Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

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.
Please also use the "what links here" link in the sidebar for a page you think merits deletion, to get a sense of its context. Finally, explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.

This page is for listing articles that are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles you think merit a change in the deletion policy. In the second case, visit Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to discuss the policy change.

Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month: 15^th - 14^th - 13^th - 12^th - 11^th - 10^th - 9^th ~~- 8^th - 7^th~~

Press the end key on your keyboard to jump to the end of the page, and click on the lowest edit link to add a new candidate.

Front Matter

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.)

Sister pages

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

Decisions in progress

Ongoing discussions

All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at Talk:List of recipes/Delete (see also Wikien-l)
Unsolved problems in biology See Talk:Unsolved problems in biology
List of Europeans & List of EU people, see Talk:List of Europeans & Talk:List of EU people

March 9

Add insult to injury

Delete - dictionary definition - Texture 16:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary material? - Fredrik 16:31, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is usual to redirect proverbs to List of English proverbs (or appropiate language of origin) because there is rarely much to say about them. This isn't really a proverb though... is there a similar appropiate list? Also it may need to be transwikied to wikiquote? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete or improve: it is not even definition, or explanation. The article doesn't go beyond rephrasing the expression in 11 times more words (and not necessarily more clear ones than the phrase itself). Mikkalai 16:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This should be moved to Wiktionary unless more can be said about it. Mikkalai is right; there needs to be more substance to this article if it is to be kept in Wikipedia (e.g. origins, historical usage, etc.)
More can probably added to make it acceptable. In its current state it is a dicdef, and should be moved or deleted. Ludraman 11:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
i added another meaning (an album). Muriel 08:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is this 'turn of phrase' common everywhere? UK vs. US, etc.? If not, keep or have it redirect to general list. Zoney 14:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Myths over the GDR

Discussion at Talk:Myths over the GDR

List of Södermanland Governors

This appears to be a legitimate, if unfinished and just about useless page. It doesn't even have a Swedish translation, which is rather embarassing since it's about Sweden. Only one of the links is finished, the one for the most recent governor. I have no idea how big Södermanland county is, but this page is pretty much dead in the water (my apollogies to the Swedes). - Litefantastic 17:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The information isn't useless, but doesn't warrant a separate article. Create stub at Södermanland County Administrative Board and move content there. And you can read in the Södermanland County article about how big the county is ;) Fredrik 17:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Right you are. I pasted together the Admin. page out of the governors' page (which can be deleted now, I think) and the main page. - Litefantastic 17:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - The entry is a list of governors, nothing more nothing less. The article is also properly named as it is nothing more than a list at present. It might be, and maybe ought to be, moved to the County Administrative Board entry when a proper such entry is in fact created. But if and when it is to be moved, it should be moved in a fashion that preserves the edit history and not by a cut and paste that doesn't even reference the original entry. At present I can only suggest that the current entry at Södermanland County Administrative Board is deleted. -- Mic 18:18, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Why was it listed? There's no case made for deletion in terms of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Population, just BTW, is 255,890 according to the Södermanland County article linked to from the page in question. Andrewa 19:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's indeed unfinished, as "Governor" should be wikified to link to List_of_County_Governors_of_Sweden. As this can be found through the page footer, it's a minor point though. -- User:Docu

Södermanland County Administrative Board

Stub inproperly created by a cut and paste job from List of Södermanland Governors where the "List of Södermanland Governors" has been added to "Votes for deletion" (see above). If the entry is to be moved it should be moved in a way where the edit history is preserved. A move should also include a comprehensive sollution for all similar articles. A good place to discuss this is at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Swedish counties. -- Mic 18:18, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with all of the above. Actually, is there any reason this couldn't be a speedy delete? Andrewa 20:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that it is a speedy deletion candidate under technical reason 2, remerging histories after a cut-and-paste move? - Texture 20:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I think that case 9, Deleting an image which is an exact copy of something else, redundant, and unused, is a better match. But it's more a matter of commonsense. If this isn't a speedy deletion candidate under current policies, we should change the policies IMO. Perhaps I should have spelled all that out in the first place. Andrewa 11:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Case 9 requires that it be: an image, an image which is an exact duplicate of another image and an image which is unused. This isn't an image, so it can't meet those conditions. Jamesday 17:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree. Fredrik 20:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blind transmission

This is one extrememly dense quote from some sort of federal regs. page, which is also the only thing linking to it. It even says it's been copied out of that page, so if we delete this we won't lose whatever information is in it. - Litefantastic 17:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Federal Standard 1037C appears to be an index of [1]. The content was copied from the site, not the article. Fredrik 17:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Keep. Changed it a bit. --Palapala 21:51, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

March 10

I come to bring a sword

I'm not convinced that an article interpreting a paraphrase of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Book of Matthew, all without a single attributed viewpoint, is a wise addition to Wikipedia. Contains many "facts" (such as this being "the most quoted" phrase, etc. that have no basis. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Important saying of Christ but the article title is not a quote and even if it were I doubt that this is a good title for an article on, say, different views of this saying, analysis by different POVs, the context of the saying, &c. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article in its present version is something other than encyclopedic, but let's try to rehabilitate it before we seriously consider deletion. I can fix it up a little, but I haven't the resources to do the real work. This much I know: There is an ongoing debate about the passage, and there are undoubtedly sources that could be cited on the various viewpoints described. Someone just has to find them.

If we keep hitting it and nothing happens, then yes, it should go. But it's too early to decide that. - Sara 01:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Somehow I don't think a philosophy of "write first, get facts later" will produce anything of value. It certainly hasn't so far. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Well said. - Texture 01:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 01:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. If kept, move to the most familiar and quoted version, the KJV rendition of the Bible title: I came not to send peace, but a sword. There surely must be somewhere this can be merged to. Smerdis of Tlön 16:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe Wikipedia should contain an exposition of every Bible verse, or even every major bible verse. The current article is biased towards a non-standard interpretation. Most of this stuff is probably better discussed in Pacifism or Christian pacifism. No vote yet. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being the central author of the article, I do have an opinion - I agree with some of the criticisms - yes, it is rather poorly titled (as often are the quotations, tranlsations, and transliterations - this was Aramaic to begin with, kids). I do think it has a place here, and would characterise some of the above people as holding the view that Wikipedia be purged by some secular divine right, of all religiously-contextualized works. Take a look at our articles on other religions? There is nothing wrong or NPOV for using biblespeak in an article about a well-documented term in human culture, as long as its reasonably describes the general context. I might also add that someone with a name like Nuh-uhh, might be prejudiced toward disagreement rather than consensus. -SV(talk) 23:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You have no basis for that personal attack. -- Nunh-huh 23:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: significant. Article needs heavy clean up & reworking, including citations. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but rename to a stubby part of a larger article on Christian views on war and peace. Davodd 07:24, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
- It might be a good solution for now, David, but would that mean that this represents an opjection to passage-specific articles? I understand that we dont want each passage of the bible to be entered into wiki - but maybe it would be a good idea. I dont remember any consensus on that - was one of the original discussions. I wouldnt think it problematic to include only those passages that were interesting - meaning no -database dumps, just hand-input articles for (assumingly) the passages that present the most interest. We have had articles on specific idioms, statements, speeches, etc. Maybe this discussion points to new Wikipedia:Policy --SV(talk) 17:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment on Davodd's proposal above -- I don't recommend merging into a broader topic. I think there can be a solid, well focused article if we stick to that one verse. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:29, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - The most important word in my comment is the first one. I'll take other discussion to the article TALK page. ;-) Davodd 06:05, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is a well-done article, except TITLE. It's important as an explanation of the verse. (See the misconception mentioned on the page). The Bible was one of the first printed books. Why should it be limited here? Plenty of less worthy articles out there folks! Zoney 14:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hacker's Manifesto

I don't know what's this... --Yacht 02:28, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. Madness.~~ Apparently it's famous madness, so wikisource. Everyking 03:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've seen this before, somewhere on the web -- it's a source document, not (obviously) an encyclopedic article. - Sara 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; source text. An article about the Manifesto should be kept. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikisource. This piece was written by a "The Mentor" shortly after his arrest nearly 20 years ago. It is translated in dozens of languages. It is history. It deserves an article, with text in wikisource. Mikkalai 04:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Mikkalai. --Palapala 08:22, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Wikisource. Agree with Mikkalai Rossami 15:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mikkalai is right - I remember reading this document when it was first published, and thinking to myself that the government was just back up to its old fascist tricks again... (Perhaps a short para could be added to the beginning of this article to provide some background for readers stumbling across it and to prevent recurring trips to VfD.) Denni 18:01, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Delete. As of the writing of this POV, this is not an article for Wikipedia; it is a source for Wikisource. A copy has been kept on Wikisource:Hacker's Manifesto. --Maio 02:54, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Rewritten into a brief stub, refferring to wikisource. Mikkalai 21:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep this now. Mark Richards 15:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecily Adams

