Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

If you were looking for an article on the abbreviation "VFD", please see VFD.

Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Please 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, even if it is obvious.

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

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.
Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month: 25^th - 24^th - 23^rd - 22^nd - 21^st - 20^th - 19^th - 18^th ~~- 17^th~~
Front Matter
Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

Boilerplate
Please remember to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{subst:Vfd}} at the top of the page adds one automatically.) Don't use {{msg:Vfd}}[1].

Sister pages
copyright problems -- images for deletion -- speedy deletions -- redirects for deletion -- cleanup -- pages needing 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
Add insult to injury : Deletion cannot be the right answer, as if the idiom content is removed it should simply be a redirect to the band, but that feels wrong too. Talk continues at Talk:Add insult to injury. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Images of Athens : Consensus is that the page should be deleted if and only if the missing images are not going to be restored. See talk. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 18

Diplomatic representation of Trinidad and Tobago in the United States

This is not an article. This info is usually included in the politics of (country) articles, but I've been removing them because they are US-centric and add no encyclopedic value. Someone has decided for some reason to split it off, so I'll need this page to have it deleted.--Jiang
- The solution to the problem of US-centric articles is to add information about other countries not to delete information about the US. MK 01:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - addresses are not encyclopedic. something in the lines of Sino-American relations would work, but there's not even content for a stub. there's also foreign relations of Trinidad and Tobago.--Jiang 02:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Sorry if I was misunderstood. I agree that this article should be deleted and the information contained in it moved to a more general article. What I disagree with is deeleting information like this from the "politics of" articles and that was what my previous comment was directed towards.
    - For any article that exists on this site, we can think of another article that doesn't. But this should be an incentive to increase the information available here, not delete information down to the lowest common denominator. Just because there isn't an article (yet) on "Sino-Canadian relations" or "Belgian-American relations" doesn't mean we should delete "Sino-American relations" for being Sino-American-centric. MK 06:38, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - No, Sino-American relations is supposed to be Sino-American-centric. Addresses add no enyclopedic value to an article. Do we put down the address of Bomis at Bomis? --Jia ng
  - My vote remains to keep the information although it should be moved to a more appropriate page. I think information on contacting a diplomatic representative is useful information and I favor a broad view of what's "enyclopedic". MK 05:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, delete - Deus Ex
Delete, unless it can be converted into something else, e.g. List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the United Kingdom -- User:Docu

Duchy of Pinica

A sub-province of a fictional micronation! RickK | Talk 02:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No vote, but I think you should clarify -- what are you saying? The very fact that something is a micronation specifies that it does not have recognition by accepted states! And Pinica is not a "sub-province" (whatever that means). Duchy of Pinica should be removed from VfD as the reasons stated for its inclusion here are simply not factual -- there is no such thing as a "sub-province" and "fictional micronation" is a bit problematic as the very essence of a micronation is that many would say it is not a "real country" and at any rate the very article itself says Pinica is no longer its own micronation. Relist on VfD, but for a valid reason! --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) * Delete - just nonsense
- (No vote). We have lots of other articles about micronations here, I'm not sure whats different about this one. Saul Taylor 13:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Saul, what's different is that this one seems to have no following. To be encyclopedic a micro-nation must have a degree of fame or a significant following. Anjouli 14:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No hits, no relevant hits, or only Wikipedia hits for [[Duchy of Pinica, The Empire of Upper and Lower, "Duchy of Natatoria", "Lori Taucher", or "Imperial Post" -china -chinese -rome -roman (OK, so I didn't look at all 500 for Imperial Post, but doesn't seem promising). ~~Also, from Duchy of Pinica Talk: "This is just a local "Micro-nation" game, not for Wikipedia.".~~ not from a contributor to the article. I'd vote the whole series off the island. Niteowlneils 15:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You can't say that you'd vote The Empire of Upper and Lower off the island as there is no there (at least not yet). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Should one person's opinion stated in a comment on the talk page be used as evidence? This is highly questionable. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fabrication, vanity. BTW "Natatoria" is latin for "swimming pools". Har har har. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It is not a fabrication, and what is your basis for calling it vanity (I am not the Duchess of Pinica)? Moreover, the "joke" you noticed is something everyone already knows, that Natatoria is Latin for swimming pools, is already alluded to in the Duchy of Natatoria article. Do you want it to be made more explicit? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - only google hit for "Duchy of Pinica" is VfD -- Cyrius 22:45, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Cyndi Seidler

Vanity, created by the person in question. RickK | Talk 03:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Vanity. Delete. Anjouli 09:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Probable newbie--gently refer to User page. Niteowlneils 15:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You're right. I'm too harsh. Anjouli 15:58, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Er, should have researched more before voting. Keep if claims can be verified, otherwise User page. She does have a book available from Amazon.com, etc. However, neither tvtome.com nor IMDB can confirm a TV show. Also, indystar.com cannot confirm a column (altho', since they only have a 30-day archive, that doesn't prove she's never had a column there). If kept, needs NPOV, and probably the one Organized Living link would be sufficient. Niteowlneils 20:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Vanity. 141 01:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with 141. Anthony DiPierro 16:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Somewhat well-known due to television program. Should be rewritten to eliminate un-NPOV, over-enthusiastic statements, though. --Daniel C. Boyer 01:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to user page and delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to user page. - Fennec 15:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Move to user page. Vanity. Abscissa 12:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moon colonization

Delete - original work - one person's musings- Texture 04:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like some kid's homework. (I give a C+) Anjouli 09:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete or radically re-work. Dhodges 13:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. Valid topic. But not in the state it is now. Something of encyclopedic value would be references to books, films or people who have dealt on moon colonization. Jay 18:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
- Looks like no one knows enough about it to make it a stub. I think it would be better if the topic starts off as a section in Extraterrestrial life, and made an independent article once enough material is collected. Jay 05:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Jay - this page can and should be made into a real article, starting with the deletion of what's there now. --Alex S 20:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Daniel C. Boyer 02:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Then one day someone will write a real article on moon colonization. Tempshill 23:20, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete Valid topic, but this is not the article for that topic. Pollinator 01:45, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: there is a copy at [ http://www.talkaboutabook.com/group/alt.books.arthur-clarke/messages/9874.html]. Mdob 08:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Infoganda

Made up term, 14 Google hits. RickK | Talk 04:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The term was invented and/or popularized by Rob Corddry on The Daily Show With John Stewart on March 17th, 2004. -- Decumanus 04:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Term has history, proved by 14 google hits, dating back to 2001. Page should be updated to include this history but not deleted. --Justanyone | Talk
Comment: Uncertain. Inaccurate and highly POV article about a particular incident of infoganda, and likely to stay that way. Probably not going to be a useful stub if stubified. No useful history so far. But possibly a valid topic, and created by a valued contributor. Tend towards keep but not a vote at this stage. Andrewa 14:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If it's even used by anyone, then it belongs on wiktionary. Tempshill 23:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. By that logic our propaganda article should be on wiktionary. Sorry for being blunt or harsh. Quinwound 08:09, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Prisoner's Dilemma From Hell

Just a restatement of the classic Prisoner's Dilemma, but with greatly increased rewards and penalties. -- Khym Chanur 04:35, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't preserve the strictly dominant solution of the classic Prisoner's dilemma, so I'm not even sure I accept the result given. Isomorphic 05:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. No merit whatsoever. Adam Conover 07:00, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What Khym Chanur said. Markalexander100 07:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral It's actually subtly different than the normal prisoners dilemma. Could be mergen into it and redirected. theresa knott 10:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, it is different Theresa, but I can't find any non-WP reference. Seems to be "original research" of undoubted interest, but not encyclopediac. (Love mergen by the way. Good word.) Anjouli 14:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As stated above, it's just an extreme re-working of the classic PD scenario. It adds nothing to the sum of knowledge on the subject and therefore should not be merged with the existing PD article either, IMO. R Lowry 20:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: idiosyncratic, original research. Adds nothing to prisoner's dilemma. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Nothing new here. mydogategodshat 01:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. reasons aboveike9898 02:51, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Prisoner's Dilemma. Kingturtle 03:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Zak Koenig

Vanity page. RickK | Talk 04:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep it. He was on "Bill O'Reilly Band" before they broke up. I remember watching them on TV. With a sports record like he has, he must be at least locally famous.MPerks89 | Talk
- Please note that the above post is from a sock puppet. RickK | Talk 05:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC
No, he's right. I remember the "Bill O'Reilly Band". Saturday nights at 10. They were pretty good. I say keep it. Zzfly123
- The above is also a sock puppet, created poorly by MPerks. RickK | Talk 05:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Vanity; delete. -- Seth Ilys 05:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Vanity; delete. Anjouli 09:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: 80's vanity bio. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. --Abscissa 12:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maudlyn A. White

Is there a place to list 9/11 victims that need to be transwikied (besides here)? Tuf-Kat 06:51, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
~~no content, should be a speedy delete.~~ --Jiang 07:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- move to 9/11 wiki and del. --Jia ng 19:19, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Jiang. Anjouli 09:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
speedy delete, after the talk page is transwikied, I hope. Anthony DiPierro 10:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, please. I added content. There is no valid reason for deletion. Everyking 14:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Still delete. Whilst we appreciate these heros and the need to remember them, this is an encyclopedia. Listing 911 victims individually in their own articles in an encyclopedia is not practical or appropriate unless they are individually of historic interest. Sorry. --Anjouli 14:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - They are of historic interest. This sabotage needs to stop. Everyking 16:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - It's not sabotage, it's a difference of opinion. What's the difference between listing all the 9/11 victims and listing everyone who participated in the D-Day landings?Average Earthman 16:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - There isn't one. However, basic info about 9/11 victims is more easily verifiable for most of us, so deleting these articles is particularly unjustifiable. Everyking 16:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        It's perfectly justifiable - we have another, better place to put the info. Average Earthman 23:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        
        As tragic as 9/11 was, there's no real reason why every single victim should have their own page in an encyclopedia. Bearcat 08:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. Fredrik 14:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikimemorial and delete. Note that Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: Pentagon links to three other articles that probably fall in the same category: Stephen V. "Steve" Long, Jonas Martin Panik, and Khang Nguyen. Niteowlneils 15:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, these should go too - although Stephen V. Long forwards to sep11 wiki.Anjouli 15:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Ah, missed that. Should probably keep direct links to 9/11 memorial--if for no other reason than to prevent new articles being re-created at en.wikipedia. Niteowlneils 16:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Reasons by Jiang and Anjouli. Abscissa 12:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Attack on Chen

Already covered in more detail by ROC_presidential_election,_2004.

redirect to Chen Shui-bian or delete.--Jia ng
Delete - no useful content -- Cyrius 22:51, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Chen Shui-bian. Ambivalenthysteria 04:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism and democracy

POV; see Talk:Anarchism and democracy. If there is any valid contents, it should be merged into anarchism or elsewhere.Jorge Stolfi 11:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 19

JAJC

Self-promotion

Agree. Delete. --Anjouli 14:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral - you could say the same of Windex and pages like that. It has potential if others contribute, or else roll it into chat clients or something. --zandperl 03:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - nothing more than a feature list and a screen shot. It's already listed on Jabber under clients. -- Cyrius 22:57, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness NPOV

Not a vote. Just putting it up for consideration for deletion. This seems the wrong way to resolve an edit dispute. Should not the original article be edited to NPOV, disputes resolved via the Talk page and the normal edit war procedure followed if there is no resolution? A novel and no doubt well-intentioned approach, but it could lead to multiple layers of "NPOV" on "NPOV" of the same subject. Anjouli 13:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do agree that this is not the way to rewrite an article. Perhaps it could come under Artificial conciousness/NPOV Version, then draw attention to it on the Talk page with votes for changes. Followers of John Searle, Roger Penrose, Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, draw your swords! Jfdwolff 14:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that could work. But perhaps as a sub-page under the Talk page to show good faith? Anjouli 15:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree, I think this is a correct way to organise such artice. Even voting on parts of the article would be much easier when article is organised in such way with different views clearly separated. Also for followers of John Searle, Roger Penrose etc would be much easier to add their views.(I'm sure they are smart people and don't "draw swords"). Tkorrovi 18 Mar 2004

Keep for the moment. What a mess. But there's a lot of evidence of progress and goodwill too. I don't think deletion of this attempt at a solution will help at this stage, just the opposite. Eventually, yes, it will need to be done, this isn't a good name for anything we want in the main article namespace. Andrewa 15:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wait to delete. Merge with Artificial consciousness once content becomes fairly stable. -Seth Mahoney 17:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - merge with Artificial consciousness - do not set a precedent that anyone who disagrees with an article can create a "_NPOV" version of their own. - Texture 21:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge w/ artificial consciousness & delete. I agree w/ Texture. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. This kind of silliness just undermines Wikipedia's credibility. -Sean 00:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See my talk page User talk:Tkorrovi and Ugen64 talk page user talk:ugen64 for the reason I created a separate page. Sorry, I know it is not the best solution, but this case was exceptional because solving the dispute by normal procedure was made impossible (I cannot edit an article started by me because of the blasphemy it shall cause on my address). Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Delete. It is confusing to anyone trying in good faith to consult an encyclopedia to find four rival versions of an article: artificial consciousness, Artificial consciousness NPOV, Consciousness (artificial) and Talk:Artificial consciousness/NPOV Version. Anyway I wanted to change the title to simulated consciousness as a better term to get over the semantics of artificial consciousness itself being oxymoronic. Matt Stan 13:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes but... Creating of the new pages was started by you and Paul Beardsell, though I don't say that it was your idea. That it's wrong, this is what I always thought, but this was not an opinion of the sysop at that time. Tkorrovi 22 Mar 2004

