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 Salsa Shark (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 13 January 2004 (Bruce V. Bracken, The Best Page in the Universe). 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 -- wikipedia:inclusion dispute

Older than 7 days


January 5

  • Robert Curatolo non famous 9/11 victim --Jiang 01:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 09:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Magicker71 20:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. About 790 Google matches, which is a lot more for many people we've kept. Wiki is not paper means that non-famousness is not a valid reason for deletion anyway. -- Oliver P. 09:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd say delete. "Fireman who died in Sep11" is somewhat akin to "soldier who died in Vietnam": tragic, but not something that belongs in an encyclopedia, even a non-paper one. But great for wikimemorial, if that gets off the ground. --Delirium 08:09, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Non encyclopedic. Move to Sep11 wiki. Angela. 02:46, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • "Encyclopedic" means "comprehensive". The idiosyncratic Wikipedia usage ("suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia") is deprecated. If you think an article is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, please give a reason! -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete - unencyclopedic (unimportant topic) -- mkrohn 01:41, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reason: not known for anything other than dying. Sad, but not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's also not a swimming pool. Lacking dead tree material is hardly a reason. Maximus Rex 03:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. MikeCapone 01:32, 12 Jan 2004 (ET)
    • Keep, edit, improve. If you delete it, how can Wikipedia improve? That an article is too short now, is reason to edit, not to delete. Katahon 06:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • No, the reason for deletion is not that it's a stub, but that the subject is not famous enough for inclusion. --Jiang 06:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - it's factual and potentially interesting to some (although not you, apparently, so it must go). Just think how much more encyclopaedic Wikipedia could be if you spent some of the time you spend deleting other's work writing your own. 209.102.127.56 22:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I find it strange that you only have two edits. Do you have dymanic IPs? What are they? And please don't throw out red herrings. --Jiang 23:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Expertise - definition plus some very vague handwaving in the direction of AI theory. Was on Wikipedia:Cleanup for weeks. Onebyone 02:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Finlay McWalter 02:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep An umbrella term, for example fluency is a type of expertise Fred Bauder 03:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there anything useful we can say other than its definition? Sure, lots of things are types of expertise, but anyone who knows the definition of the term expertise already knows that. --Delirium 08:09, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There's a lot more that can be written about this. It's bad now but I don't see that as a reason to delete it as it's doing no harm. Angela. 05:09, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

January 6


January 8

  • 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • 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)
    • Keep. edit, improve. He's an actual existing person, about whom there are several websites. I can't believe people are saying to delete. Katahon 07:02, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Not anyone who makes several websites of himself should get an article. How is he recognized by others? --Jiang 07:19, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • He's written several books, he was a radio personality for many years. Katahon 07:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. I see the original version of the page was posted from a host within direcway.com, which as it happens is also the host of Dr Santa's email address. Hmm. The name dropping and the "wrote his first poem at the age of 8" are also indicative of self promotion. Let's clear away this dreck. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Remove non-verifiable information and maybe add an inclusion dispute notice. Angela. 01:57, Jan 13, 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Keep: widely reported - unkamunka. 04:06, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I just added a source for this. WhisperToMe 04:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Anarchism and natural law theory Someone's essay with comments. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 17:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not an article at all. DElete - Marshman 17:41, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete. What IS this? moink 06:01, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved to User namespace. See User:Larry Sanger/Larry's Text. Angela. 07:12, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Consider deleting the redirect, as it discourages the creation of an actual article. If this is to be done, Angela's orphaning of this page should be reverted. --Jiang 07:18, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Futurist Manifesto. Source text, move to wikisource and delete. Saul Taylor 15:22, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Bmills 17:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Wikisource and delete. moink 06:29, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikisource and delete--mkrohn 14:19, 12 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete. Looks like self-promotion, and there's nothing to indicate that he's any more important than thousands upon thousands of other authors and journalists. Isomorphic 20:11, 12 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
  • 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)
            • Since I was the one who insulted them, I'll write the article. (As for Stewacide: living under a rock.) Edit: Done, but I'd appreciate some more info on them. PMC 00:21, 10 Jan 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Keep. We have already decided that polls are appropriate to Wikipedia. - SimonP 20:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Some polls may be appropriate, which doesn't automatically mean all of them. If this is to be mentioned at all, it should be a one sentence "A poll by [blah] found [blah] to be the character people most empathized with" in List of Harry Potter characters or something. --Delirium 05:13, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bruce V. Bracken Vanity creation. RickK 04:12, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, clear vanity. Claims of "best selling" easily proven completely ungrounded in reality [1]. Maximus Rex 00:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. (Where did my earlier vote go?) --MIRV 20:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • silsor voted to delete this, too. (See notes on the list of words above.) -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Look-at-me article, delete. Salsa Shark 05:46, 13 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 [2] 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete. RickK is voting keep for everything today, even garbage articles that were already deleted. --Jiang 04:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Please provide a reason as well as a vote... -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete - not sufficently important -- mkrohn 02:17, 12 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • delete or merge -- mkrohn 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If a full article is not possible, why not merge with Prolog? -- Oliver P. 10:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Lay Move to Wiktionary. RickK 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. silsor 05:24, Jan 9, 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
  • 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 (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
  • BlogBigot This appears to be a bit of offensive slang or idiolect, not an encyclopedia entry. --FOo 17:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete. Google finds no results for "blogbigot", and one actual result for "blog bigot" as a phrase. No Wikipedia article links to BlogBigot. Wikipedia is not about creating or promoting new words or phrases. -Anthropos 06:04, 12 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)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete or rewrite. Not an article -- mkrohn 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jesus does stuff
    • I saw in a deletion log that someone just deleted my page from a while back, or the username or something, Jesus_Blows_Goats, for being offensive. To be somewhat equal-handed, shouldn't the page/username Jesus_Saves! be deleted also? I would suggest simultaneously, but I think that is no longer possible :) Kyk 22:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Not until that user's name has actually been changed, no. Angela. 22:26, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • delete. -- mkrohn 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. What is it that we're voting on keeping or deleting? What specific page/pages? - Thinking of changing my username to Ricardo_Saves, Anthropos 06:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think we're voting to delete the user! Not quite sure VfD is the place to do that though. Wikipedia:Changing username might be better. Angela. 06:28, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