Famous for being a wife mother and sister? RickK 03:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If she were merely a wife or a mother or a sister, she wouldn't be of much interest. But she was all three -- connected to notable people in several directions, as it were -- and she has a few accomplishments of her own. Any individual aspect of her life is rather minor, but together they add up to something. Sara 04:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- marginally famous by association. Everyking 03:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. done little of note herself. --Jia ng
Keep. - Sara 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. Or add all her children and grandchildren and her dog Wibble and her cat Shanty by the same association.~~ Mikkalai 04:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We have a page on Laura Bush and Chelsea Clinton. Meelar 05:33, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Both performed offical state duties in the capacity of First Lady. As such, both are public figures. What did Cecily Adams do? --Jiang 08:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, Chelsea never had official duties. Nor did Buddy, Clinton's labrador retriever. Meelar 17:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Chelsea acted in her mother's place one or twice. The dog is marginal but certainly is well known. In light of evidence below, I withdraw my vote. --Jia ng 19:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. David Thrale 09:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[2] - not a particularly impressive filmography, but one nevertheless. Undecided, probably keep. Fredrik 09:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Casting director for a number of network programmes and a small acting resume. Those who are saying she is significant because of her relatives are missing this. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete. I have one cousin who's an astronaut and another who was once a TV star. My great uncle was a pretty important scientist. Can I have an article? moink 17:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~. Keep if, as people are saying, she's important in her own right.
Keep. Adams is known among Star Trek fans for her portrayal of Ishka, a.k.a. Moogie, Quark's mother, a recurring character on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. She's made a number of appearances on other TV shows as well; I expect actors of a similar calibre have made it to Wikipedia. I think the problem with this article wasn't that Adams wasn't famous so much as that it neglected to mention why she was famous. I've since expanded the article somewhat. Psychonaut 18:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You convinced me. I withdraw the nomination. :) RickK 02:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. See Carolyn Bessette Kennedy for a keeper for reasons of association alone. At least Cecily was well-known for some of her own history. Maybe someone should add a picture. - Bevo 18:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Valid topic: notable actor. Article is unclear; should go to cleanup. Davodd 01:38, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Moogie! Notable enough. Cool Hand Luke 03:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep the biography of this actor. Jamesday 18:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Church of Neo Cigol

No content. RickK 03:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- "Oliver K. Seet" comes up with one Google hit, to a high school. Apparently a high school student. RickK 04:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can turn up some evidence that it exists. I couldn't, aside from that inactive Yahoo group it's linked to. Everyking 03:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Yacht 04:22, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not putting in a vote yet -- looked on the website and it seems to be more of a small private club than a religious organization per se. But I'm withholding judgement until I find out more. Sara 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. The article states nothing particularly informative about this alleged religion, anyway. Fredrik 08:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I created the page, I only put it there because one of my friends suggested it, from what I can tell from your comments, it shouldn't be here, so I support your claims for deletion. User:Daggath 12:03 P.M., 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Only google his is wikipedia:votes for deletion. Crackshoe 16:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Muslim Mosque

Content is simply A black Muslim group formed by Malcolm X after he left the Nation of Islam -- Khym Chanur 07:09, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. VfD is not clean up. Saul Taylor 07:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Seconded. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Please state your reason for deletion when listing an article :-) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Uncertain. Arguably a sub-stub, and therefore deletable. Andrewa 10:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I'll wager W1 that this stub gets expanded within 24 hours. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. - Sara 17:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. But rename to Muslim Mosque, Inc. See http://foia.fbi.gov/malcolmx.htm
Keep stub. Historically important in the U.S. Davodd 01:41, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Someone appears not to have done a Google search on "Malcom X" and "Nation of Islam" before listing this here. Jamesday 18:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Override

Ancient page, contains two dictionary definitions. -- J-V Heiskanen 11:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If not expanded, delete. Ludraman 12:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary. Fredrik 19:41, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I altered the article to be about a notable short film directed by Danny Glover. Davodd 01:28, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- and I added the object oriented programming meaning. Keep. Jay 18:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's no longer a dictionary definition. Jamesday 18:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needed for the telecomms and OOP references. Expand? Zoney 02:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Due to subsequent overriding edits. -- Zigger

Talk:Open Sores

Defunct talk page - Nilmerg 13:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NOB

Delete - advert - example: "As NOB Cross Media Facilities, the ‘new’ NOB, we will continue to provide..." - Texture 15:12, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik 16:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pearly Kings and Queens

Short, nonsensical, unstructured. Suggest deletion. Psychonaut 18:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I was going to list it here as well. - Texture 18:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Good topic, now an on-topic stub. Needs a photo! See Talk:Pearly Kings and Queens for possible name change. Andrewa 19:33, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm guessing I arrived on the scene after a rewrite, but it seems sensible, structured, and possibly historically and culturally interesting now. Keep. --Seth Mahoney 20:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's been rewritten and now describes a London tradition. Jamesday 18:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Very much keep. I meant to create this article myself ages ago. Mintguy (T) 03:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: good stub. Charles Matthews 09:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, definitely. This is a famous London tradition. Moncrief 00:11, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Terrist

Essentially POV. Straw man. Article by its own admission says that there is no stated ideology "terrist" but fails to really make other claim for significance. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. +sj + 23:31, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Delete. Invented term. RickK 02:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. What links here and a Google search shows that it's not a term invented here but is in real use. Needs to include examples of terrists and their acts, though. Our description of the point of view held by terrists seems to be NPOV. Jamesday 05:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- A Google search turns up WP mirrors and misspellings of "terrorist". The what-links-here shows a number of articles in WP, which on closer examination all had the link to terrist pasted in by an anonymous 142.77.xxx.xxx (the original author of terrist), except for one change (ELF) which was due to User:Maximus Rex. Delete: term not in general circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just pasted in the vfd header -- article didn't have one before. Oops! Wile E. Heresiarch 06:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Engenharia de Software

Wrong language, should be in pt:... I would move it there, but I am a new user and transwiki seems rather complicated... Jorge Stolfi 20:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'd transwiki it, but pt: doesn't seem to have a transwiki log (or atleast a redirect from transwiki), so I don't know where to log this. Gentgeen 10:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dichotomy

Dictionary definition which is unlikely to ever be expanded. Should be wiktionaried and deleted. Stewart Adcock 22:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. unlikely why? it's linked to from many pages. (and no, I'm not just saying this because it's one of the things I hate) It's a central concept in eastern mysticism and western philosophy, including a long-standing place of honor in the Socratic tradition. move to Cleanup and expand. +sj + 11:52, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Delete. Let me propose simple litmus test- if the article looks wrong without "(noun)" and a pronounciation key in front of it, then it's probably a candidate for speedy transwikification. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:11, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary and delete. (We can always move those links across to Wiktionary:dichotomy.) Rossami 15:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Reworked (not by me), still a stub and more work needed but coming along nicely. Andrewa 13:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Images of Athens

User:Optim has departed Wikipedia and appears to have taken his photos of Athens with him. This page is now an eyesore and should be deleted. I have many photos of Athens myself, but not ones that could replace Optim's. In any case I don't really approve of "photo album" articles. Adam 23:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. refer to the top of the Village pump. Those images are on the old servers. --Jia ng 01:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Can we get some more pictures of said city? A lot of work went into this page; it'd be a shame to throw it away. -Litefantastic 14:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Someone sometime will restore the images from the old servers. (I hope)— Sverdrup 21:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I have now added Note: The photographs in this article are currently not available on Wikipedia. They will reappear sometime in the future. to the page. I also added the VFD message (which should always be placed there by the vfd poster!!) — Sverdrup 14:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Restore images assuming proper permission was given, meantime be patient. Andrewa 23:39, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 11

Twenteens

Anyone even heard of Neil Ingebrigtsen? and google doesn't have relevant matches for twenteens. Looks like a vanity page.
Dic def. of a neologism. Delete. Davodd 01:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. RickK 03:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Looks like someone trying to get their word accepted as a descriptive of some decade in the future. Absolute nonsense: delete Graham :) 16:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Germany

First sight is good, but is just yet another re-statement of opinions of User:Nico / Expellees agenda. Pattern of developement of many articles about territories near German-Polish-Czech border:

heavy POVed article with controversial title created
weeks of disputes, protections, and/or edit wars
article reaches more NPOV state, consesus
or - article turned into redirect
Nico creates new article

Please read articles and history of Oder-Neisse line, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Heimatvertriebene, Federation of Expellees, Expulsion of Germans after World War II and many redirects to them before voting. 81.27.192.19 00:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The description of the areas involved and the beliefs of those whose view this represents appears to be accurate and appropriate. Their views aren't NPOV, of course, but this description of those views seems to be. Jamesday 18:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Learning the Cyrillic alphabet

I'm undecided as to what to do with this page, but it should definitely be deleted from here. Either merge with Cyrillic alphabet or move to Wikibooks. moink 01:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
move to wikibooks and delete. --Jia ng
move to wikibooks and delete. Doesn't belong here. --Magicker71 17:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Del. I knew Cyrillic alphabet before, but after reading this got totally confused. --Humus sapiens Talk 07:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Faraday Effect

Lacks substantial content. Is 4 words enough for an article? - Mark 01:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It isn't even correct. Stewart Adcock 01:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: valid topic. I've replaced the mistaken text with a valid stub. I move for early removal from VfD. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree. Should never have been listed, rather sub-stub should have been fixed or listed on cleanup. BTW, it was more than 4 words (just). Andrewa 20:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Actually I think it's fine that it was listed here. The article got a lot of attention and now it looks really good. Everybody's happy. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - It's true that the article was fixed, and that's a good thing but you seem to have missed the point. We should either follow the policies or change them. I'm happy either way, but I'm not happy with what has happened here. Andrewa 11:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Critical link between light and electromagnetism in 19th century. Entry seems correct now. I will be adding more about relevance in radio transmission. Faraday effect modulators used in some scientific instruments.AJim 16:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. AJim is right... --Palapala 17:48, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Keep. It's fine now, though expansion would be good. Jamesday 18:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dastar

Wikipedia is not a Punjabi to English dictionary. moink 01:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete unles it is re-written to be about the company in this important SCOTUS case: Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.~~ keep. -- Davodd 02:12, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep: interesting, useful. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Treasure-trove

Dicdef. moink 02:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though it needs significant expansion to cover thehistory o the concept and well known examples. There's plenty of material for this encyclopedia article. Note also that it's linked from the list of encyclopedia topics. Jamesday 18:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Now a good stub, with a link to the excellent article from a 1911 encyclopedia. Obviously a good topic. Andrewa 13:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Can be improved upon but good basis for an article. Zoney 02:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lockergnome forums