Bronze Working

Already well covered in Bronze Age etc. except the obscure reference to "spearman unit advance", presumably an unidentified game.--Anjouli 14:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Unsure. I've made it into a disambig, linking to the article on the game (which is Civilization III) and the articles that already cover real bronze working. Andrewa 15:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's fine now. Keep if nobody objects. Anjouli 15:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~That sounds like consensus to keep. This entry can be removed in 24 hours if no further comments. Andrewa 15:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~
Delete. Not encyclopedic. (Not unless we intend that the 'pedia start including game guides as well as the fan site material already here.) Elde 18:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not sure. The article on the Bronze Age does not really cover metal working techniques or such aspects as the trade in tin which became an important strategic material. Maybe keep the article and hope it grows into something more comprehensive. ping 09:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonencyclopedic. The ref to Civ III is useless garbage, & we need a real article on bronze working but let's just wait til someone wants to write it. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Still usure. Happy to have it deleted, happy for it to stay as a disanbig. Andrewa 09:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As an earlier poster already said, the 'bronze age' part does not cover actual bronze metal working techniques, and is unlikely to do so, because if it did, it would outstep the encyclopedic boundaries of what the 'bronze age' on itself is.Crapbeater

Dissemination

Dictionary definition Dori | Talk 16:31, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete - part of it looks like a sneaky advert - Texture 21:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep (and list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention). It's too dictionary-like right now, but the references to Derrida indicate that it should be refined to include the (important, complicated, article-deserving) concept developed in Derrida's book Disseminations. I or someone else can work on this later. (I have no idea what "sneaky advert" refers to.) -- Rbellin 16:48, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pornstar Lists

List of pornstars who innovated in arts, List of pornstars who were or are married, List of pornstars and sex symbols who innovated in science. Additions from the returned User:141. As far as I can tell, these are useless and near-absurd in some cases. As I suggested on one of the article's talk pages, we could have millions of such lists (List of clinically depressed oceanographers who have made contributions to the field of aeronautics, etc.) but they really serve no purpose whatsoever. Jwrosenzweig 18:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- keep 141 18:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - 141, you wrote the pages, are you going to add to them. You need to say how these pornstars innovated. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep. Since you listed articles as a group and I want to keep only one of them - I now have to vote to keep them all. *sigh* Davodd 18:26, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)~~
- No you don't. You are allowed to speak freely round here. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - For Davodd's sake I have split out the articles for individual voting below. Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - And I've added another contribution from 141, List of pornstars who advocate gay rights Jwrosenzweig 18:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - And List of pornstars who are computer junkies. Jwrosenzweig 18:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        And List of pornstars who appeared in non-porn films -- as evidenced by the three people listed there at present (2 of them are Schwarzenegger and Stallone) this list will be impossible to put together because of the imperfect definitions of the words involved. Jwrosenzweig 19:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        
        Keep List of pornstars who appeared in non-porn films. Delete all the rest. The married list would include too many names to no apparent purpose and the others wouldn't have more than single valid entry, if that. MK 19:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Another voice in agreement with [User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]]. These silly pornstar lists are a waste of Wikipedia resources and serve no useful purpose. Delete them ASAP. --Modemac 20:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is pornstar an actual word? Pakaran . 19:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - other lists may have some value, such as List of pornstars who advocate gay rights - Texture 21:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete, but I do have to say one thing: the idea that appearing on The Surreal Life makes Ron Jeremy an innovator in the arts is phenomenally funny. Like, um, wha? Bearcat 08:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete ALL porn star lists. Irrelevant. There are dozens of Pulitzer prize winners with NO articles written about them. Is this a serious encyclopedia or a JOKE encyclopedia? H2O 16:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- How exactly is deleting a list of pornstars going to get an article on a Pulitzer Prize winner written? MK 06:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - How is allowing Wikipedia to be filled up with such useless trash going to encourage serious contributors to want to associate themselves with such an endeavor? H2O 20:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete ALL porn star lists. Agree with H2O. Pollinator 01:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Patent non-sense stubs. Mdob 08:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There is no content on these pages and their idea is useless anyway. Jacob1207 18:41, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete All. Non enciclopedic. And irrevelant.Pedro 18:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of porn stars who appeared in mainstream films

Delete. Jwrosenzweig 19:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep 141 19:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. of cinematic interest. Davodd 19:19, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but add some serious content. It is very interesting to track some careers. Cautious 19:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- ~~Comment: You do mean careers, don't you? Andrewa 20:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~ and it appears so! Andrewa 22:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I just expanded it and there are several more people that qualify. MK 19:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is all going too far. RickK | Talk 20:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Write articles about porn stars if you want, but don't make these endless, pointless lists. Everyking 20:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Texture 21:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. -- Cyan 22:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, as I said above. But can anyone explain why Schwarzenegger and Stallone are on this list? Even if they had done x-rated work, wouldn't they be "non-porn stars who appeared in porn films"? MK 01:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The genres are merging making this an increasingly meaningless distinction. (An article about that trend would be interesting and the list might be appropriate in that article. But the list does not stand alone. If someone does write an article about the trend, change my vote to merge and redirect.) Rossami 01:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Zoney 15:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The question of who is a pornstar and who is not involves so many POV and sensitive issues that this is never likely to be a useful article. Interesting, though. Andrewa 20:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I figure if they starred in a porno movie, they're a porn star. MK 06:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but rename to something less ambiguous. -Sean 00:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This discussion goes beyond pathetic. Write a fricking article if Stallone's filmography unnerves you. Denni 06:06, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
Keep. Ivan 18:15, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Mild keep as List of adult film stars that later performed in mainstream movies. Niteowlneils 01:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Maybe the title could be improved.-- User:Docu
Delete! Just plain stupid. If we accept this, it could start a trend...imagine - List of horror film actors who appeared in a romance flick or some other such nonsense. PMC 02:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- When and if such a list appears, we can consider its merits or lack thereof. But one list has nothing to do with the other. MK 05:33, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. +sj + 13:13, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
Keep. Not my cup of tea, but nothing wrong with it. Kingturtle 03:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of pornstars and sex symbols who innovated in science

Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. 141 18:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. rubbish. Davodd 18:59, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. RickK | Talk 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. How did they, exactly? Everyking 20:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- Infrogmation 20:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 21:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- Cyan 22:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Rossami 01:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Elf | Talk 02:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A list of actors known for work in science would be nice, though. -Sean 02:57, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yeah, how did they "innovate in science"? Besides the "list" has only two entries. Jacob1207 19:19, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is actually legit. Heddy Lamarr patented the radio communications technique known as frequency hopping spread spectrum radio. It is a technique whereby a radio transmitter uses a prearranged pattern of frequency changes to prevent unintended receivers from intercepting radio transmissions. It is the first type of spread spectrum radio. Wonderful trivia. See http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci525695,00.html Kd4ttc 00:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but only as broadened to List of entertainment celebrities that contributioned to science (or Sean's title suggestion)--if she's the only one, then make it a redir to her page. Niteowlneils 02:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Even if there are pornstars that help science, they don't need a specific article. - Lord Bob 04:29, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If Heddy Lamarr did something worthwhile then it should be written about in her own article, not in such an inane and meaningless list as this one.KJ 04:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Title is too ambiguous to be meaningful and list currently to short to be justify an article.Steven jones 11:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Human eye

Poor formatting and not wikified and much the content is covered by other articles. But the main issue is a quote from the bottom of the page -

Well, the copyrights of submissions do remain with the contributor. It's just now available under the GFDL. But the tone of the notice (especially the emphasis on "my") suggest that the submitter does not agree to the GFDL. Therefore, unless that changes, it must be deleted. Eric119 19:39, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe the contributor was the the same person who created this work, and the emphasis on my is to just show that the work is original, and not posted here against his/her will? Anyway, only the author would know the truth. --Ezhiki 20:15, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
As noted on Talk:Credit repair, copyright notices must be preserved under the GFDL. However they're not allowed by wikipedia policy. Hence, the offending text should be removed. If the poster wants to have their work displayed on Wikipedia, they should submit it without copyright notices. (Copied from the village pump) -- Tim Starling 16:30, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not agreed to GFDL - Texture 01:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why not just delete the copyright comment? If the user really didn't agree with GFDL then they will soon object. If not, it can stand. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - copyright information is inconsistent with source, probable copyvio. No google hits for "Human Eye Website LLC". -- Cyrius
I just googled part of the article - some of it is a copyvio from http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vision.html - Deus Ex 23:37, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Human eye lists that page as the source of the material. My problem with it is that that site is not "Human Eye Website LLC", it's a generic biology site. My personal opinion is that the copyright statement at the bottom of Human eye is a fraud. This should be moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems or whatever it's called today -- Cyrius 02:52, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
The parent site that the content is off of says that the copyright is "John W. Kimball. Copyright ©2004 John W. Kimball. All rights reserved." Most likely a copyvio -- Quinwound 08:01, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Polycarbonate

Just nonsense. I suggest deletion. Deus Ex

Delete. Unless someone wants to blank it and replace with a real article on Polycarbonate, which would be a good idea. Dandrake 19:43, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete until that happends. Ruhrjung 20:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - as above - Texture 01:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - same as the other guys -- Cyrius 23:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ilcomment

I don't understand the point in putting this HTML comment into all pages. — Timwi 18:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pardon me for being a newbie... what is this? - Texture 21:19, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The MediaWiki namespace is how we do things like this —

If we keep this, we'll be able to insert the words "Interlanguage links" so that they won't appear in the actual article simply by typing {{msg:Ilcomment}} or {{subst:Ilcomment}}. - Woodrow 01:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. No reason given to delete (or list, actually). Andrewa 20:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No-one is forcing you to put it into all pages. -- Tim Starling 23:13, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Rephrase: I don't see the point of MediaWiki:Ilcomment ... — Timwi 03:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Texture 01:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Handy for those that want to use it, and using the MediaWiki namespace like this helps maintain consistency. Niteowlneils 20:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think it's of much help, but keep it for those who want to use it. -- User:Docu

SMS sex

Delete - Deus Ex

Please indicate who you are and why you think it should be deleted. RickK | Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep 141 19:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - are you listing it as an advert? - Texture 21:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge into cybersex Goatherd 22:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Zoney 15:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - is this a serious encyclopedia or a place to list every deviant behavior (behaviour) that someone dreams up? (I'd like my kid to be able to use Wikipedia without worrying about what he comes across) H2O 15:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia is not restricted to only content suitable for children and we don't currently have tools in place to limit what children can see here. Your child may also encounter pictures of human genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics, erotic materials, either ancient or modern and such things as pictures of statues and art works of the nude or partially clothed body. I suggest that you use a content filtering program or, better still, your personal attention, if you wish to limit what your kid can see here and elsewhere on the net. Jamesday 19:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Umm, it's a bit late for that. The latest usage stats for this month indicate that of the 23 most frequently accessed content articles, a third are sex-related: namely Goatse.cx, List of sex positions, Pornography, Oral sex, Sexual intercourse, Nudity and Penis. I suppose it shows that Wikipedia is inclusive. ;-) -- ChrisO 23:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I guess you answered my question. It seems that Wikipedia is being increasingly written by and for adolescent boys. My kid won't be using it without supervision. Too bad. H2O 20:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - No need to be rude about it. Keep. Meelar 06:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Sorry if it sounded rude. That wasn't my intention. H2O 12:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - IMO, you have a very narrow POV about adolescent boys.
      - I was one once and I know what I was interested in. My apologies to those of you who are more mature. H2O 22:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a useful description of a popular sexual activity. Jamesday 19:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia should never become some sort of moral arbiter that wont allow infomation about sex. We shouldn't delete articles about sexuality unless they meet the same criteria that we would apply for the deletion of non-sexualy explicit articles, which I don't think this does. Saul Taylor 09:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You are so right - why don't you write some articles for the how-to section while you are at it. We don't want anyone to miss out on this useful information. H2O 01:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Cybersex. We don't need to have separate articles for each method of transmitting sexual exchanges using computers. The activity is basically the same, just using a slightly different variation of the medium. Do we want to have separate articles Cyber sex using AOL IM and Cyber sex using Yahoo IM? Niteowlneils 02:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, merge into cybersex. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:43, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There is nothing to suggest this is a phenomenon. If permitted, exntension of the logic would allow "calculator sex", "envelope fetish", and every other rarity. Abscissa 12:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nude chat

Delete - Deus Ex
Please indicate who you are and why you think it should be deleted. RickK | Talk 20:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep 141 19:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep (although improvements would do the article good) Ruhrjung 20:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Texture 21:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - trivial - if we can't have nude birdwatching why should we have this nonsense H2O 14:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Zoney 15:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; or perhaps merge with SMS sex et al into an article on Long-distance sex.
Keep. It's a useful description of a popular online sexual activity. Jamesday 18:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As much as it might disturb some, the internet in its present incarnation, and hence Wikipedia, exists because of the popularity of online porn. Denni
- Thank You Online Porn for bringing us the internet. Just so long as it wasn't Al Gore. H2O 20:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Cybersex. We don't need to have separate articles for each method of transmitting sexual exchanges using computers. The activity is basically the same, just using a slightly different variation of the medium. Do we want to have separate articles Cyber sex using AOL IM and Cyber sex using Yahoo IM or semi-nude sex chat vs clothed sex chat ? Maybe merge some of these into one article on variations of cybersex or something like that. Niteowlneils 02:16, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - what's so special about using a computer while naked? What's next, nude wikipedia editing? Cyrius 09:51, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Cyrius - you do realise that many wikpedia addicts will be mightily tempted to click on that red link and create an article. I'm managing to control my urge at the moment. Just. theresa knott 11:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Merovingian added a new section to Still more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense with a quickly deleted piece of text that was put there. On behalf of myself, I'd like to apologize for the sheer evilness of that link. But I'm leaving it there. Cyrius 14:54, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  - Wikipedians are reminded that no orignal research is accepted on Wikipedia. That may be particularly important here! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Self-evident description of what it is, and not important besides. Abscissa 12:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reinsurance Treaty

Wikisource - Texture 20:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wikisource and delete. RickK | Talk 20:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikisource. Might have article on this but this original text should move. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, send it to Wikisource. Jacob1207 18:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IBM Floating Point Standard

Should this be moved to Wikisource? RickK | Talk 21:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Good topic, and no reason that it should be in Wikisource. The article does need work, but that's no reason for deletion. Andrewa 11:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but move actual code to Wikisource (if not copyvio). Zoney 15:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, moving source to Wikisource. --Rcohen 21:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Source has been replaced with a description of what to do and the article has been cleaned up in other ways. --Tumb 22:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Now moved to IBM Floating Point Architecture mfc

