably have a page too. I'm basing my assessment of this book's importance on my having heard of it, when I'm nowhere near a poetry expert. moink 19:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not listed by the Library of Congress, COPAC or Amazon. We no longer have the Easter Bradford article. --Imran 22:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes we do. It's just that for some reason it had been turned into a redirect out of the article space. (I've reverted that.) -- Oliver P. 07:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't find any information on the book apart from that it exists. I suggest keeping, and redirecting to Dale M. Houstman when such a page exists. -- Oliver P. 07:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • International Birthday Google suggests that this doesn't exist outside this wikipedia article [2]. Who are "some organizations"? Maximus Rex 01:59, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Poorly written. Delete even if valid - Marshman 04:31, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If it's important someone will write a real article about it. PMC 04:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 17:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Yuukichan's Papa. Does this person not have a name? And who is Yuukichan, anyway? RickK 03:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Stubby and gross anyway, even if the article title had something to do with the content. (Which, as far as I can tell, it really doesn't.) PMC 04:25, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 04:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • nonfamous, del --Jiang
    • Keep. He is a real person. The staff rolls of Mega Man and Mega Man 2 certainly show that name as one of musical composers. I don't know his real name. Using such a name seems Capcom's practice. You can find Ogeretsu Kun (Mr. Sordid (?)), Ryutaro's Mama, etc. --Nanshu 23:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I Think I Canada - episode summary for Timon and Pumbaa, a Disney TV show which is now off the air. The text of the summary is in the main page for the show. I don't see why it should have its own page, it's not a particularly notable episode. PMC 06:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • redirect to Timon and Pumbaa. it doesn't hurt to do so --Jiang
    • See Talk:I_Think_I_Canada. Investigate, will you, before you resubmit articles on VfD for a second time. -- user:zanimum
      • Don't respond to me about it! --Jiang 22:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • My bad, I didn't look at the talk page. Don't respond at Jiang for when I screw up :P PMC 04:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've changed the <nowiki>***</nowiki> to <nowiki>**</nowiki>, what I meaning to do before. It was a response in general, not to one particular user. - user:zanimum
    • There should be some guidelines to prevent the re-introduction of an article to the VFD page within say 4 months or less. Such a quick re-introduction shows disrespect for the process. mydogategodshat 04:15, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above, despite their moderately offensive username. Such guidelines should be discussed in talk Jack 11:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Washington Generals. Patent nonsense. Angela. 06:33, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I can see this actually being a useful article, providing someone could re-write to have real information about the team. Lyellin 07:35, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I can vouch that a lot of what it says there is true. For many years (until 1995), the Generals were the punching bag for the Harlem Globetrotters. (Leading to that great simpsonism - "Ah, the Luftwaffe, the Washington Generals of the history channel"). The article needs some fixing up, but that isn't a terrible start. --Raul654 10:31, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't forget Krusty, justifying betting against the Globetrotters: "I thought the Generals were due!" LadyPuffball
    • Keep, but trim the nonsense. --MIRV 16:06, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Paradigm Atom orphaned product advertisement --Jiang 06:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Advert. moink 19:52, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Padiddle first part is a dictionary definition, the other is nonsense --Jiang 06:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, delete. Onebyone 17:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, link to Car game and rewrite to match other car games, or delete all of the entries in that article. Davodd 22:09, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • As the original author of the page, I assert that the padiddle is a wide phenomenon at least in the United States and is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is more then just a dictionary entry as there is a cultural side that should be explained. -- karlwick 16:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Also in Canada Denni 21:39, 2004 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Piher advertisement for nonexistent subject (website does not exist) --Jiang 06:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, ad. The Web site does exist here. Bmills 13:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • View of Florida from Space - is this really worth an article? --Jiang 07:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Village_pump/June_2003_archive_6 for a discussion that apparently led the creation of that page. I also believe, though, that this image should somehow be incorporated in a more general article about the geography of Florida Nyh 10:15, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree that the image and it's descirption should be incorporated elsewhere. --Jiang
