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 Moink (talk | contribs) at 06:28, 7 March 2004 (speedy simulacrum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
If you were looking for an article on the abbreviation "VFD", please see VFD.

Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Note that this page is for listing articles that you think are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles you want to see deleted, but doing so would mean a change in policy. In that case, go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to discuss a policy change. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.

See Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#VOTE:_NEW_LAYOUT_FOR_VFD! for a vote on layout change.

Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month:

7th - 6th - 5th - 4th - 3rd - 2nd

Front Matter

Cleanup

Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

copyright violations -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- Cleanup -- translations

Deletion guidelines -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- Votes for undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- maintaining this page -- inclusion dispute -- Old cases

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions


March 2

  • Full Text of the United States Constitution - wikisource. --Jiang 03:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK 04:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not a source depository. Rmhermen 04:47, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikisource. Dysprosia 08:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Certain documents are of such significance to so many articles on Wikipedia that they belong here for easy reference. We have photographs here, right, to illuminate articles. An article on the constituion of the United states needs the text of the soruce document to illumintate an article about it.
    • Delete. If you want to link to the source document, link to wikisource. Anthony DiPierro 12:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Management accounting -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This same material has already been removed from at least five other articles that I know of. It is unfortunate that the translation is so bad that it is impossible to fix it. mydogategodshat 08:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but remove the babble (there was a short stub before 23-Jan-2004). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reverted to most recent good stub. Andrewa 13:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The reverted stub is still nonsense. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Search for "Management Accounting" gets 300,000 hits, including at least two magazines, certification groups, etc. Seems like it could be made into a decent artice. On the other hand, I couldn't find anything to support the paragraph connecting it to "The Gaze", so maybe that should go. Niteowlneils 00:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Internal control -- non-encyclopedic babble; high probability of copyvio . Hardly corrigible. Mikkalai 08:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Created by the same author as the babbling at Management accounting (and it's a word-by-word copy of that other babbling, and it turns into an advert at the end, and the extlink is dead (for me, at least)). Lupo 08:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No useful history. Good topic but no point keeping this. Andrewa 14:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 23:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Battiadae -- May refer to something, but looks like nonsense. --Ryan and/or Mero 13:43, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • You may like to add the MediaWiki:nonsense message on it. Optim 13:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I suggest us to always check backlinks of articles in question. Rare term, but hits the google nevertheless. Mikkalai 17:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Canada Games Company -- appears to be a fictional company. The website listed points to a squatter's site. Google did find a company with this name (sort of), but they make jigsaw puzzles only and don't seem to be notable. Their site is hosted on a free server. —Frecklefoot 15:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Keep - article improved - Texture 15:38, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No Vote, it is a real company but it is not particularly major one, even in Canada
    • Keep. I doubt it's vanity. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but the article needs help. They do or did manufacture more than jigsaw puzzles. See its talk page. Lupo 20:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-famous non-important. Note that there have existed several companies with this name hence the dating problems on talk. --Imran 00:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • Battle of Merton: entire text is from http://timelines.ws/0600AD_999AD.HTML
    • and in any case it's the Battle of MARTON! Lee M 20:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and please do so on the speedy plan. Moncrief, 2 Mar 2004
    • If we don't have it, move it. From the edit history of the contributor (added vagueand inaccurate to There is a very large amount of vague and inaccurate historical information available in Wikipedia, and several different ways of classifying it are given below. and linked the site as a friend of wikipedia) I think the contributor runs the site the content is from. In any case, it's minimally copyrightable since it's almost exclusively factual and our usual rewrite to our standars will eliminate any potential copyrightability. If we have it. make it a redirect and list on redirects for deletion. Jamesday 21:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've listed it on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. That's the page that should be used for possible copyright infringements. Someone should remove the entry from this page after this has been seen. -- Oliver P. 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 3

Customer experience management

See Talk:Customer experience management

Booger

- Well, I tried, but it didn't turn out very well... is this a dictionary definition or an encyclopedic article? ugen64 01:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