Sonic Insanity

Vanity, insignificant, poorly worded. What else is there to say? Yelyos 21:17, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - no vanity, but should be listed on cleanup. - Texture 21:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Insignificant: Google turns up 195 hits. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 22:04, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. And most aren't about the comic--most are generic uses of the phrase. There are 50 some mentions of a radio show that say it's been around since 1989, which would seem to make it more notable. Niteowlneils 01:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: vanity, insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete vanity article ike9898 02:13, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously a real comic. Not a funny one, though. Everyking 03:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There are also ongoing discussions at Talk:List of web comics concerning what to do about webcomics that are questionable for an encyclopedia. RadicalBender 06:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The comic isn't popular or funny. Ivan 18:13, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Great LukeSki

Probably just self promotion - Deus Ex
Keep. It should be expanded into a proper stub. 1030 hits in google. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 22:12, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete/Replace with proper article. PilotPrecise 22:26, 19 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some more improvements. FTIW, the name of just his first album gets almost 3,000 hits. Niteowlneils 00:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Removed deletion notice since Niteowlneils has made it into a proper article Deus Ex 14:14, 20 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)
No VfD tag. Anthony DiPierro 17:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Has it ever had a VfD tag?Average Earthman 14:26, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=VentureLodge&action=history
    - Added on the 20th, so the delete period should start from then, but consensus looks unlikely anyway. Andrewa 19:57, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 19:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Anthony DiPierro 16:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. 141 01:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Cyrius 23:14, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

March 20

Baragan Plain

Content is only "The Baragan plain is a plain in south-central Romania." -- Khym Chanur 03:56, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Real geographical region. -- Decumanus 16:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. RickK | Talk 21:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Stubs are fine. Jamesday 21:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'd like to know more. H2O 01:25, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pride park

"An area of the city of Derby in England that includes Pride Park Stadium." If that's it's only importance, this fact should be part of the Pride Park Stadium article. -- Khym Chanur 04:03, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Pointless, Delete - Deus Ex 11:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Pride Park Stadium. RickK | Talk 20:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a part of a city, not only significant because it holds a well known stadium. Stubs are fine. Jamesday 21:29, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The stadium is part of the park, not vice versa. Davodd 00:54, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but capitalise properly. Pride Park is a proper noun, and so Pride Park is the correct location for the article. David Newton 03:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MTV Movie Awards 2003

A proper stub should be made; failing that, article should be deleted. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 04:37, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Everyking 04:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing wrong about it except its length. -- Matty j 05:49, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though it needs expanding. RickK | Talk 20:54, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. VfD is not cleanup. Saul Taylor 09:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Why would we want to delete this? Very widely-watched awards show. Moncrief 18:58, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Software crisis

Stevertigo originally designated this as "speedy deletion", but that isn't quite warranted. So I'm listing it here.

My vote, however, is keep. — Timwi 04:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Does that imply you know what the crisis actually is? I sure don't, and the article doesn't help me. Delete unless rewritten. Meelar 05:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This should be on cleanup, not here. Keep. Angela . 12:21, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I suppose it was deleted by someone with no knowledge of the history of software development. I've added an introduction saying what it is and giving some idea of why it is so significant a concept in computer science. Jamesday 21:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Poor article, good topic. (cf. Brooks, "No silver bullet," etc. blah blah blah...) Dpbsmith 02:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Surely a topic worth being listed in any modern encyclopedia. --Elborn 13:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - the topic/title does not warrant keeping an article that isn't what it claims to be. Delete this conversation that pretends to be an article. - Texture 01:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Software crisis is a technical term in studies about computer science, related to inadequat programming languages in the early 1980s (IIRC) -- till we *) 21:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - concur with Dpbsmith -- Cyrius 21:41, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Cactus Jack's views

Was created by H2O, but I felt that it should have been merged into John Nance Garner. It is now merged and Cactus Jack's views is now redundant. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 06:42, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

reasonable merge. +sj + 15:59, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

Why don't you merge Al Gore's views while you're at it. H2O 06:48, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Al Gore's views are overly long, and, "will probably be skipped over by most readers of the Al Gore article." Hence they were moved into Al Gore's views. See Talk:Al Gore for a discussion. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 06:59, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

If Al Gore's views are overly long, ie boring, why are they even there? Cactus Jack is much more interesting, thus deserving of having his own article on his views. H2O 14:48, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, long doesn't mean boring; what's interesting to a person might not be interesting to another. However, the article on John Nance Garner is not as long as the article on Al Gore, and neither is Cactus Jack's views as long as Al Gore's views. The content of Al Gore's views was originally from Al Gore, but it was moved into its own article because AaronSw felt that not all readers would be interested in all the views held by Al Gore. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 15:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

OK, well I can't argue with you. But in the course of history I think Cactus Jack will be far more memorable than Al Gore ever will be. Of course Al Gore is much more current and Cactus Jack is dead. Is this an encyclopedia or a newsmagazine? H2O 16:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I say delete, since it looks fine merged. And honestly, a bias toward modern-day topics is both our strength and our greatest weakness. Meelar 16:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete: redundant w/ John Nance Garner since the merge. Whew, what a character! Wile E. Heresiarch 08:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - now redundant -- Cyrius 23:22, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Cardinaltetra & NeonTetra

Duplicate of Cardinal Tetra. Page creation comment notes Cardinaltetra as an alternate spelling of Cardinal Tetra, but Google yields no hits on this 'alternate'. Elde 06:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ditto for NeonTetra Elde 06:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Paracheirodon innesi is the Neontetra, and Paracheirodon axelrodi is the Cardinaltetra GerardM 07:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - No. Paracheirodon innesi is the Neon Tetra, and Paracheirodon axelrodi is the Cardinal Tetra. Note the space? Do a google search and note which ones yield results. Visit fish sites and note which version is used.Elde 08:47, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirects. Of course the fish fanciers who write websites get the spelling right. But those who most need the info may not. Andrewa 20:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirects for sure - for me Googling yields plenty of the non-space versions, including among fish people. Stan 20:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If you look close at the Google results you'll find that the hits are URL's and picture filenames, which is exactly where you don't expect to find spaces. Nowhere do you see the nonspaced version in text. Elde 05:31, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Irrelevant, see my argument above. Andrewa 19:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirects, absolutely. (if proof can be found some people somewhere spell it that way, we can just add a 'sometimes spelled' note). Niteowlneils 02:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was in the process of fixing this useless duplication when I found this discussion (I [re]wrote the neon tetra and cardinal tetra articles which Cisca duplicated needlessly.) While on the subject, though, how do I fix the capitalization error in Neon Tetra's article name. Neon Tetra should redirect to Neon tetra, not vice-versa, according to Wikipedia policy. I can't fix that, though, without manually cutting-and-pasting, which will lose the page history metadata. —Tkinias 00:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nude birdwatching

Is this a joke? What's next, Nude dogwalking? This article will never be anything (unless this is a real phenomenon I haven't had the fortune to have encountered). -- V V 07:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Based on the user's other edits it's just a joke. "See also penis removal"? I already listed it as a candidate for speedy deletion. silsor 07:10, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Rubbish. Davodd 00:25, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. 141 01:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How 'bout we delete 141, or at least send him to his room until he can keep his hand out of his pants in public? Denni 06:40, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
- Dictionary definition so move to Wiktionary...er...I mean delete, putter nonsence. Funniest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia though. Saul Taylor 09:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Delete. Agree. Prank with no prospect of becoming a useful article. But you must read the first edition of it before it goes. Andrewa 09:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - unlikely to be a real article, Japetto - Texture 17:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Ok, I confess, I wrote the article in disgust after reading the serious arguments in favor of keeping nude chat H2O 20:34, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - signed confession by perp :) -- Cyrius 23:25, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
SPEEDY delete, then! An admitted joke - somebody kill it. - DavidWBrooks 20:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Reasons Above. Abscissa 12:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wharton Fellows

Says nothing about Wharton Fellows. Shouldnt have an article anyways. orphaned. --Jia ng 09:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - does not describe Wharton Fellows - Texture 02:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

redir to Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania Niteowlneils 20:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NANOSTYK

Horribly formatted advertisement. Only 105 hits on google, including wikipedia+clones. --Jia ng 09:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - any basis in fact or research at all? - Texture 17:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A tool for measuring distance in nanoseconds? That's silly. Average Earthman 19:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Just being argumentative here:) sillier than light-years? Dpbsmith 15:10, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, light travels roughly 29 cm in a nanosecond (about a foot), so this could exist. Nevertheless, delete advert. Kind of a cool concept, though. Meelar 22:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. Cool indeed, but I'd like mine denominated in furlongs per fortnight... --Tagishsimon 02:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Cool, indeed, but a) yes, an ad, and b) not original. Admiral Grace Hopper was famous for carrying around pieces of wire just under a foot long, handing them out to people, and explaining that they were "nanoseconds." And adding that computers had to become small if they were going to become fast. I believe she started doing this in the late 1950s or early 1960s. ~~I'm annoyed at Frank Tymon [2] for not crediting Grace Hopper. Dpbsmith 02:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~ Strike that last remark, he did have the decency to credit Grace Hopper after all: [[3]] Still, it's an ad, delete. Dpbsmith 02:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete as not even marginally useful. The nanostick concept, Grace Hopper notwithstanding, is useless unless people have a concept of how brief a nanosecond is. Denni 06:46, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Another problem with the whole concept BTW is that it is based on the speed of light in a vacuum, and electrical signals travelling over wires do not travel at that speed. Poynting vector, waveguide, inductance, dielectric constant of the circuit board, mumble mumble mumble, I dunno, ask an EE. Dpbsmith 15:10, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete, ad —Tkinias 01:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Silly Lists

You want to delete my p0rn lists? Fine, but you MUST delete these silly lists, then! 141 17:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lists

- Please respond to the above page

Is there any reason this non-conforming section shouldn't just be removed from VfD? Andrewa 09:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Calcflinta

Delete in current state. - snoyes 18:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This should go under cleanup or something rather than here. Just needs work. Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've amended the description entirely, since IMHO no reliance can be placed on the original post. The rock does exist, is found in the highlands; now all we need is a literate geologist. --Tagishsimon 02:02, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, stub. --zandperl 03:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MBT

This is a definition (and not an article) made up of two paragraphs cut and pasted from the Tank article. We already have a redirect for MBT to Tank by the way. AlainV 21:30, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)
- Redirected. We went through this a while back with Main battle tank, which now also redirects to tank. RadicalBender 21:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Common term. Andrewa 00:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Uspresidents

Being used to replace standard imcumbent navigation, unwieldly. jengod 19:30, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
VFD should not be used for editorial decisions! This element is currently linked to by all of the president articles; if you dislike the change (I have no opinion on it), be bold and change it back. It's irrational to bring up a vote on an element used in 40+ articles. — Sverdrup 20:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep this time. Please sort this out on the talk pages of the articles or the mediawiki message, not use VfD to short-circuit consensus-based discussions. If there's some agreement, list it here then. Jamesday 20:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete, of those willing to discuss, consensus on MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents is for deletion. --Jiang 22:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I gladly delete unused MW elements. This one however, was pulled into vfd while still being used by every president article, and it is still used in 10+ of them. Any Wikipedian could make the editorial decision of reversing the change. Why don't do that first, then bring it to vfd?! While you are still unwilling to actually reverse the changes in the articles, it's just silly to argue pro/con deletion. — Sverdrup 11:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'm looking for the consensus described above but all I see on that link is a vote to keep. ? - Texture 17:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree it shouldn't be used on every single President page, but that doesn't mean it might not prove useful for certain other pages. Anthony DiPierro 22:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but remove the Continental presidents. Use standard abbreviations T.Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bush I and II. The problem with this is that it needs to be as compact as possible. -SV(talk) 03:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There are many possible compromises (e.g. removing Contental presidents, or breaking up by era). Nonetheless, the current myopic (<-last POTUS next->) thing looks pretty klunky too. -- RobLa 07:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but don't necessarily link to every other president. e.g. to some of the lists instead. --User:Docu
Keep. Useful addition to those pages. Ambivalenthysteria 04:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lists

~~Created~~ Listed here out of pique by User:141 because his silly lists of pornstars were listed here. RickK | Talk 20:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete.~~ Another example of our rules being quoted at us by a user who shows little sign of ever helping the project. Andrewa 20:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Apologies. I just checked the history (shoulda before, yeah I know) and there's more to this. Andrewa 20:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion of this page. Nobody wants all these lists deleted not even 141 who nominated them. Mintguy (T) 21:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand why my pornstar lists are worse than your fictional cat/elephants/apes/whatever lists! 141 01:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think they are, but you listed a large number of useful lists alongside the silly ones. If you really want to see some of them gone, you should list them individually over a long period of time. Everyking 01:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- A reply, but not a vote. "LOP who are computer junkies" fails for lack of interest, because being a computer junkie is hardly remarkable in this day and age. Heck, I'm one myself. Likewise for "LOP who were or are married". "LOP who innovated in arts", "...who advocate gay rights", and "...who innovated in science" fail for lack of content; these could be reasonable articles if they contained more interesting information; until they do, I prefer that they not be in Wikipedia. (Traci Lords is listed as having innovated in science, but her article doesn't say anything about it.) " LOP who appeared in mainstream films" is a good one, in my opinion. -- Cyan 01:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - since none of these have VfD notices, this should be deleted - Texture 03:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I believe User:141 did put VfD notices on some of them, but they were mysteriously reverted by User:Mintguy?