  • How to induce lucid dreaming - a mildly odd How-to. I think not encyclopedic. Bmills 11:09, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • summarize and fold into lucid dreaming. -- Tarquin 11:12, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • agree with Tarquin, but just more the whole thing, and allow it to be edited, summarized or whatever else is needed once its moved. Jack 11:18, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I added this article because I thought it would be useful to compile several methods for achieving lucid dreaming on one web site, without the jargon in the forums at http://ld4all.com Anybody voting on this should remember the article has been up for about an hour before I'm writing this. I will try to list many methods and I've already listed some advantages and disadvantages to each method and tried to make it clear that not every method works for everybody. I vote keep (of course) but it could also be merged to the main article on lucid dreaming. I will continue working on it there. r3m0t 12:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks, and delete here. It's not that this is in any way a bad or undeserving article, it's that we keep HOWTOs in wikibooks rather than the encyclopedia. Methinks there should be an "altered states" wikibook, covering lucid dreaming, meditation, sensory deprivation, and good ol' fashioned chemisty-induced hallucination. -- Finlay McWalter 15:25, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge in Lucid Dreaming (as done). Very informative details. - Texture 17:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you! r3m0t 12:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Abuse - Listed on cleanup, but has a VfD notive, so I'm putting it here. A signed self-help essay that the author appears to be posting on every site they can. Bmills 15:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge any useful, verifiable parts into spousal abuse or domestic violence, then delete. --MIRV 16:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge any info into appropriate articles, and keep "Abuse" as a disambiguation page; enough links to it to have it be worthwhile. Meelar 17:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • If it becomes a disambiguation page, we'll have to change all the links so they point to the correct articles anyway. Still, it probably should be a disambiguation page. So Keep -Anthropos 02:23, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I let the author know what was happening so he can clean the article up if he wants. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Age of Extremes - a page of footnotes rather than an article about the book itself. TwoOneTwo 17:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Well that's right, so? I believe it is worthwhile to share such selected notes. The selection itself is a contribution. These pieces of information can be referenced from elsewhere. Note that the book is quoted in many pages, even if so far not linked. Marc Girod 06:44, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I turned this into a sensible stub. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • And I protest. For a book of that kind, I doubt that a summary or any kind of glose, at least without exerpts such as those I had edited, will present any significant interest. Marc Girod 17:23, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The original is a kind of multilayered POV low-key rant: that is selective quotation to push a particular slant on Hobsbawm's own POV. The stub neers merging with the article on Eric Hobsbawm, which is itself very weak. If the EH article was rewritten, it could include a properly contextualized discussion of thei book and the author's attempts at coming to terms with the collapse of his earlier belief system. Bmills 17:36, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the book definately deserves an article, but this isn't it. I may have a crack at this and the Hobsbawm article tonight to fix things up a bit.Lisiate 00:23, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Current version is only a stub, but stubs are better than nothing, so keep. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Car Satellite Radio - title breaks Wikipedia:Naming conventions, also article's subject (satellite radio) is not limited to cars. I propose all useful content be merged into Digital audio broadcasting#Digital radio for the US automotive market, where most of it is reproduced there anyway. Merge and delete. TMC1221 18:07, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Satellite radio and delete. It is not the same as digital audio broadcasting, which is land based and uses different technology. Davodd 18:45, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect. See the deletion policy. "Merge and delete" is not an option, because using other people's work and then deleting its attribution to them is an infringement of their copyright. Even if it weren't illegal, it would still be bad practice. Merging and redirecting preserves all information, is undoable by any other Wikipedian if necessary, and - best of all - does not require discussion on this page... -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • John Morrison Birch points to nothing Anthony DiPierro 18:27, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Sending to Cleanup: its Hx is
      • POV non-wikified Copyvio creation
      • Blanked
      • Redir to non-existent John Birch page
      • I just redired to John Birch Society which has a 'graph on its namesake, mentioning that full name.
    • He's like Horst Wessel (see List of people by name: We-Wg) & Ernst vom Rath (see Kristallnacht), nonentity treated as fringe-POV martyr. Leave as redirect until there's a non-copyvio bio brought forth; when it comes, i'll probably NPOV it (& return to redir if too little left) if no one else does.--Jerzy 21:01, 2004 Jan 6 (UTC)
    • I've written a bio. Feel free to NPOV it. Secretlondon 15:07, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Wait a minit, who talked me into offering to NPOV? Oh, yeah, i thot it was an empty gesture. But by now i'm kind of fascinated & i'm picking up today what may be the only academic acct of him, and working more on touching up than PoV. --Jerzy 14:55, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)
    • Keep: now a useful short NPOV bio. Bmills 15:16, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not really a vote, but if there's a copyvio in the history, can we just leave it there? -Anthropos 02:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep John Birch (it's fine), but delete John Morrison Birch and recreate it as a redirect to John Birch to remove the copy vio from the history. Maximus Rex 11:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Sounds good, but in anticipation of disamb page, it may be worth making the article John M. Birch since a Col. John Birch was significant in Brit history and a John Birch heads an advocacy group for concealed weapons. (And for that matter, tho maaybe less insidious in confusion potential, yet another (was it Sir John Birch?) is negotiating trade arrangements in China.) --Jerzy 14:55, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)