January 10

  • Anthony Beard probable vanity page / non-famous person. Googling for name came up with several other non-famous Anthony Beards. Website seems to indicate he is an unpublished part-time artist. Maximus Rex 02:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reason: Unimportant. Comments: Had a quick visit at the website. He has worked as assistant editor at Webster University and now as freelance web designer. His education includes a B.A. and a certificate. Didn't find something which implies that he should be included in Wikipedia. Of course when/if he becomes notable we will certainly list him in the encyclopedia, but for now there is no reason to keep a page on him, although it doesn't harm much. .'. Optim 05:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete, unimportant. moink 07:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, unimportant. -- mkrohn 02:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Completely bogus and idiosyncratic. Would also fail under 'original research'. Maximus Rex 06:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 06:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Completely unrefined but not even slightly bogus you tripper. Sam Watkins 10:54, 11 Jan 2004 (AEST)
    • Pretty clearly bogus, and completely unencyclopedia. Dete. john 00:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain, perhaps replace with an easy to understand explanation of why electromagnetism doesn't explain gravity. Is it possible to explain without using mathematics? (It's too late at night for me to think rationally, I suppose two clumps of matter would affect each other somehow, just not proportionally to 1/distance² or something, and probably an uncomputably insignificant effect anyway.) Not the first time I've heard strange, but similar ideas. And possibly rename the article to something else. Κσυπ Cyp   04:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del pre-Aristotelian-quality physics w/ extreme prejudice. Sam, there's this thing called mathematics, that's a little more sophisticated and powerful than magic ratios. --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Delete, entirely wrong. moink 07:04, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Better now. Keep. moink 00:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter whether its true or false, it's just one persons pet kook theory. If it was a famous kook theory, we might want to make an NPOV article about it. Delete. Morwen 13:48, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (copyedit article [partially done]) [It is part of Magnetohydrodynamics. Not one persons pet kook theory. Not Completely bogus and idiosyncratic. Not entirely wrong if understood in context [see references]. The prior article is fringe. The general concept largely unknown (sometimes misinterpertated, also).] JDR
    • delete -- mkrohn 02:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Music and optics - hogwash. silsor 06:13, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Salsa Shark 06:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --MIRV 06:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Hogwash my foot. I studied at the Melbourne University Conservatorium of Music and can play violin, piano and guitar better than you can brush your teeth :) Why is the visible spectrum exactly one octave? Sam Watkins 10:54, 11 Jan 2004 (AEST)
      • Worth presuming hogwash, with talk of "exactly one octave": Light gives "400 nm to 800 nm" which looks exact, yet Color gives "approximately from 380 nm to 740 nm", bcz the ends of the spectrum fade of rather than having any exact end. In any case, the limits of vision are determined by the activation energies of practical visual pigments at the red end and probably at the violet end as well; looking for ratios is part of a nostalgia for magic. --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
        • Please don't feed him the attention he craves. silsor 06:03, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Total nonsense, whether or not Mr. Watkins can play the guitar. john 00:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain. The article is, as far as I can tell, hogwash, one person's point of view, and primary research. But... the topic itself isn't nonsense. People have been interested in connections between music and optics for a long time; the "color organs" of the thirties, come to mind. There was a lot of stuff about this in Stuart Isacoff's neat book, Temperament. And Sir Isaac Newton himself had some cockamamie theories about the relationship between the spectrum and the scale. Haven't you ever wondered by the colors of the spectrum are (almost) always listed as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet... even though indigo is hardly a common color name, and in tests where they asked people whether they saw a color between blue and violet that had as much right to a name of its own as orange, the near-universal answer was "no." But, Newton thought that since there were seven notes in the scale, there just had to be seven notes in the spectrum... and his prism had high dispersion in the short wavelengths... so when it wrote it up, he named seven colors, including "indigo," and textbook authors have copied it from each other ever since. In other words, there's probably an article there. Dpbsmith 03:27, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Ask a spectographer: i was taught Newton was able to resolve some solar or atmospheric absorption (dark) lines, and (cluelessly) construed them as boundaries between colors (from which the possibility of setting some other boundaries by wishful thinking would logically follow). But if you're looking for musical analogs, you have only 2 choices: expect 11 colors, or expect 7 colors but with 2 colors each being only half as wide in the spectrum as each of the other 5. Please! --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Del --Jerzy 05:57, 2004 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • Delete, wrong. moink 07:04, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonsense. Morwen 13:48, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but... If this theory could be historically contextualized, it might fit on a page on "synesthesia" or a related concept. There have been minor (but widely recognized) art movements that attempted to relate color to music--I believe a guy named Stanton MacDonald-Wright had one such.