Vanity. moink 02:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Famous. Move to cleanup for wikif'n, keep. +sj + 11:43, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Seems famous enough, but the article is an advertisement. Cleanup. Fredrik 11:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This is a famous place. Jamesday 18:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:John Highway

I'm not so much agitating deletion here as wondering what the policy is. This was created in November as John Highway, a vanity page, by this user. It was going to be deleted a couple of weeks ago, but I moved it to the user namespace instead. The user has made no other contributions, and I tried to contact them (user talk and "email this user") to no avail. In the user namespace, it's still a vanity page. Do we allow this sort of thing? Or do we say that Wikipedia is not a homepage? Or does it really matter? -- Toby Bartels 02:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. For WP policies on acceptable user page content, refer to : Wikipedia:User page -- Davodd 02:24, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. Thanks for the link, but that actually doesn't address the matter. The proposal for deletion there is only about requests to delete one's own pages (on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions). And there is nothing there about fake users (as John Highway seems to be). I suspect that this has come up before, but I don't know; I'm mostly interested in putting right something that I interfered in, rather than pushing some particular outcome. -- Toby Bartels 02:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would say keep as long as he's a registered user. I deleted the trailing redirects from the main namespace. --Jia ng 21:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. High time to think about idle time expiration policy for user accounts. I bet there are hundreds of them as of now. I can recall at least six met during my edits. Mikkalai 22:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. In the absence of a policy, decide cases on their merits. This case has no merits. The only edit he has ever made is this page, which isn't a contribution. But, I would be wary of any suggestion that we delete the accounts or user pages of contributors just because they have disappeared, no matter how long they have been MIA. Andrewa 12:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Blank. I would say that, if he comes back to be a user, this would make it easy for him to revert his own user page and have it up -- it's a perfectly acceptable page if you're going to edit here. But if we leave it up intact, then he gets us freely hosting what ends up an advertisement for him (as it gets indexed by search engines, etc.). If he contributed here, I'd say he earned that right, but as long as this remains his only contribution here, I'd suggest blanking. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree with blanking. Angela . 01:08, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Uncouth

Dicdef. moink 02:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yep. Del. — Sverdrup 14:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

42_BELOW

Advertising Richard cocks 03:23, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. List on cleanup. Notable brands are valid WP topics: Snickers, Big Mac. -- Davodd 03:29, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. List on cleanup. Small but growing company that is apparently popular with celebrities (which may mean it turns out to be a fad). Niteowlneils 03:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and move to cleanup. --Monsieur Mero 04:09, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Moriori 07:48, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, good topic, good stub and sounds like good vodka... although I'm not convinced that good vodka has a taste, (;-> as the article clearly implies. I've added stub and vfd warnings, but I hope this could be delisted quickly. Looks like consensus to me. How about it, Richard? The page is far too long! Andrewa 12:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Turner Fenton Cross Country Team

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. RickK 03:43, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Wiki is not paper. It's been merged with its parent. Plus 11 straight championships isn't childs play, really, and its not news. The article merely commented on the most recent win in the dynasty. -- user:zanimum

Sinukus

Self-promotional orphan? Pdxgoat 08:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

429 google hits for Sinukus, probably not enough for inclusion, but this could just be moved to cleanup insted, whether the person warrants inclusion Richard cocks 08:56, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
delete, self-promo --Jia ng
delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keiran McKay

google gets only two hits here. --Yacht 08:39, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Not significant enough on his own. Perhaps merge with the caving school linked to in the page. Average Earthman 13:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete, vanity. --Jia ng 21:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I wonder whether we may soon be dealing with articles for the entire faculty of Auckland Grammar School? Andrewa 12:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VentureLodge

Well, not much to say, 152 google hits. --Yacht 08:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
The same user created VentureLodge, Lisa Ross (already deleted) and Keiran McKay, given the relativly low profile all of these things I'd say they weren't encyclopedia worthy.
Keep. Of regional interest; sounds like something useful to know if planning a visit in the area.Doovinator 13:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. non-notable.--Jia ng 21:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Doovinator is right, but that only makes it a suitable article for Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sic!

Might be a redirect to Sic, but I do not think the ! deserves it. Pfortuny 13:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, actually the expression used in books etc. is sic!, so I looked for sic! on wikipedia, didn't find it and somewhat translated the stuff from the german version (you can find 'sic!' there)
Keep, but wikify and move to Sic (which is a redirect to SIC right now). Good information, more than what is on the disam page for SIC. I've never seen it used with the ! though, so I think Sic is a better home for it. Sic! can just redirect to it. —Frecklefoot 18:07, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be deleted, as it's based on a misunderstanding of what is and isn't the standard use of the term. Rarely found with an exclamation mark in my experience. Deb 18:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - But what's wrong with just redirecting to Sic, the more common use of the term? —Frecklefoot 18:24, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete I don't think it's a good idea to have essentially the same definition in at least three different locations: SIC, List of Latin phrases#S and this page. It is nice to have some illustrations of usage, but that is more of a Wiktionary entry than encyclopedic. If anything this page should redirect to the list of Latin phrases. Bkonrad 18:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirect List of Latin phrases#S. Angela . 01:08, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Notorious juicer

Vanity. Fredrik 13:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It helps if you add the {{subst:vfd}} tag to the article so that users know it's been listed: I just added the tag and listed the page again at the bottom of here, and only then saw that you'd already listed it. Anyway delete, they're nonfamous and they get no google hits. -- Graham :) 15:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I forgot to do that. Fredrik 16:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero Google hits. —Frecklefoot 18:28, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete--no google, no UBL, no Rolling Stone, no fame.

Freenet Help Site

Huh? User:CrapBeater made it. -- user:zanimum
- It just moved, was FreeNet, not Freenet.

Millcreek

Article made by vandal/troll user Henry Cheney. I was able to find the school existed, but no other information was available. --Hcheney 15:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep, list on cleanup. Irrespective of who created it the school exists. -- Graham :) 16:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Haven't we decided we don't want to create articles on every little obscure school in the world? It exists, perhaps, but if it's not famous, I vote to the delete the bugger. —Frecklefoot 18:30, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 18:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete Stewart Adcock 23:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as disambig page (or as redir to disambig page Mill Creek). Millcreek gets almost 200,000 hits, and "Mill Creek" gets almost 600,000. It's the name of a city in Washington State, among other things. Neutral on whether this particular school should appear on such a page. Niteowlneils 01:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why Cows Moo (book)

Could not independently verify if this book was ever published. There is also a 1998 book Why Cows Moo by Catherine Ripley and Scot Ritchie, which does not appear to be particularly notable. --Hcheney 16:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It exists, but I think we need the information in the article to be verified as the edition I found was printed by a different comapny, with no date and a different number of pages. The person who wrote the article is still an active wikipedian so it's probably worth dropping them a note on their user page. --Imran 17:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael Jeffrey

A one-line reference to a character in a movie. Linked to by only two pages: 1973 in music and Governors of Western Australia . -Litefantastic 16:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Now a disambig page. A very common mispelling of the name of Michael Jeffery, a Google search finds it in more Australian Government sites than get it right! But there seem to be several others who may eventually get articles (my list is not complete) who really do have this name. Andrewa 19:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Much better. I think we can keep this now. -Litefantastic 21:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Marc Perkins

A orphan vanity page about a 16-year old. -- Seth Ilys 17:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing but vanity.Average Earthman 17:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't delete. He's a legendary wrestler in Connecticut, but as it is high school wrestling, you probably wouldn't know about him unless you live within the state.
- The one google news story that mentions him states Marc Perkins, who was 1-2 at 130. Does that mean he lost twice?Average Earthman 18:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and wifiky. Alleges colorable basis for inclusion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Texture 18:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. vanity page.
Keep. With a record like that, he must be locally famous, assuming it's true. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Google on "Marc Perkins" wrestling gets five hits, not very "legendary." Dpbsmith 22:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless verified/sourced. No hits for "Outstanding Wrestler Award" "marc perkins", nor "Jim Bean Service Award". And "legendary" when born in 1988? Niteowlneils 00:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. RickK | Talk 03:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity. Is it my imagination or do we get a lot of biographical articles about people born in the eighties? Wile E. Heresiarch 07:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Basha and Bashadeelio

Delete - These seem like a vendetta against Italian Somaliland. References to defecating, masturbating, felatio, filthy, degenerate and being kicked for annoying other gods. All this and it says it is an Ashanti royal name derived from all that. Can anyone substantiate this questionable fairy tale? - Texture 21:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What a horrible piece of trash. Delete. -Litefantastic 21:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, undelete if substantiated, which I'm guessing is unlikely. Needs NPOVing even if substantiated, which is one reason I'm guessing it is pure trash. And I note that the original author has now blanked Basha. If substantiated and kept, Bashadeelio should become a redirect. Andrewa 23:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Yeah to the above. Delete, although I'm not usre it's necessarily speedy delete. ugen64 00:47, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
    - It would only be a speedy delete if it's judged to be patent nonsense, and I think there's a case for this but not such a strong one as to list it myself. Andrewa 12:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Note also that Italian Somaliland is nonsense of a similar sort. Everyking 02:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Gets one Google hit -- to here. The Italian Somaliland article, however, seems quite legit. It gets 4000 hits, one of which is a Britannica article with which the Wiki article is in fundamental agreement. Denni 19:12, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Jonathan Zittrain

Appears nonfamous -- Graham :) | Talk 22:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Probably keep. Yahoo has 18,000 hits for "Jonathan Zittrain", and over 100,000 for the "Berkman Center". Niteowlneils 00:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Just barely important enough. moink 01:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. +sj + 14:46, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

Breaking up

Very POV and I don't think it can be cleaned up. moink 22:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~Moink meant POV probably. Jay 08:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
  - Thanks. That's what I get for editing without enough sleep. moink 17:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fuzheado 00:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or send to wikitonary. Saul Taylor 05:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article doesn't even define the concept, for those (whoever they may be) who are unfamiliar with it. I think a psychological impacts/reasons for breaking up might be an interesting article, though. Perhaps the author has some ambition? -- Matty j 05:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. But radically edit. As it stands the article is POV and does not provide valuable information. Obviously, start with what "breaking up" is. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blueball