    • The content is OK. Isn't there a technical term for this, though? It should be moved there. Meelar 04:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The proper technical term is bolus of overdried glutinous extranasal respiratory secretions. (And if you believe that, then you'd believe that flatus advanced by rectal transport is another proper technical term...) Dpbsmith 00:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Symbiotic algorithm

- Looks to be primary research. Suggest merging any salvageable/encyclopedic content with parallel algorithm and delete. --Lexor|Talk 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Lexor. Google Test yields very few results. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:42, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Original research. Delete. moink 20:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Emerging Symbiotic Clusters

- Primary research, zero Google hits [1] (cf symbiotic algorithm). Suggest merge/delete (see above). --Lexor|Talk 05:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Original research. Delete. moink 20:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Report from Himmler to Hitler

- looks like it needs a transwiki to WikiSource, then a deletion. Any other opinions? Isomorphic 05:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    • Source text. Transwiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 11:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete the page but don't delete the image. --mav 06:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nascent

- Belongs in Wiktionary. Boot it over there. Denelson83 05:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Democide

See Talk:Democide

Ontario_Mills

- Shopping centre in Ontario. If we delete nonfamous people, surely we delete nonfamous shopping malls. Maroux 11:54, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

    • Keep if it going to be expanded, otherwise move to Ontario, California. Concerning the comparison with people: there are far fewer big shopping centers than nonfamous people.--Patrick 12:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Shopping malls are famous. Anthony DiPierro 13:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - malls in general are not famous - Texture 16:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 16:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. we have articles on a number of shopping centres - SimonP 19:50, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Malls are visited by hundreds of thousands of people annually. That seems to imply some level of notoriety and importance. If anything, they go towards local history in many cases. Besides, there are other malls in Wikipedia (e.g., Houston Galleria). RadicalBender 20:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep this. Malls are famous locally--there's usually only a few of them in any given area. Meelar 22:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We're adding every interstate and interstate spur route in the country. Surely there's room for every mall if people want to make entries for them. Moncrief, 3 Mar 2004


New College Democrats

Attack Tool Kit

- Appears to be advertising; if the product is notable in any way it needs to be NPOVed. Warofdreams 14:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


William Hill Kelly Jr.

See Talk:William Hill Kelly Jr.

The Source

- originally listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, I am listing it here as a member of the Leo Wyatt/Charmed discussion above. I personally believe all these pages should be merged into one anyway. -- Graham  :) 19:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Keep. We have lots of other characters from fiction all through Wikipedia (Jean-Luc Picard, Bart Simpson, etc.). I don't see why these should be excluded. There's certainly more than enough information on them. Move to cleanup, though. RadicalBender 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the content, but the most famous use of the term is probably the hip hop magazine of the same name, so either the article at The Source should be on the magazine or a disambig page. Tuf-Kat 08:20, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


Geostationary orbit

Discussion moved to Talk:Geostationary orbit



Panalix

  • Looks like original research. The sole contributor is one of the names mentioned in the article, and he has signed it at the top.Graham  :) 22:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - original research - Texture 23:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - this looks like a whitepaper or something. Original Research. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - changed to make it look more like second source . Followed the style as on Menuet. --Adek336 12:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Note Adek336 is the author of this page, and is also the researcher mentioned within it. Graham  :) 12:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fixed. Anthony DiPierro 13:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Fixed how? It's still a research project and self promotion by a Wikipedia user. How is this fixed? -- Graham  :) 13:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, you're right. It still looks like original research. I'll withdraw my vote. Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It's still original research so I think we should delete. Perhaps in a few years, if it takes off, then yeas but not now. theresa knott 14:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I have plenty of 'software with little functionality'. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Esse Aequitas and NinePointFive Thesis