January 7

  • Ladder Theory: so far as I can tell, the Ladder Theory states that "Men and women have (different) criteria for ranking who they'd like to date, and they will prefer to date those who rank highest." This is so obvious, I can't see how it would rate an article. -- Khym Chanur 04:18, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Obvious theories are worth stating, to make them visible and subject to critical consideration. Obviously you've never considered a contrary theory: that men won't (except in fantasy) come near a woman who ranks above them or even equal to them; they feel more secure in having the upper hand than in making a "find". Some people find the parties they go to have lots of couples, a corner of intelligent, good-looking, successful females talking among themselves, and a corner of dumb, ugly, male losers, as this Mismatched-Ladder Theory (to make up a name) predicts. --Jerzy 15:41, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)
    • Keep (reluctantly)(for now). This seems to get quite a lot of disparate googlage, and I figure there is a half-decent article in there somewhere (if only in a slashdot-troll like guise). I'd say file it on cleanup, and del if cleanup doesn't improve it. -- Finlay McWalter 04:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The website the article links to is highly offensive, and the theory is non-falsifiable, so it's crap, but I say keep anyway, and NPOV the article quite a bit. moink 20:23, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Flamingantichimp 03:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article needs to be rewritten, but it's valid. I wouldn't consider the Ladder Theory to have any sociological grounds, and the site is kind of offensive, but I'd still include it for the same reason we have All your base are belong to us. --cprompt 04:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Stupid God: "Stupid God theory is one where God is credited with creating the universe, but not very well...". Reads like junior highschool level philosophizing. Since the topic is made up, it is unredeemable. It also falls under original research. Maximus Rex 06:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Google search for "stupid god theory". It has to be worth something. User:68.173.191.185
      • No hits for "stupid god theory" quoted, about 200 with "stupid god" quoted, and most of the first 20 appear to be standard abuse, not philosophy. Delete. Onebyone 21:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Idiosyncratic ramble. If there were any there there, it would belong in The nature of G-d. Delete. (Oh, and zero Google hits.) Salsa Shark 06:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is just a rant. - Jsan 07:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Garbage, del --Jiang
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • WTF pretty lame; wiktionary at most --Merovingian 11:16, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Eh, I'm neutral. It's come into common enough usage that it just might deserve an article. --Raul654 11:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've redirected to Internet slang, which mentions WTF. Not much useful stuff you can say about other than what it stands for. Maximus Rex 11:33, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Roads and Expressways in Poland - I think it was already decided here that we aren't supposed to have articles on roads, unless they have some importance. --Raul654 11:37, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was only 2 hours old when you listed it here. Secretlondon 14:46, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • True, but (IMHO) irrelavant. Regardless of how developed it is, I don't think Wikipedia should ever have an article like this. --Raul654 21:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Disagree with that assessment. We have some good articles on the US Interstate system (and lots of them). The subject is perfectly valid. Keep - Marshman 18:08, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What's the harm? Meelar 19:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is informative and harms no one. Imagine yourself writing a thesis on European roads, surely you would be interested in articles like this. ..Optim 00:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Include this: Camden High Street] in the above statement. It's a road 500 meters long! Sheesh. --Raul654 11:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Camden High Street probably deserves an article, it just doesn't deserve this one. Onebyone 11:47, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and lets hope a London-loving wikipedian can expand: the street is well worth an article. Bmills 12:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Secretlondon 14:46, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a very important 500-metre stretch and the reason why Camden Town tube station is the busiest station on the whole London Underground!
    • Keep...Optim 00:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I figure most large cities will have two or maybe three encyclopedic streets, and megacities like London or Tokyo maybe 15. While this is pretty low on that 15 (Whitehall it ain't) I figure it's still encyclopedic. And we brits can pack a lot of interesting stuff into 500 metres (it's not just one branch of Arby's). -- Finlay McWalter 00:17, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Neurological zombie - Idiosyncratic or movie/RPG reference; no apparent real-world content. Salsa Shark 12:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Pseudo-science, also present in Zombie. Apparently comes from the fiction The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks, see [3]. The Google cache for Zombie shows that this zombie theory was in the page at one point, it and the links like Neurological Zombie should probably be completely removed. — Jor 12:11, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this nonsense. Bmills 12:16, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Good news for those worried about the solanum virus (aka potato virus) mentioned in this well written and factaully accurate gem -- it only affects plants! [4] Maximus Rex 12:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Norman A. Beck - some sort of rant, not an encyclopedia article Nyh 13:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Rant. -- Finlay McWalter 13:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Bmills 14:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - unless turned into an actual article on the author which is encyclopedic. Secretlondon 14:48, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Possible speedy delete? DJ Clayworth 19:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiki Link - a sub stub - I'm not sure what the point of this is. An orphan as well. Secretlondon 20:15, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Quarters_of_Gdansk - stub, with information already contained in the Gdansk entry. One page links to it, and link on the page links to an external site in Polish. Lyellin 20:31, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gdansk page is protected. Admins don't react on requests to put additional information, that were put on the talk page. Therefore it is necessary to add aditional pages. Cautious
      • Gdansk is protected, but the information on Quarters_of_Gdansk would be easily added to Gdansk whenever it becomes unprotected. And Beyond that, there was never a request on the talk page to add that info. I don't think it makes sense to be adding extra pages, when they aren't needed, especially with how Gdansk is organized. Put the Quarters info on the talk page, and if an admin doesn't add it, it iwll be there to add when it goes unprotected, as opposed to making extra pages that eventually won't be needed. Lyellin 21:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tygo - advert. Secretlondon 23:40, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Whoever created it keeps deleting the VFD tags. I readded and protected the page it so that the tag doesn't get deleted (again). --Raul654 23:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • May be a place for this, but this one is just an advert. I see nothing mentioned that distinguishes "Tygo". Delete as is - Marshman 18:03, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Environment protection - an article could be written, but this is not it. Move this to wikibooks. --`Jiang 23:45, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. THis is sort of a pamphlet, not an article. Maybe the submitter will expand it into an article? Nothing at Wikibooks for it either. Needs a better article name - Marshman 17:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 8