Made up? No google hits. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. At the very least a popular myth/rumor. someone should do some research and expand the stub.
- No vote. Not made up. Should probably be blue balls if it gets kept. Whether or not an article on this phenomenon can be more than a slang definition is another question.moink 01:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~Neutral~~. Wiktionary as "Blue balls" and delete this, unless someone adds a link to documentation/research that includes things like a medical term for it, how long does a guy have to be aroused without relief before it happens, how often does it happen, and generally provides enuf info that it could become a decent article? Not made-up, just misspelled. As mentioned above, the content, if kept, should be at blue balls. A commonly used term (at least here in the US--dunno about other English-speaking countries), but as far as I know, little backed by science. If a "blue balls" article is created, this should probably redir to it (especially in case this phrasing is used in other countries for the same concept), so we don't go thru this again. Niteowlneils 00:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Only 135,000 hits, and, so far, most aren't related to this topic, but music, drinks, etc. Of the hits on the first 4 pages I looked at, only 10-15 related to this context, and most were fairly anecdotal, rather than medical/scientific. Page 3 had the first hit that seemed authoratative (from the Discovery Channel[3], and it's not very specific either--not one of their better articles. This one also seems more authoratative than most, but mostly just confirms the Discovery info.[4] (search for hanne). Also, the fact that men regularly have sleeptime erections that can last hours makes it seem like this condition is probably fairly rare. Niteowlneils 20:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Real, well documented, significant to the afflicted, reference at Talk:Blueball. Send to Cleanup --Jerzy (t) 01:25, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)
- Keep. Wrong name but real subject. -- Matty j 05:55, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Add to list of sexology topics and rewrite. Exploding Boy 11:21, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with rename and redirect. Important amd neglected topic of men's health. Andrewa 11:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as disambig. I created a new Blue balls article. There is no "offical name" for it; it is a form of "pelvic congestion," but not the only one. Davodd 05:59, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Luis oliver

Nothing in the article indicates that he's at all significant. Orphan. moink 23:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. ~~Probably keep, if improved. This guy may not be notable, but there have been at least two politicians with that first and last name--maybe a disambig page? Niteowlneils 00:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~ Upon closer examination of the 600,000 hits for just luis oliver, I realized that virtually all either, A) Referred to a (probably) unnotable real estate agent, B) a (probably unnotable music producer, C) talked about someone named somethingorother Luis Oliver, or D) just happens to have the two names, unrelated, on the page. Niteowlneils 22:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Imran 15:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone can suggest anything significant this person has achieved. Average Earthman 18:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 12

Kosova

Dictionary entry and could never become more then one. All of its contents already exists in Kosovo and Metohia. Not even needed as a redirect as it is not a word of English language. Nikola 09:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The article covers the political context of the use of the name "Kosova", so it is not just a dictionary definition. It already links through to the article on Kosovo and Metohia. Also, voters should be aware that Nikola does not like using Albanian alternative placenames, for apparently nationalist reasons, and has systematically removed from them from Kosovo-related articles; this proposal for deletion should be considered in that light. -- ChrisO 10:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, for the same reasons as ChrisO. Ambivalenthysteria 10:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. In view of the controversy, it would be extremely POV to delete the Albanian spelling completely. The matter of removing the duplicated text (and it is) and/or of making it a redirect is not a VfD issue. Andrewa 11:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, propaganda. Everyking 20:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, valid article, context explained reasonably well. Zoney 02:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with ChrisO. Secretlondon 12:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, valid entry. perhaps merge with Kosovo and Metohia and redirect. --Jia ng 22:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, Albanian seperatists propaganda. Merge non-propaganda info with Kosovo and Metohia. Possibly redirect, but English name is Kosovo with an O, not an A. — Jor (Darkelf) 16:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Make it a redirect (to those saying there should be no redirect, please notice that there are close to half a million hits on google on this name). Move the contents of the article to a title that better describing the contents. Jor, there is nothing propagandistic about the article, and I take offense at your words (I'm Albanian, though not from Kosovo). Hopefully someday Kosovo will be independent (and perhaps the name changed), but until then the official name should be kept, otherwise we open a whole can of worms. Dori | Talk 16:49, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect, integrate with Kosovo and Metohija and watch that the content remains there. Alternatively, create a separate article "Names of Kosovo and Metohia", and integrate the content from Kosovo and Metohia and Kosova. No propaganda as it stands. Andres 20:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nosemania

Idiosyncratic and nonsensical twaddle. --67.71.77.190 00:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. It appears to be real, but of no real significance. -- Seth Ilys 00:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Bunk. moink 01:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The "homepage of Nosemania" is hosted on a free server and hasn't been updated since 1997. Meelar 02:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[Delete]. Adds nothing to the knowledge of mankinds. David Thrale 10:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neganose....er, I mean, delete. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 20:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Choc pértolier

The entire article consists of the fact that a particular professor has no comment on the oil crisis. (I translated into English this French-language silliness. Waste of my time...) -- Jmabel 06:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete, seems to be pretty useless information -- chris_73 08:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very odd. Delete. RickK | Talk 16:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gunter Dueck

Delete; appears to be vanity. - Seth Ilys 15:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --Monsieur Mero 17:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, this version was translated from an original German version that seemed to be a violation of copyrights. I have provided a more neutral German version but I will not keep any foreign language versions up-to-date. --80.128.69.194 20:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Katie Goodfellow

Delete; appears to be a vanity page. -- Seth Ilys 15:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. RickK | Talk 16:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --Magicker71 17:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --Monsieur Mero 17:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not significant. Average Earthman 18:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia should cover information you can't easily find elsewhere. Everyking 20:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, culturally insignificant to date. Fails Google test.Davodd 02:22, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Just noticed she's from Brampton, like Nick Moreau, and seems even less famous. Both added by the same new user. Niteowlneils 03:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- PS Probably just semantics, but can a high school kid really use "grew up in" past tense? In my mind, she's "growing up in" Brampton

Nick Moreau

Delelte; another teenager's vanity page. -- Seth Ilys 16:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. RickK | Talk 16:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --Monsieur Mero 17:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not significant. Average Earthman 18:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Having a page because you contribute online reviews of children's television programming is like any of us having a page for contributing here. -- Matty j 20:08, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 20:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Probably delete (at least unless all claims are validated). Was going to say keep, but searching coca-cola.com and bramptonguardian.com doesn't find anything, and only 37 hits as "Nick Moreau", and 101 as "Nicholas Moreau". Only 13 articles at suite101.com, mostly last summer--only one this year. And if his spelling, etc. don't improve, not likely to become a prolific professional author. Niteowlneils 21:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to User:Zanimum - [5] - and delete. Davodd 02:26, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Race (historical definitions)

Delete: literally a dicdef!! --Monsieur Mero 17:03, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, move to wikidictionary --Magicker71 17:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand unless there is another similar page. Of serious interest to historians, philosophers, sociologists, etc. --Seth Mahoney 17:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's what race is for. --Monsieur Mero 17:46, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Move the bit of new info to the race page History section, and delete this. Niteowlneils 20:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete/move. salvage anything encyclopedic to race. --Jia ng 02:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is essential for the integrity of the race article. (Originally, the race article had an external link to the historical definition, but that link died. The simplest was to transcribe it. True, it could be made into an appendix of Race but what is the harm in having a separate entry? Other historical definitions would be useful. If anyone can find an early definition of razza in Italian, that would be particularly useful.Peak 07:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Why not link to the Wiktionary article then? That's what wiktionary is for... --Jia ng
It was my impression that Wiktionary is a dictionary of current meanings. Where do "Exhibits" belong in Wikipedia? Peak 05:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That should be incorporated into the main race article as another section and incorporated with explanations. We don't move photographs to separate pages when they fit, do we? --Jia ng 23:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unusual requests

Created by me in a probably-misguided effort to poke fun at the strange requests we see on the pump. Might be amusing, but in retrospect is kinda mean. -- Wapcaplet 18:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. It might discourage people from ever becoming contributors. moink 18:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Perhaps all requests can be seen as "unusual". --Monsieur Mero 18:36, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Everyking 20:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. But it would have been fun. :) - Fennec 20:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No vote, but it could find a home in metawiki... Davodd 02:35, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but only link to it from BJAODN, not from VP.... on second thought, move it to meta. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:52, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it somewhere, don't mind where. Saul Taylor 05:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. These are all in the history and possibly in archives anyway. Interesting and with a little work could become most instructive. I'd encourage those worried about it to be bold and try some rephrasing. Andrewa 10:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'd suggest linking to it as "examples of questions that shouldn't be asked on Wikipedia" or something like that. And as Andrewa says, it's all on the record anyway. -- ChrisO 11:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If someone wants to make a page of questions that shouldn't be asked on Wikipedia, fine, but don't use real examples contributed by real Wikipedians. That's just offensive to the people who contributed them. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The word Wikipedia in front of 'Wikipedia:Unusual requests' makes it an acceptable article. There are 100's of these types of articles. Delete one and you should delete them all. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Jeff Veasey