Zero and 16 google hits. Muriel 22:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the creator, I will remove the contents of the Article on Esse Aequitas, due to the lack of evidence, however, I ask that NinePointFive remain, since evidence of being valid exists on the web.Volition

The only evidence is at [2], which is not enough. Keep for a standard time, then delete, if more solid validity will not be shown. Mikkalai 23:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikibug here! http://web.archive.org/web/20030729181108/http://www.ninepointfive.com/index.html didn't resolve via [ ]. Mikkalai

NinePointFive looks like original research. Delete. Anthony DiPierro 23:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless validity proven. The 16 Google hits appear to have nothing to do with NinePointFive Thesis. The reference listed in the article is to a search in web.archive.org. No evidence here that the thesis has any currency. I'm not sure it has any historic value. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 23:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: original rsearch. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of past countries in Europe

Recommendation was "merge", not "delete". Discussion moved to Talk:List of past countries in Europe. Rossami 23:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 4

Torah Cosmos

See talk:Torah Cosmos

Drew

  • We don't need pages on first names. moink 02:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is used as a disambiguation page. RickK 02:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 19:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if it becomes a redir to various Drews. Davodd 00:51, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks good now. No longer related to first names only. Jay 08:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Than

  • Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:49, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information on contested issues of English usage is valuable and encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded with etymologies, reworded. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Climate Research

  • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • What is written is an old news story. It is not encyclopedic. Kingturtle 06:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • agreed but this is no reason to delete. The page needs to be expanded, so that the news story becomes a small snippet. Suggest move to cleanup. theresa knott 08:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Starting point for an article. Fixed. Anthony DiPierro 13:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • An empty/blank link is also a starting point for an article. We can't encourage dumping news items into blank articles. If an article is junk, it should be deleted. Add the blank link to requested articles and provided there a link to the news story. Kingturtle 19:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah but this starting point is actually useful. Anthony DiPierro 22:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a snippet from news. Besides, it is about the magazine Climate Research, not about climate research, so one should start from Climate research (disambiguation). THAT would be a valid starting point. Mikkalai 19:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: valid topic. No disambig needed at this time (forget about the magazine). Wile E. Heresiarch 23:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep what? Did you take peek inside? And why forget about the magazine? The contents are about it. Let's better keep an empty page. Mikkalai 01:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Revised article -- pls review your vote (if you care). I have erased the abstract from the magazine and replaced it with what I hope is a valid stub. It's a large, complex, & interesting topic. I hope someone can do more with it. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tencel

  • This one is also Wiktionary-bound. Denelson83 08:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I said above, I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:50, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

See Talk:List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

Content-free Space Shuttle pages

See Talk:List of space shuttle missions

====Desenrascanso==== Desenrascanço

  • Gets no google hits except Wikipedia derivatives. Made up? DJ Clayworth 15:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the word is a portugese one? The page is seriously POV though.If we keep we need to NPOV it. This is not a vote either way.theresa knott 15:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • You are right dear Theresa, thats the most wonderful of the Portuguese virtues, the one who keeps saving us for the last 900 years! Muriel
    • Despite the true definition and the tender way in which is expressed, delete, not encyclopaediac. Muriel 15:57, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It needs cleanup. VfD is not cleanup. Optim 16:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a real portugese word for "crisis management". Delete because it is not in use in English. (I did not find it in any of the dictionaries I checked.) However if keep, move to Wiktionary (after thorough NPOV). Rossami 16:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If I understand well, it's not just a word. Also, Agora is not used in English but no-one ever voted to deleted it AFAIK. Would you? Optim 16:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Agora is in use in English. Evidence - it was listed in the very first dictionary I checked. From evidence available to me, Desenrascanso is just a word. Rossami
    • I suggest merge with Culture of Portugal Muriel 16:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I would suggest to start a Culture of Portugal article with this info, i.e. move it there. :) Optim 16:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The correct spelling returns several other hits on Google, actually. Fredrik 16:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ornamentation and crime