List of songs in which the title pretty much sums up the entire point of the whole song

I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but this list seems as pointless as it is hopelessly POV and potentially endless. So many songs sum up the entire point of the song in their title, from Michael Jackson's "Beat It" to the Beatles' "All You Need Is Love," that this list could just go on and on and on. Also, the phrase "pretty much" has no place in any encyclopedia. If the votes are to keep this article, let's please change the title (but to what? The fact that there's no clear alternative shows how POV this idea is). Moncrief 21:22, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. — Sverdrup 21:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Amazing. Delete. Everyking 21:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: silly. But I'm tempted to add "How Could You Believe Me When I Told You That I Love You When You Know I've Been A Liar All My Life". Wile E. Heresiarch 23:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There have been 9 people who have edited this page. RickK | Talk 23:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. POV. Or wait, this covers nearly all songs ever made. There is already a list for that. Fredrik 00:52, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
keep. 141 01:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Do we have to be as boring as a printed encyclopedia? When's Wikipedia going off to the printing press? Ivan 01:44, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unavoidably POV. Or rename to song titles which are complete sentences. Anthony DiPierro 01:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hopeleesly futile. --Tagishsimon 02:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Most pop songs could be on this list. Ever notice how radio music is mostly one corus repeated over and over? = the title tells you 9-% of the song. ike9898 02:46, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -Sean 03:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Hmmmm. Either way, perhaps we could add it to List of Wikipedia articles which don't achieve anything really but don't do any harm either except for wasting time on VfD. (;-> No vote, because I neither care nor understand why anyone else does. Andrewa 06:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That list is already here. It's VfD. Anthony DiPierro 15:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Only because someone created it since I made the comment. Was it you? Andrewa 19:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Not yet listed on VfD that I can see. Should be deleted, preferably speedy. Andrewa 20:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - What is not listed on VfD? The redirect page to VfD that somebody created from your title? I don't know that a redirect page has ever been listed on VfD before. Moncrief 21:31, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
      - Quite right. It should be on Redirects for deletion, not VfD as stated above by its creator. But it's not there either, despite his being a regular visitor there. Andrewa 00:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. RedWolf 17:33, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopedic or useful - Texture 02:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Potentially interesting topic, but apparently too subjective to get a meaningful list--some of these are noteworthy in this manner, but if I Found A Million Dollar Baby (In A Five And Ten Cent Store) qualifies, so do at least half the songs ever written. Niteowlneils 03:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, hopelessly POV, but put it in BJAODN. Fuzheado 03:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Though the subject was rather ill-defined, I'd like to think that Wikipedia is the place for this information. There has to be some source that acknowledges that there's a common feeling to "I just called to say I love you" and "This Song is Just Six Words Long". Maybe it could just be a list of songs whose title is a complete sentence. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:18, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Goodbye Cream (album)

Originally listed on speedy deletions I have moved it here because it is not a candidate for automatic deletion. Claim is that it's not encyclopedic. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is perhaps the beginning of the loading of a whole amount of trivia that is better held elsewhere. There were some other albums loaded yesterday too that were probably copyright vio as they included the album cover. Needs a better home. 62.231.245.2 03:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: substub at present, and as such as I understand it, a candidate for speedy deletion. But good topic. If not speedy delete, surely cleanup was the way to go? Andrewa 05:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. BTW, album covers may be covered under Fair use. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 05:14, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
I created a properly-named stub article for this album, and put a redirect at the cited link. I agree this can now be deleted. Jgm 20:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wheels of Fire (stereo) and Wheels of Fire (live)

Same as above. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete both, the names are wrong and not likely to be useful redirects. New stub at Wheels of Fire tells the story. Both are substubs, track listings easily available elsewhere, no useful history to preserve. Andrewa 05:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Andrewa on this, the Wheels of Fire entry does the trick. Delete these. Jgm 20:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - as above - Texture 02:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Men who sing like women

I would accept List of male sopranos or suchlike, but not this. Title alone is POV. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't delete. I made it into a re-direct page. User 66.32.89.122
- Which has been reverted. -- Graham :) | Talk 23:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I kind of asked for this but I'm also listing List of male sopranos. The problem is that the men listed don't "sing like women", they sing in the way that is right for them. Saying that they sing like women is POV, and saying that they are male sopranos is incorrect. That title was just an example, it wasn't a suggestion to move this article to there. -- Graham :) | Talk 23:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I posted a comment in the Talk page. Please read this comment before you do anything further about this page. User 66.32.89.122
Could there be a tie-in with Castrati? -- ChrisO 00:10, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Rubbish. Davodd 00:24, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Rubbish. 141 01:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, has been worked on by several users. RickK | Talk 01:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly POV when the definition used in the article is "sounds like" i.e. subjective opinion. If there was a culture of men imitating or emulating women in song (cf cross-dressers) then the entry would be justified; as it is it can at best aspire to be a catalogue of subjectivity, and more likely of prejudice and inexperience. --Tagishsimon 01:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete unavoidably POV. Anthony DiPierro 01:52, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to list of male sopranos or (better yet) delete. -Sean 03:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Are these falsettos? -- Zigger 03:48, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 17:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A list of sopranos may be appropriate, but this is too POV. Jacob1207 18:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge with list of severed penises H2O 21:21, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's factually incorrect either, and POV as already mentioned - its not pitch that seperates womens from mens voices, it's resonance. This music (I think) is all centered around high pitch. Dysprosia 21:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, the title is factually incorrect. This is a list of men singing in falsetto, isn't it? Average Earthman 12:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Instead of deleting, try re-directing the page to List of male singers and put an asterisk next to names of singers of this kind. User 66.245.103.36
- Keep concept/list (men who sing in an atypically high range) somewhere, at least. Maybe resonance vs. pitch has relevance to someone who has studied music, but to the average listener, the most notable difference is range; with most traditional forms of music, men mostly sang below middle C, women mostly above. In rock (and maybe others) the threshold may be higher (and probably more fluid), but it's still there. Men who sing much higher than most men are fairly rare, and therefore notable. Niteowlneils 19:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Yeah but some of the men in that article sing in the high octaves because they're children, not because they sing like women... -- Graham :) | Talk 22:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 21

Religious rights

Move to Wikisource, but not under this name. RickK | Talk 00:32, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unattributed philosphical/religious writing, contributed by an anon. Andrewa 18:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nicotinist

Dicdef of a made up word. RickK | Talk 00:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As RickK said. --Tagishsimon 01:43, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete. ditto reasons ike9898 02:43, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
keep. seems to be a term used by scandinavians. found this out researching addictions. Denni 06:54, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
- This is the English Wikipedia. RickK | Talk 01:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary. Term is used by the English & Dutch (at least) as well. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bistromatic drive

I've copied the article to the correctly-spelled Bistromathic drive. Needs deleting. --62.64.167.129 02:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've redirected it. That should be adequate. -- Cyan 02:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
if it's a plausible misspelling, keep the incorrectly spelled version. --zandperl 02:32, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's now a good redirect for an easy misspelling. I think in general we should keep misspelling redirects (unless we start to run out of disk-space and processing power). If somebody misspelled it that way once, then somebody will probably make the same mistake in future. Anjouli 16:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Agree with Anjouli in every detail. Syntax 01:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael pennington

Two Google hits. RickK | Talk 02:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Not sure where you got that number from. "Michael Pennington" gives me 180,000 hits, while "Michael Pennington Birmingham message forum" gives 752. Seems like a "legit" phenomenon (this coming from skeptic). --zandperl 02:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Forget Google. This is a rant/ original research/psuedoscience. ike9898 02:38, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
- The Google search proves it's not orignal research. Just because you disagree with something is no reason to censor it. I don't believe in pseudoscience myself, but it is an important cultural phenomenon which I believe we should document to the best of our ability. --zandperl 03:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Why do people always try to claim that listing something here is an attempt at censorship? RickK | Talk 03:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Because if something is deleted, then it can't be read--censorsed, by some readings. Anyway, I vote keep. Meelar 04:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Cleanup, not deletion. Everyking 02:54, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Psuedoscience. Original research. Junk. Most of the google hits are for an actor. Ambivalenthysteria 04:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Only a few sites produced any hits about this and I can't find the original site that has the story. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 05:03, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: promotion of useless crap. There does appear to have been a Michael Pennington hoax; WP needn't be the vehicle to spread it further. See [4]. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:55, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Boring psuedoscience and hoaxes shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Ivan 18:06, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The page is crap (and poorly written) and it's orphaned. No need to keep this. Jacob1207 18:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - hoax hoax - Texture 02:18, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- RickK, I believe this's the first time I've made that claim. In this particular case I do so because of ike9898's listed reasons. S/he says to disregard the evidence that Google provides that this is NOT original research but is a well documented belief, and instead claims that it is merely a rant or original research (despite the google test's results), or that if it's not one of those then it's pseudoscience, implying that no pseudoscience has a place in Wikipedia. Ike9898's reasons seem completely spurious to me. Wile, Ivan, we keep the Apollo moon hoax info, we should keep this. --zandperl 04:25, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kosi

This revision seems to show its true origins. Made up. Evercat 02:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's made up. Just because it is, why do you want to delete it? :SSS I'll move it to Wikibooks if that'll stop you from deleting it. --Trebor1990

And now you can delete it if you want--I've got a saved copy on my hard drive. Tomorrow I'll move it to Wikibooks. However, I don't see why I should have to move it; cf. the article on the Ubykh language, where the author goes into detail about its structure. --Trebor1990

Delete fiction. RickK | Talk 02:34, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Kosi is made up by an individual, Ubykh is a legitmate language. Kosi could fall under the Wikipedia:No original research policy. --zandperl 02:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Original work posted by it's creator for publicity. DELETEike9898 02:40, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Really? Who wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona? If it was the author, then blame her too. Why are you guys picking on me anyway? It wasn't for publicity. Nothing like that. Maybe it should go on my User page then?

How is Kosi any less legitimate than Ubykh? Do you mean "natural"? The folks over at the Conlang list would certainly disagree with you on Kosi (or any other conlang) being illegitimate!

When your language gets used by others, to the point where some Google hits for "Kosi language" actually exist, it might be appropriate to have an article about it. Evercat 03:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Update: Trebor1990 appears new (see his/her user contributions and anonymous contributions) and may not have understood our policy on original creations. I left the standard greeting on their talk page, along with comments. --zandperl 03:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh. He's 13. Let's all try to be kind when dealing with him. RickK | Talk 03:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Is this a playground or an Encyclopedia?Pedro 03:55, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the above is uncalled for. His grammar and phonology writeups show a good deal of expertise, and his correspondence shows more maturity than that of many of our adult contributors IMO. Andrewa 05:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Trebor should be commended for some excellent work. But unfortunately this site isn't the proper forum for original work, which is what this is. MK 06:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well put. You might like to visit his user talk page just to make sure he hears that opinion and explanation. He's already both interested and skilled, and seems anxious to do the right thing. All we need to do now is to persuade him that contributing is good use of his time, and we'll have another valuable contributor. Andrewa 13:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, please. Moncrief 07:04, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
I did delete it, but then someone put it back on the page I guess. Trebor1990 22:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Synthetic Dream Foundation

Vanity page that self-promotes beyond Brett's own web site. May his dreams come true. (4.12.65.174 traceroutes to ISP in Tampa, stated location of Brett=TSDF from http://www.tsdf.net/ ) -- Zigger 03:31, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Keep. I don't know if it's vanity, but it gets plenty of Google hits. Everyking 06:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment. Gets plenty of hits, but many seem to be sites that will list anyone who has uploaded an MP3 file. Also, may contain fiction--Sundance Channel can't find the movie cited, and it does not appear on their pages of 1998, 1999, or 2000 award winners. Niteowlneils 22:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A1 taxis

Nonfamous -- Graham :) | Talk 19:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Neither "A1 taxi" dover nor "A1 taxi" invicta (nor several other variations) found anything relevent. Niteowlneils 01:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - unverifyable and unencyclopedic - Texture 02:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Marginal stub, sub-marginal subject. Looks like the original intent was for the same anon to create pages for the taxi drivers as well - both of them. Andrewa 06:06, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed that. The entirety of the text for one of the taxi drivers was William Coyle (7th April 1965 -) Notable for his big nose and bad taste in music.... -- Graham :) | Talk 11:16, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - TaxiWiki, anyone? :) - Fennec
  - Hmmm, for my part I hadn't noticed that the articles on the drivers had already been created and deleted. Is this information available anywhere, or do I need to be a sysop to access it? Andrewa 08:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - Fennec 15:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Irish breakfast

See Talk:Full English breakfast and Talk:Irish breakfast for arguments.

Contents should be merged with Full English breakfast. Irish breakfast in its main ingredients (egg, sausage, bacon, black pudding, tea) is the same as English breakfast. The additions to these basic ingredients are what distinguishes Welsh, Scottish, Ulster and Irish) breakfasts from each other (and frequently these additions are not served anyway). English breakfast (petit déjeuner anglais) is what appears on menus throughout the world. Calling English breakfast Irish breakfast is like calling French fries Belgian fries. If we have a separate page for Irish breakfast, we have to have one for Welsh and Scottish breakfast as well. Jooler 22:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Irish breakfast is as important as Guinness to the Irish. See the article for the differences with an English breakfast, and specific stuff about Breakfast rolls and the Ulster fry. Also, this is NOT calling English breakfast an Irish breakfast. The other article is calling Irish/Welsh/Scottish breakfasts English - quite provocative. Zoney 22:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe the breakfast is as important as chips are to the British and Irish. But on Wikipedia chips are under french fries. You think breakfast rolls are only served in Ireland? You say baked beans are not part of an Irish breakfast, but this guy (http://www.littleireland.ie/damians/BreakfastMenu.htm, and many others) seems to think different.
  - See Talk:Full English breakfast for arguments and responses Zoney 23:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge both Full English breakfast and Irish breakfast together under some such title as Fried breakfast (must not be regional in name), and redirect both. -- Kwekubo 23:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Fried breakfast could be a plate of fried steak and eggs. Would you move Danish pastry or French toast for the same politically correct reasons? We use common names and this fayre is known as English breakfast all over the world. Do you also want to move Pennsylvania Dutch to Pennsylvania German Jooler
Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:09, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Great article. Sensible topic. Not everyone is interested obviously, but if we delete this it's an appalling precedent. Will we similarly delete all the articles on the histories of particular countries, and merge them into one general article describing how national histories work in general, on the grounds that some people aren't interested in history? Andrewa 00:19, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't understand the logic of your conclusion. We have articles about distinct things, but here we have two articles about the same thing. Or do you suggest de-merging chips (or even Belgian fries) from French fries for the same reason?