Not important. Perl 19:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. moink 20:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Important site, so important person. Everyking 20:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If there are no more details to add than that, delete and merge with the page for the website. Average Earthman 21:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Richard cocks 20:24, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirect. RickK | Talk 22:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
redirect to site article. --Jia ng
"Not important" is not an agreed reason for deletion. (See Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance.) Even if it were, assuming that (a) we are keeping the article on the website GameFAQs, (b) it is verifiable that Jeff Veasey is the owner of the website, and (c) there is no significant information on Jeff Veasey apart from his connection to the website, we should keep Jeff Veasey as a redirect to GameFAQs. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
His site is notable but he is not, hence I vote redirect. Incidentally, asn't Jeff Veasey been on VfD before? Did it survive, or was it recreated? Isomorphic 04:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As near as I can tell, it was listed on Feb 8, and deleted some time after that. That makes it a candidate for speedy deletion, but I think a redirect is the sensible way to go here. -- Cyan 05:10, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. If it were purely up to me I'd delete both this and the GameFAQs article, but IMO there is no prospect of consensus to delete so let's not waste time listing it. Andrewa 20:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2007 in music

Wikipedia is not a psychic. moink 20:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Everyking 20:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik 20:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The year 2007 is almost certainly going to come, and there will almost certainly be music then. We will just have to undelete at that time. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It looks like its just a template currently containing events planned for 2007, though if someone wants to they might want to verify whether or not those events are real... --Seth Mahoney 00:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How about 2007 in film ? Do the same rules apply ? Jay 09:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anyone want to start a pool on who will be the first birth listed? MK 06:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

EotE2004

Source material, rules for a wargame, perhaps a copyvio. (Smerdis of Tlön 20:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Delete. Richard cocks 20:46, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik 21:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ugh. Delete. RickK | Talk 22:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Davodd 06:00, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Denni 19:19, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)
Delete ike9898
Delete. HTML everywhere!Theon 02:45, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Jeffrey de Fourestier and De Fourestier, Jeffrey redirect page

Vanity page. Adding himself to List of historians, List of Germans, List of lexicographers, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and other lists. Google shows very limited number of non-self-generated hits. Vidocq 21:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blimey, he claims his Master's Thesis is the best ever work on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That's some ego he has there. Average Earthman 21:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Having had a look at some of the links - well, the things he claimed he was involved in appear to exist, but I haven't found any mention of him on their websites. Delete. Average Earthman 22:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete – vanity --Monsieur Mero 00:18, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and impressively well done, I might ad! Sam Spade 05:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Elaborate vanity. moink 06:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I'm attempting to email him. The best solution IMO would be for him to register, move this to his user page, and contribute. That's assuming it is autobiography, which seems likely. Andrewa 10:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: give it the special "vanity of vanities" award, then delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- PS: and then someone should clean up the links that he's littered around WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The vest damn vanity page we've ever had. Delete. RickK | Talk 21:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to user page and delete. I've just spent nearly an hour on Google checking these claims (yes, I =do= need to get a life) and while it is possible they are a bit overblown, those I could confirm are essentially consistent with information on sites over which M. de Fourestier would have no content control. He is a noted mineralogist, a National Defense coordinator for the Canadian government, and a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal. While he has every right to be proud of his accomplishments, this page, in this context, is still shameless self-promotion. Denni 20:05, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)
- Keep, and use this information to make a good stub. He's not a registered user, is he? This page has been built by someone not logged in at IP 131.137.245.x and we're assuming it's him. So, is it wise to set up a user page for an unregistered user? What user name will you give him? Or, will it be a subpage of an existing user? But it sounds like he qualifies for a page. Being self-important doesn't disqualify anyone from inclusion, we'd have very few politicians listed if it did (;->. Andrewa 02:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Only

Dictionary definition, though not much at that either. It also has a talk page. Dori | Talk 21:52, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- Zigger 02:34, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
Keep: I expanded it with usage notes. Smerdis of Tlön 03:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary! A lovely expansion, S of T; it deserves a place of honor in the wiktionary pantheon. +sj + 14:49, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
Delete, or move to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Lowellian 22:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Clothespin

Dicdef. moink 21:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Not discdef. It describes a device, not a word usage. Although the article could be better. There are as many different clothespins as mousetraps. Mikkalai 23:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Expanded, keep. Perhaps should move to "Clothes peg" or something as this (to me) is much more common usage. Dysprosia 00:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's coming along nicely and could be fairly interesting. (Maybe I should go buy some clothespins, wooden matches, and sandpaper, and see if I can remember how to build a fire-throwing pistol--it's been probably 10 years. :) ) As for the name, I don't know if it's regional diffs, or at the national level, but I've only heard clothespins--except possibly the pegs version once or twice in some old movie or book (I've spent all my life on the West Coast of the US, BTW). Also clothespin gets about 50,000 hits, "clothes peg" about 9,000. Niteowlneils 01:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep now that it has been expanded. RedWolf 06:08, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Good topic, and now good article. Andrewa 10:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. You got an article on Tampons, so why not one on clothespins? Seems like a more respectible topic to me. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stinkoman

This information is covered in Homestar Runner characters and does not warrant its own article. Delete. -- Matthew McVickar 03:55, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I have set up a redirect instead. I don't favor the redirect, but I will let debate continue. -- Matthew McVickar 03:55, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - Keep redirect. Can't hurt. Saul Taylor 05:13, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If a minor topic doesn't need an article of its own, its page should be redirected to the more general article where the minor topic is covered. Vfd shouldn't be used for this sort of thing. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 13

Drummer joke

I see no merit to this. Maybe if it were funny. Vote for deletion. heidimo 02:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep, well known genre of humour. Saul Taylor 05:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge into a bigger article of humor series: blondes, lawyers, sex, etc. --Humus sapiens Talk 07:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep or merge. We have Lightbulb joke, why not this? It is a well-established joke form. I wouldn't object to merging it into the joke article, although that is getting unwieldy already. Lupin 11:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge/make into an article Music and musician jokes or something. Mikkalai 02:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Another thing: aren't jokes as original texts belong to wikisource? Mikkalai 02:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Religiousfigures

This table is POV and wrong. It does not list all the relgious dieties in the world and offensively lists some non-dieties as "religious dieties". The items in the list do not constitute a series and I don't see the close relation among these figures to warrant categorization into such a table. --Jia ng 02:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep (with some tweaks). My first reaction was that it was a good list of "Top (however many) most discussed religious and spiritual beings" or something like that, but then I noticed David and Abraham--but changing the end to beings and human beings seems a little silly. Anyway, point is I agree the terminology could be improved, but I think it's a reasonable series, useful especially doing comparative 'spirituality system' work, so it should just be cleaned up. Niteowlneils 03:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- PS I think (and personifications) makes it clear that they aren't all being claimed to be religious, nor deities.
- do you plan to list every holy man and god of every single religon in the world? If we do, the table will be longer than any article. If we don't, we exhibit a bias towards religions that send missionaries and colonize. --Jiang 04:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I certainly agree that an all-inclusive list would be too unwieldly. Since I'm not religious, I don't have strong feelings about whether it's kept.

Partly as Wiki practice, but mostly to get a clearer read on Wikipedia's culture and practices, I'd be interested in (preferably specific and constructive) feedback about if this major re-write/re-structure/re-context[6] addresses some of the concerns and if it is at all approaching being savlageable. Niteowlneils 07:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strong Delete. 1.Unmanagable 2. Tinder for future flame wars. 3. List order is Western/Christian POV biased. 4. Factually moot. Davodd 04:00, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Won't MediaWiki:Cults come in the same controversial category. Jay 09:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. [1] the idea that Muhammad is a "Religious Deity or Personification" is offensive to Muslims, and is wrong. [2] such tabular menus seem to add little to articles, and impose a non-neutral point of view about the relationship of articles. Sometimes they overwhelm the article they are added to (in terms of size and screen-space) [3] the person who creates such tables should not protect them. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Richard cocks 05:49, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Args omitted to avoid a religious war. --Humus sapiens Talk 06:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. Impossible to maintain without POV. RickK | Talk 21:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Information about religious figures should be written in ordinary articles and linked to in the normal way. I agree with Nunh-huh's second point above. -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Discussion moved to Talk:Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Toda (tribe)

uninformative and biased -- Drunkasian 08:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- revision does look better. i jumped the gun. change to keep :p
Probably vandalism. Utter rubbish. Terribly written anyway. Delete. Ludraman | Talk 08:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Valid stub now. Jay 09:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep stub. Davodd 11:58, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep: valid stub now. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep the current version. RickK | Talk 21:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Revised version looks fine to me. Average Earthman 22:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

James S. Baker

I couldn't find anything on the guy on Google. I wouldn't call the accomplishments described in the article anything noteworthy, either. -- Djinn112 08:23, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Seems to be gone already. Any particular reason? Andrewa 09:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
An anon blanked it and put a speedy deletion tag on it - and someone deleted it without checking the history. I have restored. Secretlondon 12:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The anon user who listed for speedy delete was the creator, see [7], and IMO it does qualify. But thanks for the restore. IMO the only problem was that the reason for the delete should have been listed here for 24 hours in terms of current policy. Andrewa 18:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The only author of the page blanked it and added the speedy deletion tag, so I deleted it. I did check the history. There is no real reason to wait if the author the page agrees it should be deleted. Delete. Maximus Rex , 18:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
Firstly, this is certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. (Read the criteria!) Secondly, Wikipedia articles are kept or deleted according to the views of the Wikipedia community; the opinion of the original contributor has no more weight than anyone else's. Having said that, the information appears to be unverifiable, so I support deletion. (After five days, of course.) -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've read the criteria (again!) and IMO it does qualify, and if it doesn't then it certainly should. Is there really any doubt? Andrewa 12:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam Jacob Muller

vanity Dysprosia 09:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Another blanking and addition of speedy deletion tag led someone to delete this. I have reverted. Please could administrators check the edit history before deleting. Thanks. Secretlondon 12:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think once it has been listed on VfD it should stay here - even if the original author blanks after the VfD tag is added. Secretlondon 12:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Delete right away. Complete vanity. Tannin 13:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Vanity is not one of the reasons for speedy deletion. Secretlondon 14:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Does not contain any allegation or information even colorably justifying inclusion. That he is a student at Pace University? That he is an atheist? These are just large groups, but there is no indication he is anything more than a member of these. Unless information is added to colorably justify inclusion here, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. While I think this does qualify for speedy delete as patent nonsense, see [8] for the last non-blank version by the creator, I also think this discussion is good and should continue here. IMO we don't know whether the author is the subject or not, but it's clearly a prank of some sort. Andrewa 18:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If Adam Jacob Muller is only prominent for what the article says, then he does not deserve being included in an Encyclopedia more than myself. (Although I might be worth including?). Pfortuny 18:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not even entertaining vanity. Average Earthman 22:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete ike9898