  • Original research from 1908 DJ Clayworth 15:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, incoherent (hence nonsense). Dpbsmith 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I did move it to Ormamentation and crime, I mean Ornamention and crime, I mean Ornimentatation and crime, but only because I could'nt stand its' mispeling.)
  • There may be some merit to this page, but I can't see it. Mark Richards 21:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am still trying to understand it - Texture 21:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 21:16, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bizzarre. If this isn't patent nonsense, nothing is. Meelar 21:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Archaic is the best way of putting it. Secretlondon 22:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ethical fitnessism

  • Original research, only 1 google hit. -- Graham  :) 16:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I can't decide if it is an advertisement for the concept or what but it has no support - Texture 19:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not an advert - it claims to be about Dawkins - and quotes his work. Doesn't count as original research as it is clearly published. But - has anyone got the book to verify? I haven't. Secretlondon 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If it's about Dawkin's parts of it should be merged with Richard Dawkins, I don't think it deserves a page of it's own with one Google hit. I don't think Dawkins actually uses the term "ethical fitnessism", but he may have mentioned "ethical fitness". --Lexor|Talk 03:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to something like Ethics and evolutionary psychology and keep. I'm fairly familiar with Dawkins' popular writings, and but for the idiosyncratic title it seems a fair statement of one ethical calculus based on sociobiology. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paddywagon

  • Orphaned slang term, little chance of improvement. -- Graham  :) 16:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary? I think the use of this slang term has outgrown its racist meaning; and is now generically used to indicate a police car (as seen in public enemy lyrics). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:59, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I rewrote with a slightly fuller explanation--still a stub, but could maybe be expanded. Meelar 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe this could be redirected to Police car or something of the kind? Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Borderline, but I think it could grow. Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If there were an article on police vehicles in general it ought to redirect there, but (to the best of my knowledge) there isn't. -Sean 06:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

McFly

See Talk:McFly

Note that Eloquence has removed this ahead of time - and decided to keep it despite a 7-2 vote for deletion. --Wik 16:54, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Seditty (3d/0k)

  • to Wiktionary? DJ Clayworth 18:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like outright trolling to me. I can't find the word in google define or in dictionary.com. I'm guessing it's a pun on someone's name or something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I presume this is a personal attack on someone. Secretlondon 22:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Google actually turns up plenty of uses with this meaning [3], so I'm guessing its recent slang. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stellated earflaps

See Talk:Stellated earflaps

Prone (4d/1k)

Dicdef moink 20:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. dicdefs should be speedily deleted. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwikied to wiktionary and *then* deleted, surely? Secretlondon 22:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes- sorry, i guess there might need to be a new category - "candidates for speedy transwikification"- this could include recipes and dicdefs (although I wasn't part of the recipe discussion, i don't know how that finally ended up, so I might be wrong). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dont even think about it. First, see encyclopedia. Next see compendium. Next see talk:compendium. Next see definition. And finally talk:definition. Bensaccount 18:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Is that a vote to keep, or to delete?
  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 20:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to wiktionary Rossami 21:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


March 5

Kilian Knote (12d/1k)

undeleted as it was deleted out of process without being here five days. Angela. 02:00, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • if Kilian has a page, i want one too. Muriel 16:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; purely a vanity page; no meaningful Google hits. Added VfD notice. -- Seth Ilys 16:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonfamous. Maroux 20:46, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, "job wanted" ad. Lupo 10:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You already have a page. Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not in the wikispace! Muriel 11:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no value. 80.202.80.207 05:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable individual. Maximus Rex 05:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page theresa knott 10:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a significant person. Average Earthman 17:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

September 2004, et. al.