  • Pro-technology propaganda. The only useful sentence in the current article is the first: Pro-technology propaganda is propaganda to promote technology.. Onebyone 01:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It was written by EoT on disinfopedia (before he was banned there) [5] and then modified and brought here by Guaka (apparently unaware of the ban). It us quite poor and should be deleted. Maximus Rex 12:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I brought it here because there are 6 articles linking to it. So I think that either these articles should be changed or PTP should be an article of some kind. Guaka 14:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Be bold and edit. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I checked and each page that linked to "pro-technology propaganda", was written by EoT. Maximus Rex 17:57, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Onebyone. Not of much use except as a wiktionary-type definition. Perhaps content could be merged into Techno-utopianism if the entry yields anything to add, but I doubt it. Toby 14:37, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • DElete. Remove links in those articles. The term is rather self explanatory - Marshman 17:56, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing of value there. -- Viajero 18:49, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wilfredo G. Santa - anyone know this guy? --Jiang 01:19, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not me...I vote delete. PMC 03:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I concur. Bmills 09:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Or at least establish that DR. Santa is/is not material for an article - Marshman 17:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. From reading the article, he sounds like a reasonably adequate subject. Sure, I haven't heard of him, but then, I haven't heard of William Timothy Gowers, either, or any number of people here. Meelar 02:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone can verify/proove the accuracy of the article. I checked his science-fiction book and neither rec.art.sf.written or the ISFDB have heard of it. Nor is it listed in either COPAC or the LOC catalogue. --Imran 21:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • 2000 Al-Qaida Summit- I am not sure this should be a sepearate article. And I don't remember any of this being made offical. User:Astrotrain
    • Ask for sources. Delete if not forthcoming - Marshman 17:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Business workflow analysis - copy and pasted in from somewhere. Can't find it as a copyvio - perhaps machine translated? Secretlondon 17:40, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Certainly looks it. It is also an advert for the external link they posted (written in French), and appears to be describing a particular product they sell, rather than the general concept. Morwen 18:02, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Weluvducsoha - appears fictional. 2 google hits. Secretlondon 17:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Google hits are to a BBS page where the user (presumably user:205.213.111.50 creates the 'religion'.
    • Not so fast, dogpile has about a half dozen sites one of them actually looks like the actual religion. User:205.213.111.50
      • Yes so fast. This religion [6] boasts 25 members, most of whom are honourary (Bill Clinton and Michael Jordan) or inanimate. Fiction or not, this falls cleanly within the "not famous" catagory. Delete. -- Finlay McWalter 19:58, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, another fake religion with no following. I could start my own religion, that doesn't make it any more significant than my imaginary friend. Maximus Rex 18:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Idiosyncratic silliness. Delete. --MIRV 18:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Yawn. Delete. Salsa Shark 19:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete from wikipedia. Reasons: 3 Google hits, unknown; there is a webpage [7], from the webpage it is apparent (to me) that it is a joke and will not drawn any publicity. The google hit came from a message board where a user named "Weluvducsoha" was promoting Weluvducsoha with posts like "I dare you to find something wrong with my religion.", see [8]. Optim 19:24, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If there's any proof that anyone besides the writer actually follows or believes this, keep, otherwise delete. Meelar 19:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • W. Thomas Smith, Jr. is on cleanup. I think it's worth keeping, but I wanted to make sure before I take the time to wikify. Meelar 19:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote for deleteion, he dumps his autobiography and is too lazy and lacking in respect to spend a few minutes formating it for wikipedia, delete the article (and hang the author :).
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • A mathematical bug: contents before blanking was a well-known fallacious argument wherein one 'proves' 1=0 by dividing by zero and hoping nobody notices. Salsa Shark 22:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete! Reason: False information Optim 23:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. (I've added a note pointing out the division by zero, but that's just in case anybody stumbles on it before it's deleted, not an attempt at making the thing worth keeping.) —Paul A 08:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This "bug" is already covered at invalid proof. I'm not sure whether a redirect is appropriate here. If not, delete. --Minesweeper 08:28, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I knew there had to be a better-titled article, but couldn't find it; thanks. A redirect doesn't seem right to me as 'A mathematical bug' is not an article one would expect to exist. Salsa Shark 08:35, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Covered in invalid proof. Geoff97 09:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Rick, why do you vote keep on this, or do you just vote Keep on everything? Kyk 21:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is silly. A discussion of Russell's paradox is the real content this wishes it were :) Kyk 21:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Rebellion - currently a dictionary definition, which should be deleted. However there clearly could be links here to lists of rebellions, and article on the games company, or probably something else. Onebyone 23:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 9