Mizan

Have not found any evidence anywhere to support the existence of Mizan or any of its "cousins" as cartoon characters in any media format. Looks like vanity to me. Darkcore 12:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've listed it for speedy delete as patent nonsense. The page states that the character was "Created as a stroke of genious by its creater", and is "not well known yet". It's by an anon user. Andrewa 18:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- But the speedy delete notice was reverted by a sysop. So I guess we just need to list it here. Complete waste of time IMO, but they need to call them as they see them fall. Is there really any doubt? Guess we'll see. Andrewa 12:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Zookeeper

Dictionary definition. Darkcore 12:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. Less than 24 hours old. Does not meet What to list and not list on VfD threshhold. Davodd 12:37, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)~~
- Seems like a matter of opinion whether or not it meets that criterion. (not a vote)RickK | Talk 21:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Keep. Fails What to list and not list on VfD threshhold, in my opinion. Davodd 22:55, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This was one of many professions listed on Requested Articles. Ample room for expansion. -- Seth Ilys 12:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We have lots of articles on professions. There's no reason this one can't be improved. Angela. 15:33, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, either expand or else redirect to Zoo. Saul Taylor 01:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Now an adequate stub. Andrewa 12:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conventional medicine

Quoting the creator of this article: "This article is a stub, created to help resolve an issue in Alternative medicine. Depending upon how the issue is resolved, this stub will either be expanded or deleted."

Delete - How the issue was resolved demands deletion. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete as a main encyclopedia article. Not encyclopedic. Original research. Or, attempt at a public discussion. The material on this page belongs on a talk page somewhere. Dpbsmith 15:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The fact that this article needs work and was created for a dubious reason does not mean that the article of this title per se should be deleted. I vote to keep, but a lot of work should be done on it. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, or at least, keep the idea. The concepts of "conventional medicine" vs. "alternative medicine" should be covered in Wikipedia. But the current content does belong on a talk page, not in the article namespace. -- Seth Ilys 17:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but completely rewrite... possibly as a stubby explanation of the distinction between conventional and alternative medicine. The current contents of the article are already present on Talk:Conventional medicine. - MykReeve 19:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Underwater

Article is a dictionary definition, no valuable information. Sole content:

Underwater or U/W is a term describing the area below the surface of water. Many activities are conducted underwater, whether for recreation such as scuba diving, or for other purposes, such as underwater warfare. The deepest location underwater (and in the entire world, in fact) is the Challenger Deep located in the Mariana Trench.

Perhaps could be a disambiguation page, but no need to have a dedicated page. Friedo 18:59, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep, not just a dicdef, but needs expansion. --Monsieur Mero 19:05, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and hope it grows. Note: some purists prefer the term "in-water," as in Lawrence E. Metrens, "In-water Photography: Theory and Practice," but it's probably a lost cause. Dpbsmith 22:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move it to Wiktionary? --Tagishsimon
Delete and move Underwater (disambiguation) in its place. Davodd 09:36, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

StarCraft

and any *(StarCraft) pages

First, Wiki is not a game preserve, and the purpose of these articles is to describe individual game elements. The last thing Wiki needs is a hundred thousand articles like this. Second, the StarCraft: Brood War (unWikified on purpose) article is cloning the StarCraft article each time it is read. Admins might like to determine how it is doing so and stop it.

Can you explain what you mean by this? How is the article cloned? RickK | Talk 23:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Anon means there's a redirect from StarCraft: Brood War to StarCraft. -- Cyan 02:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm still at a loss. If it's just a redirect, what's the big deal? RickK | Talk 02:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I postulate anon is somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia's setup and didn't realize redirection exists and is appropriate for this article title. -- Cyan 02:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm not conversant enough with the software to be sure, but I think there is something more than a redirect going on. If you go to the StarCraft page and then see "what links here" you'll see a StarCraft: Brood War page followed by a long list of StarCraft pages. I agree an Admin should check into it. MK 06:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - The problem was that there was a link to StarCraft: Brood War IN StarCraft, which made it a silf-link, causing some confusion on the What Links Here page. I deleted the self-link and it looks somewhat better. RickK | Talk 06:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, definitely. Good article, good information. Everyking 22:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Significant computer games deserve an entry as much as significant films do. Average Earthman 22:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Shall we also delete Diablo II, Counter-Strike, etc.? ugen64 22:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete all: useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Any encyclopedia of video games would include this. Davodd 22:57, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep! Very famous, very notable video game. This listing is a perfect case of deletionism run amok. →Raul654 23:00, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- "Deletionism" is a straw man, as there are no deletionists in sight. I don't see anyone/anything running amok here. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I remove the delete request for the parent article but maintain it for all the sub-articles such as Refinery (StarCraft), Missile Turret (StarCraft), et al. As far as cloning goes, it is the article's title which is being cloned on this page: what links to StarCraft Denni 23:34, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
- You'd need to list them all individually on Vfd, in that case. Discussing several articles simultaneously has been tried on here before, and it always ends up a total mess. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. StarCraft happens to be the name of a company that made cabin cruisers during the last century. I have seen other articles on businesses such as StarCraft. Keep and expand the article. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:21, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but delete the dozens of orphaned unit/class articles, such as Science Vessel (StarCraft), or Zealot (StarCraft). I also question the merit of the race articles (e.g. Terran (StarCraft), Zerg (StarCraft)). - MykReeve 16:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Can we move this discussion to Talk:StarCraft? It seems to me from the use of the phrase "game preserve" the intention of the person who posted StarCraft to VFD actually intended to address the various *(Starcraft) articles rather than the actual Starcraft article. But the title of this VFD discussion (simply titled "StarCraft") is leading to confusion. In any case, it is clear that the overwhelming concensus is that the StarCraft article should be kept; the real question is whether the *(StarCraft) articles should be kept or deleted. Notice also that on Talk:StarCraft, there is already a full list of *(StarCraft) articles, as well as an earlier discussion regarding them that seemed to end through lack of interest. So unless someone objects, I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:StarCraft pretty soon (as in possibly tomorrow) so that people can actually discuss whether the *(StarCraft) articles should be kept. --Lowellian 22:41, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

List of unpopulated professions

You, too, can take random word roots and join them together! "When I grow up, I'm going to be a Geoexourologist!" Adam Bishop 22:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. ugen64 22:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Someone must have been very bored. Average Earthman 22:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, even though photobiologists are real enough and Kansas University Medical Center will tell you to become one. Actually the fact that one of the so-called "unpopulated" professions isn't unpopulated just shows that the prankster responsible for the page wasn't even a scholarly prankster. Dpbsmith 22:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. RickK | Talk 22:58, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, BUT! I find it curious that "List of unpopulated professions" is on VfD (exactly where I thought it would end up, and hence no research done) as a possible threat to the integrity of Wiki, but Science Vessel (StarCraft), Medic (StarCraft), Command Center (StarCraft), Nuclear Silo (StarCraft), Supply Depot (StarCraft), Engineering Bay (StarCraft), Barracks (StarCraft), Refinery (StarCraft), Missile Turret (StarCraft), Academy (StarCraft), and a whole slew of similar articles are encyclopedic? At least Loup is (I hope) modestly amusing. (I personally liked pediatric gerontologist). All these game preserve entries are just destructive. Am I cranky? Nah. Denni 23:30, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
Denni, we write about fiction topics, but we certainly do not make up fiction ourselves. — Sverdrup 01:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete this article, but Denni's got a point about the StarCraft articles as well. If nothing else, they may be copyright violations. MK 06:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete.Exploding Boy 03:20, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete obviously. But Denni does have a valid point. Fictional titles like "starcraft' should clearly indicate very early on in the article that they are fiction.
  - Comment: Yes, they should indicate this. Please fix them if you think it is important. Andrewa 12:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete ike9898

Trevor Longley

A fictional biography on someone who supposedly was a star tennis player starting in 2007... ugen64 22:21, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- For clarification, there are two Yahoo! hits for "Trevor Longley" (both of them the same info): he apparently won 2nd place at some Bahamas event. The same link is the only one that appears on a google search for "Trevor Longley" Bahamas, and nothing for "Trevor Longley" tennis. ugen64 22:27, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, patent nonsense. Seems like a good candidate for speedy deletion. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete this nonsense. RickK | Talk 22:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Certainly not patent nonsense as Wikipedia defines it. (Read the page!) But seems to be unverifiable. Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I guess you're looking at the current stub and not an earlier version such as [9]. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - No, I was looking at the original version. "Patent nonsense" means text that is literally incomprehensible. If something is written in comprehensible English prose then it is not "patent nonsense", however much one may disapprove of it. -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - I'm curious to know how claims about future tennis championships might be verified, then. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. See Lemuel Longley below. But I'm glad someone else seems to think that patent nonsense includes things like the original article. Surely, this is a simple prank? Andrewa 11:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Griefing

Dictionary definition of a slang term. Moved to wiktionary. Angela . 22:36, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete.Exploding Boy 03:20, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Snuffy's VCR

Probably rubbish. Not referenced, artist not properly seperated from album title. This is sandbox material. Jfdwolff 22:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Seems to be a Marilyn Manson CD. Delete if not improved before deadline. Dysprosia 01:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meat Beat Cleaver Beat

It must be Saturday night and someone is wasting his time. Jfdwolff 22:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be an early Marilyn Manson tape. Everyking 23:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Graffiti Literature