I'll gladly excuse you. I think what you're saying is that, in your opinion, English breakfast and Irish breakfast are really two names for the same thing. I don't agree, and neither do several others who have commented here. If that were true, then by all means the articles should merge. But it's not. So the disagreement isn't about logic, it's about the premises.

I spell this out because I see that the same discussion has been going around in circles for some time on Talk:Full English breakfast, and you seem to be one of the contributors there.

IMO it's the people who are most interested in the topic who are in the best position to decide whether the differences are significant. And they tend to see differences and patterns that others don't. The same as in many other fields. That's why it's so important to have many different, varied people working on an Encyclopedia.

IMO Irish breakfast deserves an article quite as much as the English breakfast does, perhaps more so. Now pardon me, talking about this has made me hungry. Andrewa 02:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok try reading the article - (here)- now that I've put in some facts about the similarities of what is essentially the same thing.

I'd call that POV to the point of deliberate vandalism. Putting your own opinions into the article doesn't make them agreed facts. You know that this is a controversial matter, so what possible justification can you give for this edit? I see no point in joining an edit war, I just ask you to think through what you are doing. This is not the way to win an argument. Not here, anyway. All you have done is damage both your own credibility and that of your cause. Andrewa 12:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What on Earth is controvesial about the naming of a plate of bacon eggs and sausage? In this case the name merely reflects the place in which the dish is served. Danish pastry in Demark is called Vienese bread. Turkish delight is also known as Greek delight, should we have two pages about these things? It's only controversial if you think renaming French fries to freedom fries is actually an issue. As the French ambassador said when questioned on this subject, as they are actually Belgian anyway he wasn't in the least offended. Jooler

Keep. Perfectly encylopedic. There are even regional variations around England (blood pudding etc.) -- The Anome 00:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedic but in the wrong place. We should be using the common name, or do you suggest creating a page called Yorkshire breakfast to list the items found exclusively in Yorkshire?

Keep, no need to delete. RickK | Talk 01:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, reasons for doing otherwise are not sufficiently compelling. Wikipedia is not tidy. A foolish consistency etc.—Emerson Dpbsmith 02:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There is absolutely no reason to delete, and I'm frankly a bit surprised that the suggestion to delete was even offered. There must be some backstory here. Moncrief 06:46, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'm aslo surprised that the suggestion to delete was offered. A remark above says "English breakfast is what appears on menus throughout the world," but Irish Breakfast also appears on menus throughout the world; I first had it in a diner in the Bronx. -- Dominus 14:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely keep. It would be even better if someone added about the culture and history of the Irish brekfast. (I'll have a go) Ludraman | Talk 18:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Suggesting that Irish breakfast be put in with Full English Breakfast is as ludicrous as suggesting US Congress and UK Parliament be put together. The two forms of breakfast are used to refer to different arrangements of food and are used in different contexts and countries to refer to different things. In fact there should also be a separate article on the Ulster Fry which is also different culturally and in terms of food make-up. The mention of French Fries/Chips and Belgian Fries is utterly irrelevant. (BTW I was offered a Full Irish Breakfast (not a Full English Breakfast) in Prague last week. So the claim that the entire world calls a fried breakfast a 'full english breakfast' is spurious and nonsensical.) 62.77.180.65 21:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, Merging is a very bad idea, but a link between the two or mention of similarities would be fine. Sam Spade 05:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is large chunks of overlapping content between the two articles. If we were really trying to create useful article(s) on this topic, we would have single article that explained the similarities and differences between the British version and the Irish version, both in makeup and history. It could be a really good article, imo. However I think to avoid cultural sensibilities of editors (who cares about readers anyway, eh? :-) ) we are going to end up with two articles.. at this sort of cultural level Brits and Irishmen do not like to be lumped together. Thus one immediate problem with a single article would be want to call it... traditional cooked breakfast would be no good because of possible confusion with other countries... breakfasts of the British Isles hardly runs off the tongue. Ah well no-one ever said the wiki way was perfect. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Oscars

Many pages refer to trademarks on Wikipedia, and I don't believe a notice like this is necessary on any of them. (I didn't put the VfD tag because I don't want it to show up on the pages using [[MediaWiki:{{{1}}}]] , but it didn't seem to work on the talk page) Tuf-Kat 22:13, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete - bad precedent - Texture 02:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete and create a general notice:

All trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.

- Woodrow 02:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with Woodrow. Saul Taylor 02:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, and add trademark disclaimer to Wikipedia:General disclaimer or a subpage thereof. — Timwi 03:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I like this idea better than the trademark notice idea shown above - Texture 04:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unneeded. Davodd 09:18, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Change the general disclaimer if necessary. -- User:Docu

March 22

Leigham, Plymouth, England

Delete - advert - originally listed as copyvio, author claims it is from the cite referenced in the article. - Texture 02:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's about a real place so should be cleaned up rather than deleted outright. I'll see what I can do before the five days is up. -- Graham :) | Talk 12:51, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Have wikified the text, and left a message for the author to add anything I've missed out. Will watch for a bit to see what happens, though definitely keep now. -- Graham :) | Talk 17:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mad merv

Was tagged but not listed. --Jia ng 04:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Presumed autobiography by an anon, no good reason given in the article for inclusion. The talk page is interesting too, the same anon started it with "Very nice article". Andrewa 05:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Probably vanity. Even if not vanity its still irrelevant. Saul Taylor 10:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not famous. Google on "'Mad Merv' DJ" returns 237 hits. --zandperl 20:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Douglas Stone, Deora Bodley, Candace Lee Williams, David Brandhorst

Nonfamous individuals. Did nothing notable but die. Move to 9/11 wiki and delete. --Jia ng 05:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - move to memorial - Texture 06:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep all of them. Everyking 07:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to memorial →Raul654 07:19, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
911move/delete. Davodd 09:16, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. They have been moved to the sep11 wiki ([5], [6], [7] [8]). Maximus Rex 09:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - move to memorial. Average Earthman 12:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to 9/11 Memorial and delete here. We should be sure to change pages that link to these articles so that they refer to the appropriate 9/11 page, either by linking the name, or via a " (Wikipedia tribute)" tag after the name. Probably also Daniel Brandhorst. Niteowlneils 22:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Reasons Above. Abscissa 13:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Piper Cruiser

Just some stats, no encyclopedic information. Dori | Talk 06:25, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Some actual content there now. --Rlandmann 11:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There are lots of other similar articles that perhaps look a bit nicer Rjstott 11:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pentadimensional Theory

Doesn't look encyclodpedial to me. -- Khym Chanur 08:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Plus it's cobblers. Delete with extreme prejudice. --Phil | Talk 10:52, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
It's pseudo-scientific rot. Unfortunately, lots of people believe in pseudoscientific rot, so if enough people believe in this particular bit of pseudoscientific rot, we should keep it on the condition we explain why it is pseudoscientific rot. Average Earthman 12:35, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - sounds like something I read once in a Dungeons and Dragons manual... - Texture 15:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, on the grounds that it is a theory which is pretty well on the same level as some religions we have articles about. As long as we say that it cannot possibly ever be proven, there is no real reason to delete it - this is an encyclopædia, not a gosphel. Falcon 17:07, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Move to Clean-up (with a specific request to know who believes this). Rossami 17:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Now a reasonable article about this crap. moink 22:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- How do you know it's reasonable? What are your other sources of information on Pentadimensional Theory? --Zundark 11:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-noteworthy pseudoscience. Josh Cherry 02:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 02:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Does this theory exist anywhere else? I couldn't find any apparent references to it elsewhere but it's difficult to be sure with such a vague concept. MK 04:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable, pseudoscience. Only Google hits are at the Fourier Institute & definitely not pseudoscience. Given that the Internet is the greatest cruft magnet in the history of the universe, PT would turn up on Google if it turned up anywhere, I figure. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps any page it may be on is not registered on google? Or maybe it is not posted on the internet for some reason except here? Simply because something does not have an internet page does not mean that it is completely unheard of. Falcon 01:15, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
- You appear to be the person providing this information. Can you offer any cites to corroborate that this theory exists outside of what you've posted? MK 05:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; nothing from Google supports its existence. -Sean 05:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've changed my vote to Keep, since it's been cleaned up. -- Khym Chanur 06:39, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: pseudoscience -- Forseti 10:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be a complete fabrication. --Zundark 11:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can come up with some references - may be valid if it is actually a reference to a new age belief system or something. -Seth Mahoney 18:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edward James Whelan

Delete. Non-famous vanity page. Moncrief 08:58, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Some kid. Maximus Rex 10:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not significant. Average Earthman 12:38, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What they said. Fennec 15:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wise Old Man

Doesn't look encyclodpedial to me. -- Khym Chanur 09:01, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep stub. Davodd 09:40, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Meelar 14:38, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Important stock character Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. -Sean 05:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Changed my vote to Keep. It's now a lot better than it was in it's first incarnation. -- Khym Chanur 06:42, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Fac OR MediaWiki:Featurecandidate

Please delete/orphan one. They're duplicates. --Jia ng 09:06, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see whats wrong with them both beeing duplicates. Saul Taylor 11:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It makes it harder to create a list of all featured articles by using 'what links here' for the mediawiki messages. Redirects don't work for the MediaWiki namespace. Maximus Rex 11:38, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. The featured article candidates tags are optional, so they can't be used to create a list of all featured article candidates anyway. Gentgeen 15:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- what's the benefit? it confuses people since they may be aware of one and not aware of the other. it's good housekeeping. --Jiang 00:29, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, they used to be different wordings of the same thing, until you made them duplicates of each other, so we could have more than one boilerplate text, if different editors liked different ways of saying things. MediaWiki:fac is the one linked to from the Featured article candidates page, and is used more than the other, just for refrence. Gentgeen 01:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - They were duplicates of each other before Jiang edited them. He just changed them to be different duplicates of each other. -- Cyrius 01:35, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete MediaWiki:Featurecandidate - Fac is referenced more, and is listed as the one to use by Featured article candidates -- Cyrius 01:38, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Litigious bastards

An individual Google bomb doesn't deserve its own article (now matter how much I might happen to agree with the bomb's sentiments). -- Khym Chanur 09:34, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Comment - Miserable Failure is the more famous Google bomb, and that has also been listed for deletion. Average Earthman 12:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I never knew this existed... funny, but not here. Make a comment as an example on Google bomb and then either delete or redirect. -- Graham :) | Talk 12:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. We don't do offensive redirects. State the content as facts in a central article, delete this one. — Sverdrup 14:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge to Google bomb and redirect, unless SCO sues us for it. Andrewa 15:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge with SCO Group. Normally, that would mean redirect but Sverdrup raises a good point. Probably delete in this case. Rossami 17:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, or merge with SCO Group. Some very interesting info in there. Spencer195 00:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have updated the SCO and Googlebomb articles so that this is included in both. Although a redirect to SCO Group has a certain neat irony about it, I don't think we should do it if we want to take our ourselves seriously. A redirect to Googlebomb would be ok, but I don't think we should keep as a standalone article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Frogs'

A recipe, which doesn't belong here AIUI. Odd title, too. Lupin 11:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete, or transwiki to Recipes. - Fennec 15:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 15:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - transwikied to wikibooks:Transwiki:Frogs' legs. Gentgeen 15:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep the new stub, delete the redirectGentgeen
Keep. Moved and stubified. Redirect thus created is useless and should be deleted once deletion of the article is decided one way or the other. Andrewa 15:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - famous food, and now improved. They still don't appeal to me though..... Ludraman | Talk 23:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep as redir to the better Frogs' legs. Niteowlneils 17:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep - is now a redirect to a basic encyclopedic article on Frogs' legs -- Cyrius 20:56, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Pip

There may or may not be a reference worth putting under this, but this refers to a minor (one-off?) character from South Park. Who is based on a more facous Dicken's character who would not even warrant a separate entry (inclusion in the novel description would sufice) The worst thing is that the article then proceeds to giveand proceeds a virtually unabridged blow-by-blow account of the episode named after the character. Splendid as South Park is, this kind of entry goes beyond "niche" fan interest and is a waste of space in an encyclopedia.

Comment: No valid reason given for deletion, and as unsigned votes don't count, I guess unsigned listings don't count either. Andrewa 15:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I second Andrew's comment above, and also want to say that Pip is NOT a one-off character, but a regularly-repeating character on the show. And there's no such thing as wasting space on Wikipedia. Keep.RickK | Talk 16:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep - Texture 18:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Impressive article for an obscure cartoon character. Everyking 00:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mark Littler

Only 155 pages on Google (many of them other people named Mark Littler), none for "Mark Andrew Littler". And one must wonder how someone born in 1985 can have an "early" career. Looks like vanity to me. Rainier Schmidt 16:18, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - some daft Tory-boy on an ego trip. If he ever actually gets elected then he can get an article. Delete as soon as I say. Big Jim Fae Scotland 16:28, Mar 22, 2004
Delete, I've been having a small edit war with him over him placing his birthdate on 1985. Oberiko 16:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why bother? He may be telling the truth. Ultimately, what damage can leaving it there do?--JaneBethalm 16:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Because he's so nonsignificant he hasn't even managed to win an election to a council seat (there are thousands of council seats), he states he's 'interested' in the election campaign - not active in, but just 'interested', and because he doesn't even know how to use a spell checker. Delete. If he actually does anything noteworthy he can recreate it. Average Earthman 10:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Please note that JaneBethalm is a sockpuppet with one edit prior to the above vote. RickK | Talk 02:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - JaneBethalm almost surely has some interest in the topic. She wrote the original Fiona Bruce mentioned in the Mark Littler article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- 'failed to gain selection' means not that he lost the election but that even the party decided not to endorse him to contest the seat. DJ Clayworth 17:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Texture 18:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. And there is no such city as Chesire. DJ Clayworth 18:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. I suspect it was created to avoid the birthday link on January 30 (or 1985) show up as red. Lupo 20:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Angels

These were listed as speedy deletions, moving them here instead (I'm not voting myself). Dori | Talk 17:51, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - No vote - unless someone can connect them to something valid - is it from a book? A game? A mythology? - Texture 18:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It looks like these pages are referenced from the Hierarchy of angels page. --Ezhiki 19:49, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Important part of Middle Ages Christian beliefs. As Ezhiki says, these are part of a highly structured hierarchy of angels. Rossami 20:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to appropiate section of Hierarchy of angels. From the brevity of these subs, and the lack of actual usage in the footnote references I checked, I suspect there's not enuf to be said to have their own "main article"s. Niteowlneils 22:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You cannot redirect to sections. I wish someone would hammer that misbelief out of people's heads. — Timwi 01:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I use links to sections other ways all the time, so I forgot they don't work as redirs. Still don't think they seem to be potential stand-alone articles (unless we're all OK with one- or two- sentence articles). Niteowlneils 06:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- AFAIK, and I have tried to test this, a REDIRECT to a section will currently only get as far as bringing up the relevant page: the specified section will not be selected as you might expect. However this means that nothing is lost by using a specific section in the REDIRECT since a later version of the software might well implement this feature properly. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 17:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Definitely keep. These are medieval terms for degrees of angels. RickK | Talk 03:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Hierarchy of angels. -- Khym Chanur 06:43, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
I have merged the info from those pages into the Hierarchy of angels. There was very little new information, actually: at most one sentence each. The main page already had two paragraphs on each entry. Jorge Stolfi 12:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) Should I turn those empty pages into redirects to Hierarchy of angels? (the table of contents makes it unnecessary to link to a section) Jorge Stolfi 12:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) I have consolidated into Hierarchy of angels also information that was scattered (mostly duplicated) in other pages: angelic choir, demonic hierarchy, angel (twice!). The above pages are now redirects, but still have the VfD tag.Jorge Stolfi 14:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was going to vote "merge + redirect" but I'm too late :-) --Phil | Talk 17:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Marhgil Macuha

Delete, vanity. moink 18:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just beat me to VfD listing. Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Texture 23:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Abscissa 13:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Third person limited omniscient

I've checked and double-checked, and there is no such thing. "Limited omniscience" is a contradiction in terms. In my opinion, this page ought to be deleted and replaced by pages for Third person limited and Third person omniscient (they are distinct) or else redirected to Narrator, which is a well-written article on the subject.