===Computer services=== inaccurate, useless entry Anthony DiPierro 00:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Redir to outsourcing. Anthony: please remember to add the VfD notice on articles you nominate. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 00:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree w/ Anthony, make redir. Meelar 02:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what we would redirect to. Looking at the list of companies under Computer Services, many of them are not at all involved in outsourcing. For instance, Yahoo is listed under Computer Services. Maybe it's better to just mark this as a stub and clean it up a little. I think a redirect to outsourcing would be worse than what is there now. Anthony DiPierro 03:51, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==Most empathetic Harry Potter character== the results of a poll by some unknown agency (they don't even have a page!) about which Harry Potter character people empathise with most. Do we really need to list the results of every single worthless, nonfamous poll out there? PMC 01:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Whoa, don't pick on Ipsos-Reid, they're big and credible in Canada. Nevertheless, this should be deleted. moink 04:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Are they really? I live in Canada and I've never heard of them. Guess I must be more out of it than I thought. Either way, I'm not trying to pick on them, just the poll. PMC 05:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Very well known in Canada (don't know where you've been) - http://www.ipsos-reid.com - delete this garbage BTW -- stewacide 07:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • So why not create an article describing them? Phil 12:01, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree on delete, but I've definitely heard of Ipsos-Reid, and I'm from the U.S. Meelar 05:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:17, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==Words that are nouns or adjectives when the accent is on the first syllable and verbs when on the second== No comment. silsor 03:32, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