Listed as a copyvio, the original poster claims he has permission to post. Whatever, it's still not an encyclopedia article. RickK | Talk 22:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Solar Eclipses

Solar Eclipses as seen from Beijing, Solar Eclipses as seen from Tianjin and Solar Eclipses as seen from Shanghai. Source text. Better at Wikisource? Angela. 22:52, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Wikisource. --Menchi 00:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Source text from where? If something comes from another source, please tell us the source! If these pages are copied from other sources, they could possibly be deleted as copyright infringements (in the selection of data and the way it is set out, not in the data itself). If they are not, I'd suggest keeping them as useful reference tables. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - The source is [10]. It's just data. I can't see that that is copyrightable. Such things are removed from Possible copyright infringements whenever they are put there. Why should it be kept here? Wikipedia is not a place for source texts. Angela. 03:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the link. If the page is "just data", and assuming it is uncontroversially accurate, then it could be argued that the table is no more a "source text" than, say, the periodic table. On the other hand, the bit that says, "This is a computer generated table, errors can not be excluded," raises the question of possible disagreements with other sources. We should really only have reference tables if the data in them is universally accepted. You can't really do NPOV in a table. So I'm saying delete after all. :) -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - They're computed by myself. I computed these tables with Skymap Pro 7 Demo and scripts in VBScript written by myself in the summer of 1999. I think it is not too long to put it at Wikisource, and I'm planning to put additional information on it later. Yaohua2000 12:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Oh! So maybe we can just delete it as "original research". :) -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved the mostly to Wikisource. Yaohua2000 17:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Desiccation

Dicdef, substub. RickK | Talk 23:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep, now reasonable stub. Andrewa 11:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lemuel Longley

Same as Trevor Longley mentioned earlier here: a fictional biography on someone who supposedly was a star tennis player starting in 2007... --Vikingstad 23:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete unless verified. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Surely these two are obvious pranks? Created by the same anon user, the original versions are strange, IMO patent nonsense but I've had some comment suggesting not everyone would agree with me as to what this means. Even if they are based on real people (I don't know), it would be easier to start again. Andrewa 11:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: patent nonsense, though not patent nonsense. I think patent nonsense needs to be expanded to include histories of future events, which seems to be a fairly popular topic among the 12-19 crowd. But the WP defn of "patent nonsense" is a topic for another page, & maybe I'll get up off the sofa and find the appropriate forum for that discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I posted a comment at Talk:patent nonsense. FWIW, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, and we can recreate if he ever achieves anything. Average Earthman 12:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Forced confession

One line nonsense, and the topic doen't seem to lend itself to an encyclopedia article. Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- (No vote). The current version is obvious nonsense but I'm sure someone could write a decent version. Saul Taylor 00:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Expanded/rewrote, but still probably needs some work. Keep. Dysprosia 03:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Already a good stub, and I've expanded it a little more. Andrewa 11:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 14

Billy Bailey

Doesn't deserve his own page. RickK | Talk 00:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's the most recent hanging in the United States. Why doesn't he "deserve" his own page? I can think of a lot of other pages that are less insignificant then this... --Vikingstad 01:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? What did he do? Where are his dates? RickK | Talk 01:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, certainly. Everyking 01:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just another murderer. Not that his article mentioned that. - Nunh-huh 01:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's been expanded quite nicely now. Can we assume this is all verifiable from newspaper reports? If so, then keep. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Good article on an interesting, encyclopaedia-worthy topic. Exploding Boy 03:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems encyclopedic to me. -- Matty j 05:50, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Article seems to have been expanded since yesterday to give more conent, which gives it my vote. -- Nick04 11:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Italian Somaliland

Listed on Wikipedia:speedy deletions by Wik but not a candidate for speedy deletion. Angela (this is not a vote)
~~Delete -- nonsense. About time this one came up.~~ Ok, keep now that it's been fixed. Everyking 01:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Italian Somaliland used to exist, see History of Somalia, and is probably worth an article in itself. Was known by that name in English. Can't speak for the accuracy of the contents. Imc 09:52, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Good topic. In general, bad content is not a reason for deletion. Agree article needs work. Andrewa 11:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've completely rewritten the article since it was listed here, for what it's worth. -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well done, now a good stub. I was hesitant to do this myself as I was unsure what was accurate and what prankish. Now all we need is some mechanism for getting this sort of action without listing articles here. Andrewa 20:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Move to clean-up, if anything. Valid topic--nice start. Niteowlneils 19:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Freenet

Freenet Readme, Freenet Explained by Mihi, Freenet for Dummies and Freenet Help Site. Listed on Wikipedia:speedy deletions by Xwu but not candidates for speedy deletion. Angela (this is not a vote)
Delete each and every one of them. If someone wants to keep them, I suggest they move them to WikiSource Davodd 10:10, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
I put some of these on speedy dels too. In my opinion they are clearly source texts, and thus should be disposed of. — Sverdrup 11:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik 18:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bombadier (rank)

Bombadier (rank) needs deleting (spelling mistake) now redirects to correctBombardier (rank)
Keep common typo in the U.S. -- 667 Google hits on Bombadier (rank) and 12,200 Google hits on Bombadier. Davodd 05:16, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful redirect. I'm not altogether sure I would have used the right spelling in searching for it, myself. And just BTW, this isn't the right place to list redirects for deletion. Andrewa 11:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

JS Woodsworth

Merge into J. S. Woodsworth and redirect (or they should both redirect to the merged content at J.S. Woodsworth--whatever is standard) Niteowlneils 02:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I vote to keep the one with the periods (full stops). RickK | Talk 02:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirection doesn't involve deletion, so this doesn't need to be listed here. -- Oliver P. 02:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If that's true, this[11] needs to be updated/clarified. I have very little interest in the topic, and it's going to take a lot of work, so I'm not going to do the merge--if I just make it a redir page, someone would have to merge from the old history, which seems more cumbersome. Niteowlneils 03:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - It is true. Merge and redirect is a sensible way to vote, but not when you're listing the article on VfD in the first place, because if that's your vote then you shouldn't have listed the article, you should have just done it. There's no need to merge histories when an article becomes a redirect, only if one with significant history is to be deleted. Is that clearer? Andrewa 06:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Oliver Pereira has done a nice job of clarifying the section that had misled me. I won't make the mistake again. Both articles are quite long, and I have no interest in the subject, so there is no way I'm going to attempt the merge--hopefully one of the article's primary contributors (the newer one is entirely the work of one person--too bad he didn't find the one that already existed) can take it on. Niteowlneils 19:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is that there are three articles that need to be merged. RickK | Talk 02:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Um, actually, one of the two period ones is just a redir already. Niteowlneils 03:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I will admit to more than a little consternation here. The J.S. article and the JS article have been merged, and the result is almost entirely the latter, but the page history is only the former. There is no record at all of the many hours of time I put into this piece. Note that I have no problem with merging - I subscribe fully to the concept that once your baby goes to Wiki, it's not yours any more. That should not, however, mean that all trace of parentage is lost. Denni 20:35, 2004 Mar 14 (UTC)

Futuristic

Dic-def. Isomorphic 04:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redir. Davodd 10:11, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Pak

Vanity. --Minesweeper 04:39, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Some kid. Maximus Rex , 04:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
May it be deleted. Isomorphic 04:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Never to arise again. Kosebamse 06:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Har har. Delete. Meelar 14:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nice one whoever added see also: nerd, geek. - Richard cocks 15:46, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. BTW, I was born exactly 6 days after this guy. =) --Monsieur Mero 19:13, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Candomble Ketu

Huh? RickK | Talk 07:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aha. The article just stared to be created. Get off the author's neck, man. Aren't there any decent time-out rules here? You didn't even take any trouble to check the validity of the topic. The actual place of this notice is in the Cleanup. Mikkalai 08:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No, the actual place would have been quick delete, but I decided against it. There was nothing there to indicate what it was or what it was supposed to be, and no indication that there would ever have been anything. This is the right place until we decide if this is necessary, even in the current state it's in. RickK | Talk 23:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I think RickK put it very well above. This article is strange. The title isn't even referenced in the article; I have no idea what it means or how to find out. I've been criticised for describing things as patent nonsense recently, so somebody else check it out please. And while I do agree about time-out rules (and no, there aren't, and yes, there should be) there seems to have been no attempt to fix this, despite five more edits by the anonymous author since the VfD notice went on. Most peculiar, momma. Andrewa 11:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Working backwards through the links, I am guessing that this should be somehow associated with Yoruba mythology. None of my references have been able to verify or clarify this, though. I agree that the current article is incomprehensible and out of context. I vote to move it to Clean-up for a week. Delete as unverifiable only if it can't be cleaned up. Rossami 13:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: useful, informative. Candomble is a Brazilian religion of African origin, widely practiced. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe move to clean-up. I've added context as to what the article is supposed to be about (it was formerly a red-link at Candomble). I do not know enuf Portuguese, nor anything about Candomble, to know if this initial content is relevant. Niteowlneils 19:18, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Jesus

This is a see also list masquerading as a "series". It is not. A series should have some short of logical order to it. This doesn't. Any series on Jesus would be on the life of the historical figure. I don't see the connection among these articles.--Jia ng 07:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. MediaWikis are not See also: lists. Davodd 09:27, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. msgs are very good for keeping a topic together, and I don't see the problem of the actual table. We could consider moving the table to a se also location in the articles though. — Sverdrup 11:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete or make into a footer. What Davodd said. --mav 12:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Article series are a bad idea, except in cases where there is an uncontroversial natural (e.g. chronological) order, and even when there is, the chronological list should go in the relevant overview article, not in the MediaWiki space. -- Oliver P. 13:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I note that this box on those articles existed well before this msg tag did. Votes for deletion is not for editorial decisisions like this. Morwen 15:24, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with your strict definition of series[12], especially as used in various Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom elements such as MediaWiki:Headgear. Some things don't lend themselves to a particular order, but still can be usefully grouped. The connection is that they are all Mikipedia articles about Jesus. The roots of the word series, after all are to join, link together. Your objections to this one article also applies to many of these[13]

That aside, I agree very much with Morwen, that VfD is NOT the place to bring semantic complaints.