If interested, see my comments on the talk page for that article. - Bds_yahoo

Inherent oxymoron. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. May be an oxymoron, but they taught it to me in high school anyway! moink 19:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have reasonable currency in academic circles.[9] Niteowlneils 20:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. My high school english teacher would scalp me if I voted otherwise. Meelar 00:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, a follow-up. Searching the web, most sites that spoke of a "third-person limited omniscient" were clearly taking their info. from this Wikipedia article. However, I found enough independent "witnesses" to convince me that this is a valid term, after all, though it is in none of the standard glossaries of literary terms I own. Looks like another (possibly better) term for this is "third person flexible," and I think that ought to be stated. But I no longer believe deletion is called for. Bds_yahoo

Phrase has been around for a while; lots of alternative names for it, too. No one of them is going to be solely correct. I'll also go over to the talk page. Elf | Talk 03:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mike Platt

Vanity, delete. moink 19:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity, likely by the student inserted into this teacher's text: David Bates - Texture 19:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. —Frecklefoot 20:54, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense Pedro 21:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Apologies- now edited- although I am not David Bates, just another one of the many students who did not turn up.
Either way delete. DJ Clayworth 22:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Megagon

I'm 99.8% sure this is a joke. moink 19:51, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Both Megatron and megagon seem to have uses, but not like this. Niteowlneils 20:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Texture 23:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yep, Megatron is one of the Transformers, whereas a megagon would be a polygon with a million sides. - IMSoP 02:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Prank by anon. Andrewa 11:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Massif

Other. Currenly dic def. Should probably be moved to Wiktionary (I don't know how, and can't find docs), then replaced with a disambig page like this[10]. (Not sure this is the best place to list this, but it doesn't seem to qualify for either needs attention or clean up) Niteowlneils 21:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If it can be turned into an article, keep; otherwise delete or move to Wiktionary. Rainier Schmidt 23:19, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a redirect to the Massif Central, a major French geological region, might be appropriate? Ddama
Delete. The procedure to move an article that was submitted to the wrong wikimedia project is at m:transwiki. Oh, by the way, transwiki to Wiktionary right before deletion. Gentgeen 10:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep (rewritten). Important geologic term in English deserving of article. Many examples. -- Decumanus | Talk 19:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep with changes. Note, I've copied the 20:21, 23 Jul 2003 version text to Wiktionary--someone who is more familiar with the process may want to see if I did it right. Niteowlneils 19:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It now seems to be a pretty decent article, so I'm changing my vote to keep. Rainier Schmidt 01:45, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful geographic as well as geological term. -- ChrisO 12:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AddressBook2LDAP

Advertising, bad title, and doesn't look cleanable to me (I can't envision an article on this that I would want to keep). Jwrosenzweig 23:18, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - agree with above - Texture 23:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - ad -- Cyrius 20:45, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

March 23

Jurij tasic

Someone's CV/resume? fabiform | talk 01:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - Texture 02:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment. Kinda borderline. You can buy his book at Wal-Mart or Amazon, and it seems to appear in some other people's bibliographies, but so few of the links are in English, it'll probably be hard to verify much further. Niteowlneils 06:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hobbesian

Currently a dictionary definition. fabiform | talk 01:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Hobbes. Fuzheado 03:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done. Propose early removal from VfD theresa knott 11:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pneumoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanicosiosis

Sounds interesting but zero google hits. Fuzheado 03:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

it's actually called Pneumoconiosis, I discover. Delete. fabiform | talk 03:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This word also gets a mention on Pneumoconiosis, which was also started by an anon. fabiform | talk 03:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The correct spelling is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. See [[11]] for an explanation. It's just a really long (longest?) word. Incapable of being expanded into a full article. Delete. SWAdair 05:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: misspelling. Already has a wiktionary entry & is also mentioned at Longest word in English. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Will bring us 5th grade readers for years to come. :) jengod 05:25, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect theresa knott 11:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jacob1207 16:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's a real name for a real disease; keep as a redirect. Psychonaut 17:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sex scenario

Dic-def, is already defined on Sexual chat roleplay. -- Friedo 04:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete; redundant. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 08:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef and suspect for other reasons too but that's enough. I also have serious doubts about Sexual chat roleplay, see its talk page and page history. Andrewa 13:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 16:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Assassins

I'm working on the assassin page, and there's no reason for there to be a page in plural, too. It basically lists a very very truncated version of the same. It should be deleted and redirected to assassin. Wally 04:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- So the votes so far are 3 delete, 1 Keep and 3 Keep as disamb.? Just a double check. Most (including the movie and book) are already disambigged on the Assassin page and I thought Wikipedia didn't usually keep such redundancy to prevent confusion? Either way works, just trolling for comprehension. :P
I Agree. This should be a redirect to the existing assassin page. MK 04:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Is this even the place for it? Should be a redirect. Meelar 05:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. "Assassins" is the proper title of both the movie and the musical, and they should be disambiguated under that name. Cyrius 09:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep disambiguation article. Davodd 09:54, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep it as a dismabiguation article theresa knott 11:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Teresa Pollinator 14:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Madrid victims

• BRASERO MURGA FLORENCIO • BOGDAN LIVIA • BODEA ANCA VALERIA

• BENITO SAMANIEGO RODOLFO • BEN SALAH IMDDAOUAN SANAE • BEDOYA GLORIA INES • BARAJAS DIAZ GONZALO • BARAHONA IMEDIO FRANCISCO JAVIER • BALLESTEROS IBARRA SUSANA • BADAJOZ CANO MIGUEL ANGEL • AVILA JIMENEZ ANA ISABEL • ASTOCONDOR MASGO NEIL HEBE • ARENAS BARROSO ALBERTO • APARICIO SOMOLINOS MARIA NURIA • ANDRIANOV ANDRIYAN ASENOV • ALVAREZ GONZALEZ MARIA JOSEFA • ALONSO RODRIGUEZ JUAN ALBERTO • AGUADO ROJANO FLORENCIO • ACERO USHIÑA LILIANA GUILLERMINA • ABRIL ALEGRE OSCAR • ABAD QUIJADA EVA BELEN==

All non famous. Should be treated the same as 9//11 victims theresa knott 13:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Treat the same as 9/11 - list the names, but not a separate article for each. DJ Clayworth 14:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a list only -and only if we can get all the names. Rmhermen 14:42, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Rmhermen. Keep as a list only, no need for each to have his or her own page (unless they are particularly notable). Jacob1207 16:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Non-famous and non-encylopædic; delete all. Psychonaut 17:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree that they should be treated the same as 9/11 victims. However, that means they should have tribute/memorial pages somewhere--either we should set up a separate memorial site for this event like the 9/11 memorial and move them there, or we should rename the 9/11 memorial page so they qualify, and move them there. Niteowlneils 17:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikimorial them all, delete them here. — Sverdrup 17:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
These could all be speedy deletion candidates since they consist of nothing other than "$firstname was a victim of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks". Have the above voters looked at these pages before voting? There are no "articles" to move anywhere. Maximus Rex 17:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're right, I didn't look at them first. And the main article doesn't even link to these. But I still believe we need to have some place to handle actual tributes. And should have links to them (if they get created) from the main article. Niteowlneils 17:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have added all of these names to the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks article. They can be deleted under speedy deletion since, as described by Max Rex, they consist of nothing more than a single line that is now fully featured in the main article. - Texture 17:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Why not redirect all to Madrid attacks page, thus deleting the risk of them being recreated later? -- Graham :) | Talk 18:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- They have been deleted from the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks page as the list is incomplete. If any are listed, then all must be. Arwel 18:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If we waited for an article to be complete berfore it was allowed on Wikipedia we would wait for ever. Put back the ones we know about and let people add others. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would have voted keep, but I see now that they've all been redirected. Way to go. Everyking 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIANS ARE STUPID - DON'T BE STUPID AND FACE THE FACT: WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, NOT A COMPLETE ENCYCLOPEDIA. OK???? Awe! 21:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - New list under discussion at Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid attacks - Texture 23:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete all (redirects included); they did nothing famous but die. Caps are not appropriate either. --Jiang 00:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Fame is fame, regardless of whether it comes in death. That is what's so seriously in error with the deletion of all these articles, 9/11 victims included. If the articles still existed, they could all be moved to proper titles. Everyking 01:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete all individual articles including redirects. Keep as a list, even if incomplete. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive encyclopedia of obituaries and dying a tragic death is not in itself sufficient for inclusion. Global search is good enough way to locate names on the list if there is not other information about the victim. Dpbsmith 13:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Frumenty

Non-encyclopedic recipe. Moved to Wikibooks. Angela . 17:28, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Made a stub encyclopedic article. Suggest keep now? DJ Clayworth 17:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fractional paradigm and Informational difference

Idiosyncratic, original research, terms not recognized in standard references and not found on the web except in accidental conjunctions and a few research papers. A request for references addressed to the author of these article yielded a reply but no references. The articles themselves have no citations. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. User page reveals this guy is a crank, and talk page reveals a hostile attitude. Has been a problem before. [12] -- Friedo 06:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- Hankwang 10:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alfonzo Ortega

Autobiography. Delete. moink 19:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Probable newbie. Suggest moving to User page, then delete. Niteowlneils 19:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Texture 20:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies

Can never be NPOV Secretlondon 19:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree, delete. Maximus Rex 19:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It was a subject of book written by former US embassador to Poland, Bliss Lane. The feelings that prevailed among Poles after WW2 make it event worth notifying. Cautious
Keep it, but make NPOV. Eon 20:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The above user has made 5 edits and is probably a sock puppet. Maximus Rex 20:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I made google for Bliss Lane betrayed. Do it yourself. The entry exists. However, it retrieves mostly some religious pages. Eon 20:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- A start would be to NPOV the name - Texture 20:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, it seems interesting. Democryt 20:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The above user has made 4 edits and is probably a sock puppet. Maximus Rex 20:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Everyking 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Secretlondon. Jwrosenzweig 20:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Article seems like it could be included in a paragraph of Polish history, talking about the border changes. At the least this article needs to be renamed to a more neutral point of view. Cfrobel 20:58, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep: important topic. Can be NPOV'd, starting w/ the title. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I have renamed to Revision of borders of Poland (1945) in an attempt at NPOV-ification. HTH, Wile E. Heresiarch 22:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Nicely done. Good title - Texture 22:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is already an article on the book. In fact all the info in this article is already there. Redirect or delete. (I'd have been much more sympathetic if it wasn't for the title). DJ Clayworth 21:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Revision of borders of Poland (1945) contains specific info about territories that is not mentioned in I saw Poland betrayed. The book, & its title in particular, can't give an NPOV report on the political/territorial situation. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 22:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Your change doesn't make a lot of sense. There were 3 betrayals: borders, free elections and goverment. Stalin wanted Poland to have some borders, to make elections he wins and to have government he nominates. In all 3 areas he got approval from the West, accroding to Bliss Lane breach of US constitution. Your text covers only 1 area. Shall we create: Western position on forming new government of Poland (1945) and Western position on faked elections (1947) ? Cautious 18:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - change the title - Texture 22:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - we have an article on Poland's history between 1939 and 1945. john 23:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A tentative Keep if it can be made NPOV. Maybe someone can present some of the other viewpoints on this issue? MK 05:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete- Article has POV in title and not much substance.GrazingshipIV 05:56, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete and incorporate any useful data into other articles. Szopen
I agree that title was inappropriate at best but this doesn't condemn whole article IMHO. The article is a stub, if somebody could point out how it could be expanded - keep it, if not - delete & merge with Polish history pages (now it really looks like excerpt from it). However the best we could do with it is to make it article for Potsdam aftermath in Poland - neither Potsdam conference nor History of Poland (1939-45) has no real mention of it.

Moreover in advent of German Expellees activism at Wikipedia and Polish response to it, we really need some Potsdam aftermath overview article - for all nations that Potsdam affected. Would parties engaged in Polish-German edit wars agree?