    • keep, if copyedited; otherwise delete. JDR
    • delete -- mkrohn 02:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- in the current state, this is unreadable. There's no introduction, no explanation of how the special numbers relate to the title of "Music and Optics", and little indication that it can be cleaned up. Katahon 07:39, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Earnings multiples - article may be justified but isn't clear in its intent to provide information; may be POV. Doesn't seem to be a copyvio, but also seems to be a potential advertisement; Wikipedia IS NOT a big classified ad board for free advertising; please check. 67.75.231.38 07:53, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Ive changed it to a more appropriate title and made some edits. Should be ok now but still needs some work. mydogategodshat 01:28, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Corsican mythology - unless User:Paul Franceschi adds info that isn't pretty self-evident from the name Tuf-Kat 19:25, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete if unchanged by deletion date. silsor 22:02, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, no information -- mkrohn 02:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tried to find info on the web but didn't find anything relevant. May be just a test page. .'. Optim 00:47, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
  • Steel tariff - poorly written essay on a recent American policy; relevant info incorporated into tariff -Smack 20:25, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Weird, I was sure that page was listed here last week. Delete. silsor 22:02, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's an important political event. Rewritten, but should it be renamed? Meelar 09:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, post Meelar's rewrite. Yes, it should have a better name - maybe "2003 US Steel Tariff" or something. -- Finlay McWalter 01:05, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep -- mkrohn 02:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - much improved - SimonP 20:44, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

January 11

  • Vegard Aukrust - unknown person, does not belong in an encyclopedia. The article seems to be written by himself. -- Wolfram 00:40, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 02:34, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- mkrohn 03:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete James F. (talk) 09:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 11:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Camp Muriel Flagg a Girl Scout camp in northern Massachusetts that used to operate from the mid 1960s into the late 1970s. Not famous, no known campers of any note. Gentgeen 08:09, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 09:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What's the harm? Meelar 09:32, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, wiki is not paper. Deletionism is out of hand, I think I may vote for VfD to be deleted.... Jack 09:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiki is not paper, but it is also not a catch-all. Fuzheado 14:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- agreeing with Fuzheado (less than 20 google hits - not important enough for an encyclopedia) -- mkrohn 03:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More than ten Google hits. —Ashley Y 03:19, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doe sno harm. SpellBott 11:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • MediaWiki:Risk, MediaWiki:Legal and MediaWiki:Medical. No longer used as there are disclaimer links on every page. Have been blanked for the last week without objection. Angela. 11:53, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- virtually nothing links to these pages anymore -- mkrohn 03:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • If it doesn't hurt to let them blanked and nearly-orphaned, we can keep them as historical pages. if you feel it doesn't matter, delete. Optim 05:05, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think there are any historical purposes to them. They only existed a few weeks and may confuse people who come across them. Their existence may also encourage people to keep using these messages when they are not meant to. Angela. 05:18, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. Agreed that users may get confused and continue using these messages. Optim 06:40, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Agree with Angela. The pages have no purpose anymore. Flockmeal 05:22, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete James F. (talk) 09:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete.SpellBott 11:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 12