Ding Scale (8d/0k)

Gets no Google hits. Made up or original research. Maximus Rex 05:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. April Fool Day joke. Mikkalai 09:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim·.· 12:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke and a bad one. No Google hits (although it's hard to tell because of many hits on words like "grading scale" that have been line-broken and hyphenated!). Dpbsmith 13:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Decumanus 15:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Urm, delete. Bad joke. Besides, 1/0 is undefined, not infinity. -Seth Mahoney 19:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. That's just tasteless. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:27, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - tasteless - Texture 22:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bate Boiko and Briquet (1d,0k)

Move to Wiktionary. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cali Ruchala

Journalist (not especially famous). Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 14:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony, please stop insulting other people for raising legitimate questions. This is a very borderline article -- I'd say this person is just on the edge of being encyclopedia worthy, but Cali's magazines seem professional enough that it tips me over into "keep", barely. Jwrosenzweig 17:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've removed what could be seen as an insult. Sorry. Anthony DiPierro 17:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CardRealm (2d,0k)

Internet card game: we are not advertising. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as it stands - could easily be included in list of card games - Texture 15:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Maroux 22:47, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

Cattleboat (2d,0k)

Slang - wikyionary. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 15:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lewis Sanders, Justin Sanders (3d/0k)

Non famous vanity. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete both - looks like a new user who doesn't realize this is inappropriate - Texture 17:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree looks like newbie expt. theresa knott 17:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Last Words of Dutch Shultz

A gangster's incoherent death-bed rambles. Source text; doubt it could be made into a reasonable article. -- Infrogmation 20:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - source text - cannot be expanded - Texture 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Offer it to wikisource & delete. moink 20:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dutch Schultz, wikisource, and delete. Anthony DiPierro 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Harri Porten

See Talk:Harri Porten

March 6

Davide Mana

More Customer experience management

Beekeeping leading practices

  • I created it. I don't have the content knowledge to finish the page and based on the length of time unedited, no one else has interest. Rossami 02:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Some information is better than none. Everyking 02:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looks pretty cool. -- Decumanus 02:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'll try to get some more on it. Pollinator 02:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikibooks, surely. Egil 07:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BTW: I am doing a research and I plan to write a paper related to bees, so I want to learn more on these subjects. Optim·.· 08:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Articles are often unedited for ages. Then someone new comes along, see them, thinks "well this is a very poor show for my favorite subject" and greatly expands them. It's all how the wonderful world of wikipedia works.theresa knott 10:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good start. Except possibly the page title itself, perhaps should be moved to "Beekeeping Recommended Practices" or "Beekeeping Good Practices." Dpbsmith 11:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)



Carrying capacity

Richard Genovese

See Talk:Richard Genovese Vfd header added on the 6th.

Charles Edward Jones

See Talk:Charles Edward Jones Vfd header added on the 6th.

Headology

Looks like nonsense. 995 hits at google and the first ones are not quite "scientific". There is even a username somewhere... Pfortuny 16:43, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. It's a term used a lot in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of novels. Graham  :) 16:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If it's fictional, add context. If nonsense, delete. Meelar 19:20, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Granny Weatherwax, since AFAIK she's the only one who uses the term, and her section on the aforementioned page has all the explanation necessary. --67.69.188.153 19:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poorly coined term. Mikkalai 00:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but maybe it'd be worth keeping if someone reworked it so that it wasn't pretending to be scientific. Everyking 01:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Move to cleanup. As it stands the page is seriously incorrect because it would lead the reader to believe this is an accepted word in ordinary English. The American Heritage Dictionary knoweth not of headology. However it gets so many Google hits that I am convinced that it is a well-known bit of jargon with some specific meaning among some group of people. Someone with a foot in both the world of the American Heritage Dictionary and the world where "headology" is a word needs to write it with proper context, identifying the group of people (Wiccans? Pratchett fans?) that use it, and what the word means within that group. Dpbsmith 03:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Granny Weatherwax and redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Staple (cooking)

Typical example of wiktionary term. Pfortuny 16:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Garcia