Forseti 08:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This issue is a matter of the whole behaviour of western countries since before the WWII starded until today and not only of changing the borders in 1945. It covers much more than Poland also. The whole affair is as much (or even more) the cause of todays' Europe political shape as the WWII itself. It is also a serious cause of negative sentiments towards western countries, it won't go away if we keep silent about it. So this should not be "delete/keep" discussion but "how do we make it so that it is not inflamatory, but describes the situation truthfully". Matusz 12:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It defintely needs expansion and un-POVing (I can do it), but it's worthly. Especially that the topic of "western betrayal" is an important factor in Central European hstorical consciousness and politcal thought. It is connected not only to the Yalta and Curzon Line articles, but also to Nazi collaboration, History of Czechoslovakia, NATO, psychology, history of Poland, Soviet Union and anything related to countries under Soviet occupation. I'll start to work on the article right away.Halibutt 14:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep under new title. Good topic, good article. List original name on redirects for deletion as soon as the deletion or otherwise of the article is decided. Andrewa 15:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Recycle encyclopedic info under new title or integrate into an existing article. --Humus sapiens|Talk 20:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Reform the title, keep the article! It ought to become an aritcle of major importance. It will be improved if the Poles learn NPOV, otherwise it will be only another pit for them in which to continue World War II - one more or less, what difference would that make?--Ruhrjung 20:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism

Can never be NPOV. Never meant to be NPOV. Never will be NPOV - or better yet nonfiction. JoeM was banned for less. 172 20:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What is the POV of the article (as it was when the VfD tag was added)? As a non-historian, I may not be equipped to detect subtle premises which are being promoted. -- Cyan 21:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Everyking 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep it. Nazism is a national socialism, isnt it. Cautious 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I personally would be very interested in an article comparing Nazism and socialism, and explaining what "socialist" meant in the National Socialism context. Whether this page is accurate I can't say, but an article on the topic is certainly appropriate. Meelar 21:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Good topic. Article seems acceptable to me. I'm guessing, because the subtext isn't totally obvious, that the subtext is "Socialism is evil because Nazism is a form of socialism," "'Tis not," "'Tis too." Is that it? Or, "Nazism is actually OK because it's a form of socialism," "'Tain't neither," "'Tis too." Is that what's going on? If so, it can and should be toned down. Dpbsmith 21:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article continually attracts people who want to compare Stalinism or Soviet-style communism to Nazism. Why have separate words (and articles) for these subjects? Why not dump everything deemed bad into a bag and call it "socialism." Several people have tried to point this out to no avail. Take a look. It makes one wonder whether Wikipedia authors are in reality just a bunch of grade schoolers run amok.Sunray 03:49, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
Keep. This seems to be an even-handed page discussing a real dispute. MK 05:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems even-handed to me. -- Khym Chanur 08:02, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This probably is as neutral as it gets anyway. Cat 10:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A non subject which exists merely to satisfy a right-wing agenda of smearing socialism G-Man 13:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a concept propounded by a Nobel Prize winner in economics, and it looks like they've made a serious effort to me to be even handed. We also have to give it the title which such economic and political figures outside of Wikipedia would use. Although of course, it's such a controversial topic, we may have a lot of trouble keeping this topic balanced. Average Earthman 17:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and severely edit. The Nazi party was purportedly socialist, and an examination of whether or not this is true, what socialism may have meant in a Nazi context, etc., is a good idea. This article is pretty bad, though, as most of it is a list of pros and cons and the rest is mostly unreadable... -Seth Mahoney 18:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep unless we intend to delete all articles in danger of becoming perpetual edit wars. The idea that Nazism was a variant of Socialism is factually wrong, but it lives its own life. The relationship between Nazism and Communism is worth a specific article which can be referred to. A section in a larger article is not as suitable to refer to.--Ruhrjung 20:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...this article is really awful as it currently standards. Among other things, it ought to be written in the form of an article, not a series of lists. And it doesn't present the issue as an argument between different sides, but merely as a series of acts that are presumed to be true. I think the article is virtually irredeemable as it stands, and would not oppose deleting. On the other hand, I think this is a valid topic for an article, if it could be done right. but it might be better just to delete and start from scratch. john 00:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. jengod 00:58, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The ones most difficult to make neutral are the ones that most deserve recognition here. Wally 03:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- For crying out loud, why are so many people voting to keep this drivel!!!???? If so many people are opposing the deletion of this loopy work of POV FICTION, what does get deleted around here!??? User:JoeM was banned for less! But at least there's one lesson to draw: pick a good article title, and you'll get away with anything on Wikipedia. 172 04:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you think it's POV? After all the article has sections outlining both "Reasons Nazism is considered socialist" and "Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist" as well as providing cites for people who hold these positions. MK 06:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Any discussion should go in the National Socialism article, unless we also want to have Nazism and capitalism, Nazism and liberalism, Nazism and fascism, etc. —Tkinias 09:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cique Goquex

Has zero hits in all major search engines. No evidence that this isn't completely fictional. -- NSash 22:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete -- Cyrius 21:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - as much as I wanted this neat story to be real I can't find hide nor hare of it... - Texture 21:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- I dogpiled it and found the number one hit was the Wikipedia article itself. The ONLY other hits were posts at Slashdot by someone named MooKore 2004, who uses the article in his signature.SWAdair | Talk 10:47, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. You'd think if this were true it would appear on Google. Good yarn. Isn't there a wiki somewhere for such things? I guess it's not famous enough for Snopes, one day maybe, it could have wings. Andrewa 15:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've read a lot of news articles in newspapers that haven't appeared on Google. So this can happen. I think we should ask for a reference. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Comment: I'd agree, except it's from an anon. Suggestions? Andrewa 20:11, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fx-7400g plus

Calculator models? I don't know... Mark Richards 23:40, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I want to write about the TI-73. - Woodrow 23:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Articles are warranted about the histories of specific and important calculators, but not on every dam' calculator ever. Elde 00:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think we need an article for every calculator model, especially variants. I could see ones that were particularly notable, maybe, like first, first electronic, first digital, first handheld, first cordless, first specifically for kids, first that could interface with computers, etc., but that's it. Niteowlneils 00:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think it would be nice to have articles on every calculator model. Everyking 01:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What's next, every type of VCR, laundry detergent, barcode number for mass-produced fashion? If anything, put a table on the Casio page with the models. -- Hankwang 12:47, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Another apparent newbie, who has previously created now-deleted articles for specific camera models (I don't know which ones) and been argumentative when they were deleted. Difficult IMO. What level of detail do we want? Is it possible to be consistent across subjects, or even meaningful to try? I don't know either. Andrewa 13:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Real, no basis for deletion. Potentially useful for future researcher. Jgm 00:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Hankwang; we can't possibly list every type of every mechanical device known to man (it's hard enough with just military technology and the Monarchs of England). Unless someone actually wants to write an article about every calculator type ever brought forth, none can really be justified. Wally 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia

It can be created, but the name would most likely be changed. - Woodrow 23:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It has been already claimed, so keep. --Jia ng 00:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 24

Landsmannschaft articles

Landsmannschaft Westpreußen, Landsmannschaft Ostpreussen,Landsmannschaft Schlesien

Delete. It seem to be German entries and we are in English Vikipedia. Moreover, it contains factual errors. Cautious 19:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- these are nasty, but important organizations in Germany (more in the last decades, but important even today), so Wikipedia should contain (factual accurate) info about them. -- till we *) 20:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What's nasty with human rights? Nico 21:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be better to put them under English names? Cautious 20:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Established English names does not exist. Moreover, a lot of Polish places and organizations are found under the Polish names, even with your special characters. Nico 21:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Btw, you Poles deleted my English translation of Landsmannschaft Ostpreussen some months ago, see [13]. Nico 22:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, exist and are notable. Maximus Rex 20:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep (though I'm uncertain, I agree with Tillwe)--Ruhrjung 20:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
LOL. Keep, of course. Btw, I propose we delete the Poland article. Nasty state and contains factual errors. Nico 21:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Brittany Huie

Vanity page. Insists on altering Durham, North Carolina to point to her page.

I'm not Brittany, so how can it be a 'vanity' page? Methinks you're the LeAnn Rimes vandal with the nameless IP, here to kick up trouble. Ban, anyone?

You are obviously familiar enough with Wikipedia to know all about the Vandalism in Progress page. You are obviously not a newbie. So surely you know that it's inappropriate to edit the Durham, North Carolina page to link to a personal page (even if it's not your own page). You are knowingly engaging in inappropriate edits of Wikipedia content, aka vandalism.

Delete. Non-famous. Also the redir to it Brittany Dawne Huie. Niteowlneils 01:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Ignore anything above Niteowlneils as being anonymous. However, delete Brittany Huie and Brittany Dawne Huie. RickK | Talk 02:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, and her little broken redirect too -- Cyrius 02:59, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Yet another vanity page. Delete. Rainier Schmidt 05:18, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
There are actually people named Bryttanidawne and Khaetidawne? Delete. MK 05:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, there are. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Khaetidawne for instance.
Delete - Wikipedia can't possibly list all the theatre players. -- Forseti 12:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 14:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not nearly famous enough. Average Earthman 17:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael Theodoridis

Already exists at Sep11. Angela . 02:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
delete.--Jia ng
Keep. Everyking 02:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete - redundant -- Cyrius 03:00, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - exists in 9/11 memorial - Texture 07:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
the article isn't even about him, but about his wife. Delete. RickK | Talk 07:38, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Gives no suggestion that they were significant figures before 9/11, so memorial is the correct place. Average Earthman 17:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jackson J. Spielvogel

I read this article, looked at the articles that linked to it, & all I know from having done this is that he's a professor of history & wrote some books. Article gives no sense of his ideas, or why he should be listed; his mentions in the articles linking to this page offer no further information. Can someone add some information to justify his listing, or should we consider this just another prank entry? -- llywrch 03:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It appears he does write textbooks. Rather prominently, actually. Everyking 04:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I even recognized his name from a textbook I own or owned. Jwrosenzweig 00:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Nicely formatted stub--better than many. Niteowlneils 02:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Donald Adams, Falkenberg family, Robert Fangman, Ronald Gamboa

Some unfamous people who were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time, all have been moved to the 9/11 wiki.--Jia ng 05:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep all. Marginally famous participants in a historical event. Everyking 05:13, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- not marginally famous. --Jia ng
Delete - since moved to 9/11 memorial - Texture 07:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - redundant, not famous. -- Cyrius 12:58, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Only Leslie A Whittington (Falkenberg family) appears to have been of any note before 9/11. Memorial is the suitable place for these. Average Earthman 17:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've made a Leslie A. Whittington/Leslie Whittington page--a major re-write of this article, emphasising her, her career/contributions (I added some, but it still needs more details, hence Stub tag), and her background. Niteowlneils 02:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Sad, but such is life. Wally 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page titled after the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser

Note that for the time being, the name of the article is begin withheld

It is illegal in many jurisdictions to reveal this information [the name of Bryant's accuser], and could cause Wikipedia to be shut down. RickK | Talk 06:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- the page is also an orphan. RickK | Talk 07:15, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - FWIW, it was just orphaned. It was being pointed to by the Kobe Bryant page as Colorado woman until an anon just edited it out [14]. I've no words of wisdom at this time on the issue. It's a tough call. Fuzheado 10:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If there's any way we can change the title of the page to something like "Kobe Bryant's accuser" and delete all references to her real name, maybe we should keep it. But the way it is right now, it should definitly be deleted. Rainier Schmidt 07:10, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Sub judice and something we just don't want to tangle with. If speedy delete policies don't cover this then they should. Andrewa 08:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
People have a right to know. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- People quite clearly have no such right, as the legislatures of many jurisdictions in and outside of the US have created rape shield and victim-anonymity laws. These have generally stood up under judicial review. Delete post haste. -- Friedo 10:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We need to formulate a policy on this sort of thing if we haven't already. Issues: Do we include sub judice information ourselves, do we link to sites that include the information, or neither. Do we treat the United States as a special case, as it is where the servers are located and so not publish information covered only by US Law, or do we cut out any information that is sub judice anywhere in the world? Is the location of the contributor relevant? Please copy this talk to a relevant legal/disclaimer page when done so we can thrash this out Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree. Andrewa 14:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It would help Wikipedia get practical independence from U.S. Laws if there were mirror sites elsewhere in the world with reasonable laws regarding free speech. (By "reasonable" I mean any country where you can be arrested -- or worse -- for what is said or written.Most of Europe, North America, & several countries elsewhere in the world fit this definition.) Otherwise, no matter what we agree to here, all it takes is one court order to remind us that we are subject to US Law. -- llywrch 16:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - maybe someday this person will be deserving of an encyclopedia article but right now this is just news. H2O 12:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
(no vote). It looks like the page has already been deleted but the talk page remains. And her name is still mentioned in history of the Kobe Bryant page. Why would mentioning her name in one place be ok but not in another? I would like to know what the actual legal possisition is. I agree there should be somewhere where this can be disscussed in detail. Saul Taylor 14:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Good points. Andrewa 15:43, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia responsible if other sites got hold of the article before it was deleted? [[15]]
I have yet to see any evidence that it is illegal to reveal her name. The name has been published in major tabloid publications and broadcast on radio, not to mention tens of thousands of web pages; I'm not aware of any legal proceedings against these agencies or persons. Please backup to the claim that this article is illegal. At the very least, it should be dealt with through a resonable process and not have been speedily deleted. We don't speedy delete copyvios; I fail to see why this case should be different. -- Seth Ilys 03:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the page, as there wasn't adequate deliberation prior to its deletion. -- Seth Ilys 04:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No vote yet, but a comment: we have a page on Nicole Brown Simpson, arguably also famous only for being a crime victim. Meelar 04:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Not at all the same thing. THere's a big difference between a murder victim, whose family WANTS the name known to have the guilty person punished, and a rape victim, who, by the way society views the crime, does NOT want the victim's name known. RickK | Talk 04:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This case (and therefore the accuser) is also important because of the controversy regarding the widespread release of her name, which was the topic of half of the article before it was deleted. -- Seth Ilys 04:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. silsor 04:50, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Kobe Bryant, and decide on the talk page whether to publish the name (which I wouldn't, at least for now). She doesn't warrant a separate page at this point. Controversy regarding the release of her name is an important subject, but we should deal with those on articles about rape and the media - the issues are bigger than she is. --Michael Snow 06:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no excuse for this. Fred Bauder 11:53, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
It is difficult to discuss a page when we are not allowed to know its name or content. I have placed a CENSORED version of the page at User:Pcb21/Kobe_Bryant_temp_page to facilitate discussion. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Japanese translator