On the otherhand, maybe it's good you brought this issue into public discussion, instead of just silently going around removing tables that don't fit your definition of "series"[14] Niteowlneils 22:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did bring the issue up about the poetry series, both at Talk:Poetry#Poetry_series and Wikipedia talk:Article series#Advice wanted. My comments and concerns were not addressed and I removed the "series" only after waiting a few weeks, having received no further response. Isn't whether to keep an article or not an editorial decision too? Couldn't we just lash it out on the talk page of the article in question? The msg involves more than one article. VFD is intended to give more visibility to the issue. Items that have logical grouping belong in a see also list, no a series. --Jia ng 22:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, if your main objection to all the "series" you've deleted/challenged is the definition of the word, change it to "group", or "collection", or whatever term floats your boat. But note that series, meaning any related collection seems to have a lot of currency here. Wholesale deletetion just because of an objection to a single word doesn't seem very reasonable. Niteowlneils 23:10, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not just about the word. It's about the purpose these boxes serve. I don't see what these accomplish a simple see also list does not. The boxes stand in the way and anything that stands in the way must have more importance than being a related topic. I also objected to having a "University of California group" at Wikipedia talk:Article series. --Jia ng

How to make sunscreen lotion

Article title says it all. Isomorphic 09:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge with sunscreen lotion --Monsieur Mero 19:11, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Don't merge. This is not good information anyway. Maximus Rex , 23:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WakkaWiki

Just a link, not an article. Ludraman | Talk 14:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup - it deserves an article. --Monsieur Mero 19:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Version 0.1.2, released Feb 2003; version 0.1.3 promised "soonish" in Oct 2003, but still not available? Seems like it is going to be quite some time before this software is notable. Niteowlneils 20:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eximro

Only 9 Google hits, all of which appear to be user names. --Magnus Manske 18:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - nonsense --Monsieur Mero 19:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete-fiction. Niteowlneils 21:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. RickK | Talk 23:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Powerlevels

Not verifiable, not encyclopedic. Was speedy deletion, but should be in VFD (Can count me as delete). Dori | Talk 19:42, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral. I had never heard of this, but the core subject [Dragon Ball Z] apparently appeared for about 7 years, and I believe this offshoot is verifiable[15]. Unless we want to get rid of all articles about manga features, I see no reason to delete, but maybe it could be merged with the core article. Niteowlneils 19:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The author admits that it probably isn't very accurate. If there is something worth saying about these power levels, it can be said on pages about the characters or something. Everyking 20:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Info can go on other DragonBallZ and characters pages. --Lowellian 22:17, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This appears to be just a bunch of opinion presented as an unintelligible list of numbers. Bryan 22:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete this! ike9898
Delete. Unofficial, probably fan estimated data. Crackshoe 02:19, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Parkade

Dicdef, should be deleted and transwikied to Wiktionary. Isomorphic 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lorena Bobbitt

This isn't encyclopedia material. This is something that belongs in a travel guide or newspaper, but not an encyclopedia.

Keep. Yes, it really happened, and it achieved enough national prominence that, I would argue, it belongs. I think it would be a mistake to, umm, sever that piece of information from Wikipedia. Mike Church 20:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Still going strong as a staple of late night comedians. More people in the U.S. probably know who she is than know who the First Lady is. -- Decumanus 20:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This made headlines around here. -- Matty j 20:19, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, quite famous. Everyking 20:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The event is quite notable--major headlines, and widely discussed at the time. Probably needs some clean-up, tho': A) has red link to John Wayne Bobbitt--I don't think they both need separate articles--probably could move this content to something like John and Lorena Bobbitt, and have all variations of both names redir there. B) the last two paragraphs need help--the theory is probably worth mentioning, but the author is pretty POV, so it should probably be more "qualified" in it's presentation--I've made a start in this direction, and have added context so readers will know the view of the author, so they can decide how much to buy into it, but it could probably still be improved. Niteowlneils 21:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, absolutely! Quite well known case! Moncrief 22:37, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. She is not a historically significant figure. Her actions add nothing of value to history, science, education, law, psychology, or even domestic violence. The media was just having a slow news day at the time and followed the idea that 'sex sells'. Her biography or the facts of the case belong in a newspaper achive or some other repository, but definitely not an encyclopedia.
- Your criteria is overly limiting for a project like Wikipedia, in my opinion. Moncrief 00:10, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Part of a "compendium of human knowledge". But so is a List of severed penises... - Nunh-huh 23:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though it could use some NPOVing. RickK | Talk 23:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mortgagor and Mortgagee

Dicdefs, don't see the articles going anywhere, perhaps should be merged or just redirect to Mortgage

Yeah, probably merge/redir into mortgage--however, note that these may have been created because the mortgage article links the words, so if redir'd, links should be removed as self-referential. Similar issues may apply to the deed link/article. Oh, and also send to wiktionary. Niteowlneils 21:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Goosebumps: The Haunted Mask

This is about a single book in a children's horror series. There are no pages about the author of the book or the other books in the series. Certainly not encyclopedia material.

Keep. It was a pretty famous series back in the early or mid '90s. Everyking 20:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Everyking: I understand the Goosebumps series was notable, but this article is not about the series, it is about a single book in the series.
- I don't see why the individual books aren't notable if the series is. And besides, it says this particular one had a TV movie made about it. Everyking 21:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep, but maybe move to be a stub for just "Goosebumps". Niteowlneils 21:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'm pretty undecided whether each title in the series needs it's own article, especially if no one is willing to create the content, but I have created a main Goosebumps stub, as the series is very notable. The specific Goosebumps: The Haunted Mask article should either be kept as is, or should be merged into Goosebumps, at least, maybe, until someone is willing to create articles for all the title. Niteowlneils 21:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Don't think we should create an article for each Goosebumps book, anymore than we should create an article for each television episode of a famous series. Delete this article, but move the info to the Goosebumps article. --Lowellian 22:09, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's as valid as any article on The Simpsons episode list or the Star Trek episodes lists. -- Matty j 23:53, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
We should keep pages on all books for which we have verifiable information. Even if there isn't enough material for an article about a single book (it seems in this case that there is), the page should be kept as a redirect to wherever it is covered, whether that may be an article on a series or an article on the author. A page on a minor topic should always be kept as a redirect to the article where that topic is covered, to preserve authorship information, to enable people to find where the information is now, and to prevent duplication of content. -- Oliver P. 00:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dark Frith

From Wikipedia:Cleanup, I don't believe this to be factually accurate, no verifiable hits on google. -- Graham :) | Talk 20:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Even if it is factually accurate the article is not important enough for an encyclopedia.

Fashion articles by User:68.38.52.3

Specifically:

Vampyre Fashion - not encyclopedic, not a term in common use (most hits on Google are to Wikipedia-derived articles), and spelled in an unusual way; after all, the vampire subculture article already exists
Black metal fashion - not encyclopedic; is the fashion of black metal really that different from other fashions such as Goth or punk? Are there experts on this type of fashion? At best, the info should be moved to an article about the musical genre or the punk fashion article.
Industrial fashion - see comments above about "Black metal fashion"
Death rock fashion - see comments above about "Black metal fashion"
Cyberpunk fashion - see comments above about Black metal fashion; also, I've never heard this used as a term, and Google hits are to Wikipedia-derived articles; what is the need for this article when there already exist cyberpunk and cyberculture articles?

The information in the above articles could probably be adequately covered in Gothic fashion or punk fashion. --Lowellian 22:07, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. They deserve individual articles. Fashion is important to culture, even in its more bizarre forms. Everyking 22:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, but only if they're actual fashions. I'm skeptical whether "vampyre fashion", "black metal fashion", etc., are actual fashion movements. --Lowellian 22:52, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

I PAT

An overly simplistic equation describing human impact upon the environment. The equation itself is not encyclopedic. - Seth Ilys 22:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. - Seth Ilys 22:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be a real theory. Everyking 22:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that; but in that case, it needs a lot of work and a much better title. -- Seth Ilys

John Esposito

Maybe a copyvio, certainly partisan, and tells us nothing about the subject. Secretlondon 22:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is from [16], so move to copyvio? Morwen 22:33, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

That which is inexpressable in a wikipedia page

POV, too cutesie for an encyclopedia, and defeats the whole point of Wikipedia, which is to attempt to explain everything and anything, even those articles linked to on this page. Delete. Moncrief 23:58, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

you CANT explain everything and anything. otherwise we wouldnt need films movies art or anything else.
- Delete. Nonsense. Saul Taylor 02:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Duly noted the irony that its only links are to Wikipedia articlesTheon 02:47, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Cloud City

Just a joke. There is a place called cloud City in Star Wars and maybe also in Care Bears, but this article has NO salvagable content. ike9898

Pirate pizza

Apparently a recent special at a restaurant in Vermont. Beyond trivial ike9898

KEEP, it's a popular culinary invention.
Delete. Once the provably false information is removed (I can order one like that at my local pizzaria, and it doesn't cost 22.50 here), it contains nothing of substance. Syntax 02:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Roaf

Vainty page from someone who was once in an insignificant band. Roaf himself contributed the article. ike9898

Delete unless some form of verification is provided. Saul Taylor 02:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 15

Masha Allah

Redirect to Allah? RickK | Talk 02:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Religion

If this is to be inclusive, it will become larger than the articles themselves. If not, this will be POV. These articles are not intimately connected and should not even be a see also list. The list belongs at list of religions. Just links that to the article. --Jia ng 02:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)