9/11 victim, not particularly remarkable. -- Graham  :) 16:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Del. --Wik 16:54, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Anthony DiPierro 17:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; unremarkable and unimportant. Psychonaut 17:46, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not famous. moink 17:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 18:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not famous. Not encyclopedic -Hcheney 21:05, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • To Sep11Wiki. Why do people think that dying is enough to go into an encyclopedia?Maroux 22:45, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself, I don't. I think living is enough to go into an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 00:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - move to memorial - Texture 23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move and delete. Secretlondon 23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and del. --Jiang 00:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of 125 Greatest Living Footballers

I think the List of 125 Greatest Living Footballers should be deleted. The List of 100 Greatest Living Footballers is the list. JB82 16:59, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete or broaden the scope. Anthony DiPierro 17:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or broaden the scope. Optim 17:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Just make it a redirect to the correct list. Shouldn't have come up here. -- Seth Ilys 21:20, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Also delete List of 100 Greatest Living Footballers. Transwiki both for possible inclusion in wikisource. Anthony DiPierro 21:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • To Wikisource. If not delete, as "greatest" is pov. Maroux 22:44, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete - pov - Texture 23:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote here. Both lists are POV -- and Copyvio unless we have permission from [4]. I am listing both on the possible copyvio page. [We do not list the companies of the Fortune 500 for similar reasons] Davodd 23:22, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is Pelé's personal list of 100 greatest footballers. He was asked to compile this list by FIFA. What's wrong with it? Mintguy (T) 23:59, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • He and FIFA own the copyright to that list. Similarly, Fortune magazine owns the copyright to the Fortune 500 list. It is not a mere directory of all soccer players; it is one man's creative, editorial product. Therefore, it is copyrighted under international law. Davodd 00:05, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't believe that mere lists can be copyrighted. And if they can then I think the use of this list is fair use. Mintguy (T)
        • A compilation is not a mere list. As a working journalist for the past 18 years, I can verify compiled rank-type lists are editorial content and very copyrightable. See U.S. Copyright Office guidelines here Davodd 00:27, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no ranking in this list. Mintguy (T) 00:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
            • Ranking these players above any others counts as ranking. Fredrik 00:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't believe that to be the case, but anyway if it is then I think this is fair use. This list has been published in hundreds of newspapers across the globe in the last few days. This list has been added to Wikipedia in 12 languages already. Mintguy (T) 00:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Steve Dagora

Not famous or important. --Alex S 17:40, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Says he was famous for being on a postage stamp, at least for a little while. Everyking 18:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub, topic important to philatelists and citizens of Papua New Guinea. I fail to see how deletion will achieve anything other than loss both of content and goodwill. Andrewa 20:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous in Papua is famous enough. Maroux 22:43, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

Joy Debnath

Content removed by anon--see current version. Should we keep? Or is he insignificant anyway, making this a dead letter? Meelar 19:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - not famous or encyclopedic - Texture 23:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Milnes

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. At the very least, this would need major refactoring, and I'm not seeing how to do that meaningfully without opening the floodgates to all sorts of genealogical information. -- Seth Ilys 21:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could be described as a vanity page. Unless we want articles on everybodies family, this should go. Maroux 22:41, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete - family names are not inherently encyclopedic - Texture 23:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ximan Studios

  • Delete. Orphan, Vanity page, of no broader significance. (Although the site itself is moderately amusing) -- Seth Ilys 22:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity/advert - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 00:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rice cooker techniques, Rice an' Peas, Pandora Feast

  • Delete or transwiki the recipes to Wikibooks. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 22:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. (and leave a link somewhere - don't just remove all trace)Secretlondon 23:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and delete--Jiang

Adam Kraft

  • Not on topic. moink 23:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've moved to the correct name - haven't attempted to verify the information. Secretlondon 23:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Should I move the listing to redirects for deletion now? It's not a sane redirect, as far as I can tell. moink 23:12, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Banana in my ear