  • KX-T2365E - some kind of how to for setting the time on a phone. Wiki is not an instruction manual! PMC 03:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks if it is useful; and delete from here. It is about the Panasonic KX-T2365E phone (source: User:Grape). The page is orphaned and unupdated since January 2003. # Optim 04:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) #
      • I'm hideously ignorant. How does one make a transfer to WikiBooks? (Just refer me to a help page if you like) PMC 04:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Go to http://wikibooks.org create a username if you wish and copy-paste the info on your userpage. Then, ask the other Wikibooks partitioners whether this info is useful and in which Wikibook it should be added. If you locate a wikibook suitable for this info, just move it there. Optim 04:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Muchas gracias :) PMC 05:09, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
            • This is surely thank you, but in which language? Spanish? Optim 05:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes, Spanish it is. It's about the only phrase I can remember in that language... PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete from here, don't move to wikibooks unless major improvement. Flockmeal 05:16, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've put it on my user page on WikiBooks, so we can see if they want it there or not. (My guess is not, but you never know) PMC 05:21, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Good job! Optim 05:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Wiki books. SpellBott 13:16, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Shadowsnake Films - publicity stunt (see below)
  • John Coulthart - publicity stunt (see below)
  • The Mindscape of Alan Moore - an interconnected publicity stunt with previous two. All three were created by an IP with a history of inserting bogus information (see Wikipedia:Cleanup) - User talk:Unkamunka|.]] 04:14, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all three. Wikipedia is not a launching pad for promoting movies and film companies. Flockmeal 05:16, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Bmills 09:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Have verified what unkamunka says. SpellBott 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Jeffrey Pratt - an undergraduate student who's not (afaik) particularly well-known. User's other contributions are very good though, so I've left a note on his talk page. --Delirium 08:46, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete low-key vanity page. Bmills 09:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 13:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- not worth an article in an encyclopedia -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Gaylord Focker - stubby orphan; of any use? -- Infrogmation 13:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- not worth an article in an encyclopedia (there is IMDb for this kind of information) -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's the name of "Meet the parents"'s protagonist. Really no point. Delete. Mrdice 18:00, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Without a Meet The Parents article it's not worht including just one character in a seperate article. Flockmeal 20:17, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, useless. Great movie though. Tragic that it has no page. PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Necropedophilia - Dictionary definition. 33 Google hits. 9 Yahoo web hits. No Yahoo directory hits under category Sexuality. No dmoz.org hits. May be some Death Metal album or term. Discussed on some vampire-gothic-etc and Metal music BBSes. Disgusting. Created by a new user. .'. Optim 16:10, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
    • It doesn't exist, new user probably got off on it. Delete. Mrdice 18:00, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • delete -- checked number of google hits -- mkrohn 00:26, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Creepy, delete. (note by Optim: This was user PMC)
  • Glittering generality another dictionary entry. Dori | Talk 22:27, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- duplication of information. note that this definition is exactly given within the propaganda article. -- mkrohn 00:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • convert to redirect page, since the phrase is in circulation. Mikkalai 00:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 13

  • Demonize - move to wikitionary/delete and or/ redirect to demon. --Jiang 01:19, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikitionary, and make redirect to demon. Possibly make note at demon about what demonizing is? PMC 03:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Optim 04:39, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • (from cleanup) Anigraphical music - idiosyncratic? For an internet term it gets no google hits - best guess-invented term. google shows anigraphic as abbr. for animated graphic, no more. - delete immediately?
    • Delete. --Jiang 01:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Confusing, no context, stub...yep, delete.
      • Oops, that was me, but I forgot to sign. PMC 04:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The Best Page in the Universe - irrelevant website. Why can't such obvious violations of established guidelines be deleted on sight? --Wik 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete (but after the 5-day wait, not on sight). Just some guy's blog, not really mentioned anywhere except on other people's blogs. --Delirium 05:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not that well known to deserve its own article. Dori | Talk 05:12, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Alexa ranking is 4,069 is you use the http://maddox.xmission.com address. Angela. 05:15, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, Maddox gloats about how he has a higher Alexa rating than several fast food websites on one of his articles. WhisperToMe 05:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • While the 4,069 Alexa rating is for the entire domain, this states that 88% of traffic going on Alexa end up at Maddox.xmission.com -- http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=maddox.xmission.com WhisperToMe 05:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless it's particularly prominent in some way, move to List of blogs if we have, or want one; else delete. Salsa Shark 05:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2143669"