    • keep, no harm. Green Mountain 03:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Pointless. In any case, it is probably impossible to write this from a NPOV. Delete this as yet another useless list. Tannin 07:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: I dont see any relation between POV/NPOV and the page in question. How could somebody write a POV on this subject? My vote is below ... Optim 16:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Yet another useless attempt to delete valid content, you mean. NPOV? What can you possibly mean, there is no point of view involved, it is a factual list of words that change their gramatical role depending on stressing of the sylables. Keep it! Also - see the talk page for a serious discussion of this linguistic phenomenon. 209.102.127.70 07:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and see how the page develops. It deascribes an interesting phenomenom. ping 08:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Onebyone 11:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is an important linguistic fact. English is one of thos languages that most easily forms one word type from another and vice versa and this is one of the key "tools" used. Bmills 11:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Phil 12:01, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Optim 16:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 04:17, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 04:24, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. The fact that one person considers it pointless to study language is only that person's weakness. Anyone who cares about the scientific study of the English language will find this interesting, even if the article is imperfect in its present form. Those who don't care about that topic should work on other things.
    • Delete. Kyk 21:29, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) I looked at the help pages, trying to figure out what wikipedia's charter is, and it wasn't entirely clear, but I found (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not item#11) that wikipedia is not a list repository. If that doesn't mean to delete this article, then I'd ask for that item to be clarified as to what it does mean...
      • This is obviously not merely a list. Accordingly, I have moved the page by deleting the words "list of" from the beginning of the title. There are very many lists on Wikipedia that begin with "list of..." that it would be wrong to delete. List of mathematical topics, list of religious topics, list of physics topics, etc. At any rate, one would of course hope that this would evolve beyond devoting most of its space to the list, and some scholarly scientific and historical matters would occupy most of the space. Michael Hardy 21:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't understand wikipedia definition of list, but I need to post my question about it to the help page about what wikipedia is not, but now I have to find it again -- I find it very difficult to find :( Kyk 22:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==John Paul Horstmann== probably vanity, or a joke, escaped notice for 6 days; also Ron Whitman, linked only from Horstmann. Adam Bishop 04:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • While some facts are correct [9] this seems like a joke about nonfamous person. Delete. Fuzheado 06:44, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten it. It's true that he's not famous, but Wiki is not paper, so that shouldn't matter. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==Turbo Prolog== Very poor stub, could be included in Prolog article. Not sure if it should be on VfD or Cleanup. Flockmeal 04:47, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==Lay== Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Move to Wiktionary. silsor 05:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

===Bet=== dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maximus Rex 04:58, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Move to Wiktionary. silsor 05:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect to gambling. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

===Fang-nei, Fang-shi, Ts'ai, Ts'ai-nü=== good for Wiktionary. --快艇 (Talk)☺ 05:39, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

    • Furthermore, they are in Wade-Giles(correction: not even W-G but some homemade romanization) instead of Hanyu Pinyin. To the best of my Chinese ability (which is not much) they make absolutely no sense. I vote to delete (not move), unless someone converts them to pinyin and adds chracters. --Jiang 05:42, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Me either, I don't know what they mean...:( --快艇 (Talk)☺ 05:57, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==Alien_vs_predator_syndrome== Google search on "alien predator Yoshihide" does not bring up anything related. Fuzheado 06:40, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • This was only linked to by Talk:Postmodernism and was used as part of a sentence. I've factored out that reference (which was and is still quite badly worded). It seems to be very obscure. Delete. MrJones 13:44, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==British Movement== POV rant that I have blanked. Bmills 15:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Of course it should be deleted. --快艇 (Talk)☺ 15:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't see the content before it was blanked, but now I think it's okay to keep it. Just a stub. --快艇 (Talk)☺ 15:30, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've written a proper entry. A bit of a stub at the moment, but something of substance. - David Gerard 15:32, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RickK 16:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion Jimbo and Theresa say that VfD is "broken" and/or that the page itself should be deleted. I second both ideas. --Uncle Ed 17:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The alternative of no VfD is far worse. Fuzheado 17:32, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, no viable alternative has been proposed. Maximus Rex 17:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del Feb 1, and let's reflect, in our attention to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, the urgency of IDing its replacement --Jerzy 17:48, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)
    • Keep. No better replacement proposed. --snoyes 17:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep until we get a better alternative, or even an alternative of any sort. Secretlondon 20:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete when zero-length articles come up as red links, which is the only reason most of the articles here are listed, as far as I can tell. Morwen 21:04, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What else have we got? Rmhermen 21:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • BlogBigot This appears to be a bit of offensive slang or idiolect, not an encyclopedia entry. --FOo 17:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Community Theater Orphaned article which is an inaccurate version of an article that already exists: Community theater (which redirects to Community theatre). The article with a capital T should be deleted because it is too easily confused with the article with a lowercase t, and because its brief content states that Community theatre isn't what American community theater is, but that is not correct. The article:Community theatre does define American as well as British community theater correctly. --Jfitts 19:42, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

===*Paratroopers Brigade=== interesting, but definitely not intended to be an encyclopedia article. Evil saltine 20:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • The content probably has to go, but the declaration and the unit itself deserves an article. Edit and Keep. The Fellowship of the Troll 20:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


*Tidy up please!

Could someone tidy up the unfortunate detritus of redirects and moves that were made during a misunderstanding Wikipedia:Trolling, Wikipedia talk:Trolling, Wikipedia trolling phenomena? Thanks! The Fellowship of the Troll 21:25, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2120576"