  • Not worthy of being an article. Kingturtle 23:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No vote. Anthony DiPierro 00:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Psuedo-intellectual nonsense. Davodd 00:13, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Extremely fuzzy, but the topic might have potential. No vote. Fredrik 00:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep maybe? Looking at the history, it looks like the original author started with an article about a type of joke, then made the article its self into a joke... For some reason. --Seth Mahoney 00:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It sounds a little silly, but I don't think it's nonsense. Everyking 01:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's an escaped monty python skit. - not encyclopedic - Texture 02:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 7

Juanita Del Freje

  • Dubious 9/11 victim. --Jiang 08:15, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not interesting. Move to memorial wiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 10:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Shouldnt even be moved since it's likely false. --Jiang 10:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof this person actually existed. Davodd 10:36, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that it's been listed here before and survived is some evidence this person actually existed. Needs to be investigated further. Anthony DiPierro 12:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • what makes you think it was listed here before? --Jiang 12:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That is not evidence the person actually existed. The link you provided suggests that the discussion was against keeping.--Jiang 13:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I would think if the person didn't exist someone would have pointed that out. Anthony DiPierro 13:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't prove the person does exist. Refer to wikipedia:votes for undeletion and get acquainted with our friend, User:The Cunctator. A bunch of these apocryphal 9/11 victims was deleted months ago with objections. Some people just don't care. --Jiang 13:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I never said it proved anything. I said it showed evidence, and that this needs to be investigated further. As for VfU, I'm one of the people who voted to undelete. Anthony DiPierro 13:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. How often do we have to repeat this exercise? We have decided before not to have random 9/11 victims. Those should be instantly deleted. --Wik 13:28, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Even if we had decided not to have random 9/11 victims, they'd still have to go through here to determine if they were random. Anthony DiPierro 13:33, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And don't blank it. Everyking 18:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Great, I see it's already been deleted. Since the article dealt with the controversy surrounding this person's existence, I can see no valid reason why. Everyking 21:12, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've undeleted. Someone deleted it from the speedy deletions page without checking the history and content. Secretlondon 23:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD tag restored. Anthony DiPierro 00:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete... - Fredrik 00:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 02:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Assertoric

Has been transwikied to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Assertoric, sub stub dictionary definition only. -- Graham  :) 00:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Should be a matter of speedy deletion. Fredrik 00:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't even agree with the dicdef that is there - Texture 02:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Christian slaves

  • A list of two members, which seems a little unnecessary anyway. RickK 01:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Leica Geosystems

  • advert. moink 03:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be a popular company. Do you think this could be cleaned up to not be an ad? Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm. It seemed pretty run of the mill to me. But maybe. If someone cleans it up so it's not an ad anymore I'll withdraw the nomination. moink 05:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It's only been on Wikipedia for a day now. I'm sure it'll get cleaned up. Hopefully within 5 days, I guess. Anthony DiPierro 05:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Death Ring

  • Delete - either pov, vanity, or advert depending on the reason for creating the entry - Texture 03:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: 12,300 google hits for "deathring.us". 17,600 yahoo hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a webring. By definition it will have many hits. - Texture 04:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that only popular webrings would have many hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It also doesn't appear to be a webring. Searching for deathring and webring on google only comes up with 5 hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-article. Non-famous. Non-important. Linked site contains a large number of copyvios. --Imran 05:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pro Audio Firewire800 HD

  • Delete, promotional. No obvious reason why this particular product rates an article of its own. Dpbsmith 03:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 04:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Ruth Aylett

  • Vanity page. RickK 04:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What makes you think this is a vanity page? Anthony DiPierro 04:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. Everyking 05:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak vote for keep. moink 05:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aubrie

  • Apparently, not a real person.

Simulacrum

  • Reads like an exceprt from a parody of a Deconstructionist essay. -- Khym Chanur 06:26, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this could be put on speedy deletions. Maybe in the future an article could go here, but the nonsense presently there will not be of any help. moink 06:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2662253"