Tautological definition; doesn't even deserve to be moved to Wiktionary. -- Khym Chanur 08:10, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. (I added msg:Vfd tag for you. :) ) -- Friedo 10:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Cyrius 12:59, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete DJ Clayworth 14:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 14:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wally 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Timwi 06:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Brendan's wager

Doesn't appear to be so notable... No google hits for either the wager or the name of the pub... Dysprosia 08:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete, appears to be made up. Maximus Rex 09:43, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete - concur with Maximus Rex -- Cyrius 13:00, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep, and list on cleanup~~. No evidence that it doesn't exist (Google is not God), and we should assume goodwill on the part of an apparent newbie. Andrewa 13:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The name of the wager wager doesn't turn up, the name of the tavern doesn't show up, and the name of the town doesn't show up. Maximus Rex 13:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - True. And neither do many other things that exist. Andrewa 13:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Delete, unless someone can tell us exactly where Leabourne is. I'd be very surprised if there are any other towns in Ireland that aren't mentioned on the web. Average Earthman 18:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Checked on Multimap - it'll find some pretty small places(how many people live in Doonbeg? 569 according to Google) but no Leabourne. Average Earthman 18:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Since their other edits were all nonsense (such as Pencilophobia, Busophobia, Peniophobia, etc (see User talk:12.66.8.43)), it is safe to assume that this is nonsense as well, especially with the lack of google hits for any of the details of the article. Maximus Rex 13:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Delete. Agree. Andrewa 14:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I, also, prefer checking sources other than Google - no search engine can catalog the entire web and much material isn't online. So I went to the source. The [2002 Irish Census] lists population by area (province, county and city). Leabourne is not listed.SWAdair | Talk 11:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Philip Chandler

Obviously a creation of a creative individual, but unfortunately also one who appears to be non-famous, self- promotional, and fairly POV in the rendering of this article. Delete. Moncrief 10:03, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Delete -- Cyrius 13:01, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Possible autobiography by a newbie. I have attempted to email him. Andrewa 13:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The (possibly automated) response I received was from an email address under his name, but was just a link to a rather dubious website. We tried. Andrewa 15:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Somewhat clever, but I'm not seeing a colorable basis for inclusion. If this continues, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Collective intelligence agency

Delete. Personal research, not 'common consensus', mostly links to creator's website. -- Hankwang 10:13, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. Some guy's personal project. -- Friedo 10:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. IMO yet another abuse (see also) of the site to host a project unrelated to Wikipedia. Andrewa 13:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Cyrius 13:06, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't even make sense. -Seth Mahoney 18:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. But not for a lack of wikkification. MK 19:11, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Good point. Yes, and we'll need to watch all those other potential new articles as well. Another reason to consider changing the policy so this can be a speedy IMO. Andrewa 20:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Postal worker

Delete. Dictionary listing, don't see how it culd be more. DavidWBrooks 14:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 14:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Could be expanded to describe different job functions, history &c. Will not be terribly fascinating, but clearly can be expanded beyond definition. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Badly phrased substub, acceptable topic but we probably all have better things to do than fix it. Happy to be proved wrong on this, keep if it is fixed in the 5 days. Andrewa 15:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but only if something more is made of it. --Prichardson 16:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and redirect to post office. Saul Taylor 20:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as stub. (I've added a bit) Niteowlneils 01:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand (as stub or not). Wally 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vareniki

Substub. Gentgeen 16:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Sirniki. Andrewa 16:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep as redirect.~~ Keep new stub. -- Cyrius 01:04, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Vareniki and sirniki are actually different. Keep, if someone writes an article on them, otherwise delete (redirect will not be quite appropriate).--Ezhiki 18:08, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
- The redirect (which is now in place) merely expresses what the article already said. If you know better, then why don't you write a proper stub in place of the redirect? It only needs to be two sentences, what they are and why they are important, in this case I guess that they're part of Russian cuisine. Andrewa 19:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - For some weird reason it did not occur to me to write a stub myself. Oh duh... Still, even knowing the recipe and having eaten vareniki for all my life, I have no clue about why they are important and how they fit into the Russian culture. Anyway, the stub is now in place. Hopefully it is enough to keep the entry. It definitely needs improvement, however, so feel free to edit mercilessly. --Ezhiki 20:26, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Keep new stub. Niteowlneils 23:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep, good stuff :). According to WP naming convention, this and similar articles should be turned into singular: Varenik --Humus sapiens|Talk 23:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's now a nice, improperly named stub. I withdraw the nomination for deletion and suggest the page, and Sirniki, be moved to the singular names. If I felt more confident in my ability to transliterate Russian (been 5 or 6 years now that I've not used my very poor skill), I'd do it myself. Gentgeen 01:16, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Move to singulars made; note plural/singular in article texts —Tkinias 02:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Reversed plural/singular in text. Niteowlneils 04:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- While having to inclination to go against the guidelines outlined in WP naming convention, I would still like to voice my concern regarding making the singular form the main article (with plural form redirecting to it). The reasoning is as follows: while varenik is a valid singular form of the word, it is highly unlikely that the dish itself would be called varenik. Pierogi is a plural form as well, but no one would suggest to put the article under pierog. This is just not how the word is commonly used. I suggest that an exception is made for this article, i.e. the main article should be under vareniki, and a redirect should be established on the varenik page. Same reasoning is true for sirniki as well. Perhaps it was my not-so-specific definition of vareniki (namely, the "they are larger in size" part) that led voters to believe it is a huge dish, one piece of which is enough to feed a person; if so, I apologize (and probably need to fix that reference in the article). In reality, one varenik is about the same size as one piece of pierogi, which, considering its cottage cheese filling, is hardly enough to combat hunger even on one-person-wise scale. --Ezhiki 14:17, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

National Hang a Picture Day

Silly fictious holiday, no google hits. -- Infrogmation 16:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, delete. Has potentional as an actual celebration though! --Prichardson 16:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Cyrius 17:32, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Does not even sound that "ass-kickenest" No Guru 18:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why are we even bothering to vote? Obviously it's a joke (a pretty good one, admittedly) - if anything can be speedily deleted, this can. - DavidWBrooks 20:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reichsdeutsche

Was a rant (in German language) about how Germany isn't the legitimate succesor of the Third Reich. Sort of a conspiration theory in Germany. Delete. -- till we *) 20:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- So it's here for its content and not because it wasn't in English? -- Cyrius 20:24, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
During WW2 was one of the category of German citizenship. Other was Volksdeutsche. Don't know, move it to English translation? Cautious 20:50, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Volksdeutsche --Ruhrjung 21:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as stub. Redirecting to Volksdeutsche won't help, because that links to Reichsdeutsche. —Tkinias 00:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Nico 01:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep - new stub (in English!)-- Cyrius 01:06, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Human basic need

Is a stub at best, arguably true at present, and possibly impossible to ever fully describe. -Seth Mahoney 20:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - I almost want to suggest redirecting to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but that's not quite the same. -- Cyrius 20:33, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, this page has been on both Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and Wikipedia:Cleanup since March 23. What more do you want? Why do you think you have to nip this article in the bud? Why can't you watch it grow? And when one of you says it's "not quite the same" as Maslow's hierarchy, what more proof do you need that this is not a duplicate article either? Patience, please. <KF> 22:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is, there's no absolute definition of what a human neeeds, so this article will always be POV, with no hope of rescue. Even if we were to keep it, it should be moved to Basic human need, which is a better title. -- Cyrius 01:13, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  - s/Basic human need/Basic human needs/ — they are quite plural &#8212Tkinias 01:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This list is neither complete, nor correct. It will always be a matter of POV, just like Maslows. (And the Maslow's page exactly says that it is Maslow's POV). Mikkalai 23:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As Mikkalai says, it is very POV and cites no authorities (unlike Maslow's hierarchy of needs). It is also very poorly named—such an article should be entitled something more like "Basic human needs" in English. —Tkinias 00:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Rename to Basic human needs and improve. Jay 05:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- How does one write something like that NPOV? It could maybe be done, but there's no reason to keep this article, none of which would remain in a completely new, useful NPOV article. —Tkinias 08:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Air Texas

Apparently owned by Barbara Bush!, a joke article User:Astrotrain

~~Delete - obviously fake~~ Current article is obviously fake -- Cyrius 20:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Actually there was an Air Texas [16] so we should replace it with a stub. Don't forget to put it on BJAODN. DJ Clayworth 21:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Jumped the gun, but it doesn't even show up in the Handbook of Texas, and I'm not seeing any substantive information anywhere else. Delete, replace with stub. -- Cyrius 00:51, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as stub. Niteowlneils 23:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, I suppose, but it is pretty damn funny - even if "Equilateral Guinea doesn't really exist. Someone should archive this. Wally 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Candidate for speedly deletion. RickK | Talk 03:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KVIrc

Ad for a software product. - DavidWBrooks 20:50, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment - If we're going to delete this one, then there's a whole pile of others on Internet Relay Chat#IRC clients that could use it as well. -- Cyrius 01:09, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as stub. Niteowlneils 23:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Will Schlitzer

Delete. Vanity entry, no relavent Google hits. —Frecklefoot 21:57, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Undelete. anthony 03:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- content was: 'Will Schlitzer was born on February 17, 1990.' (no Google hits showing fame) --Jiang
  - Thanks! Andrewa 08:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Substub. Assuming no useful history, this is just the sort of thing that should be a speedy IMO. There seems no doubt it's a prank, so why waste time on it? Andrewa 08:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Harpers Ferry

? — Timwi 22:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Someone's made it into a decent article. Niteowlneils 23:11, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a decent, if short, article now. And you forgot to add the VfD notice. -- Cyrius 00:25, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Meelar 03:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Dab

Duplicate of MediaWiki:Disambig being used exclusively by Jengod. It would be better for consistency if there was just one standard. - Lee (talk) 23:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - You didn't add a Vfd notice. Since putting it on the actual page risks having it show up where it shouldn't, I put it on MediaWiki Talk:Dab. Redirects on {{msg:}} don't yet work (to my knowledge), so I've changed all references to this to point at {{msg:disambig}}. I don't want to hear any complaining about how it will break pages since I fixed them already. -- Cyrius 00:38, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
No objections to deletion but I always find disambig very hard to type. Dab is easier. Who's with me?! <crickets> *sigh* jengod 00:56, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
- That's what copy and paste is for :) -- Cyrius 01:09, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  - Comment: Nope. Copy and paste is what we used before we had the the msg facility. Hmmmm. Andrewa 03:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - I meant copy and paste {{msg:disambig}}. Unless you're advocating a msg that has that as its content. -- Cyrius 04:35, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
      - Comment: Nope. Just I think that Jengod has a point. If you need to cut and paste, then you've removed one of the purposes of the MediaWiki namespace. But personally I have no trouble typing {{msg:disambig}}. Andrewa 08:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 25

Bundle of joy

Belongs in wiktionary, already submitted it there under Bundle of joy

Delete - Sign your additions to Vfd, and mark additions on the page itself. -- Cyrius 00:41, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete — Timwi 05:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Scott continuous

Orphan redirect to nonexistent page. -phma 00:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Move to Redirects for deletion -- Cyrius 00:58, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Horseshoe sandwich

Transwiki to wherever recipes go. RickK | Talk 04:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. there's an article in there under the recipe. jengod 05:27, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a valid bit of U.S. regional cuisine. Also, I can verify--I remember something like this from going down to Springfield during high school. Meelar 08:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vinod Scaria

Is this person that notable ? Probably made up by User:Vinodscaria. Jay 05:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Calicut Medical Journal

Journal edited by the above Vinod Scaria. On its talk page I had asked for any useful links to the journal and no one got back on that. Jay 05:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Their site [17] lists Vinod Scaria as Executive Editor. The journal itself appears to be obscure, but not ficticious. -- Cyrius 05:25, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely. Mkweise 07:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

starmen.net

Alexa rank is 60,000+. Unofficial fan site. Not notable. Meelar 05:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - EarthBound has a link to it, which is all that is called for -- Cyrius 05:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Going to have to agree with you. No need to explain the site; it does that itself. shadow 06:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Starmen.net has actually made quite a splash concerning Nintendo. Miyamoto even mentioned its petition to release Mother 3 in an interview. Also, in Nintendo Power issue 145, the fanart section (I forget what it is called) mentioned that a lot of people had drawn EarthBound pictures--"and it's not even a theme month!" This was because of Starmen.net--the staff asked visitors to draw EarthBound pictures and mail them in at a certain date. And besides, there are individual articles about certain popular webcomics, why not idividual articles about a popular site? --SMWhat 05:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I'd add all this to the article, but I am SWAMPED with schoolwork, and unable to make more than minor/smallish edits at a time.
- Keep for now. Quinwound 07:54, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: looks like an ad and not much more —Tkinias 08:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Already covered (and in more detail) by AIDS reappraisal -- Khym Chanur 07:13, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Delete - duplicate content, not worth merging -- Cyrius 07:20, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

List of cities in Niue

Probably a joke, there are only 1500 people on thed island. ping 07:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it's a joke - just part of the breakdown of List of cities. However, I think this is taking things a bit too far. Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 12:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Move to List of city in Niue? -- Cyrius 14:46, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Wyatt_Halliwell

Delete. Prank by anon. Originally listed with Aggemam and Vladivoj by Jia, but deserves its own vote. Andrewa 08:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like a prank, just a badly written article on a fictional character. -- Cyrius 14:53, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Its about a character in Charmed and I've rewriten the introduction to mention that. Other characters in the show have their own articles so why not this one. Saul Taylor 15:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aggemam, Vladivoj

Tagged as speedy delete, but probably not so. --Jia ng 07:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Melodious Owl

A Google search for "Melodious Owl" band got no hits--a search for Melodious Owl got a bunch of quotes from Vonnegut, nothing mentioning this. Meelar 08:28, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ratshit

Dictionary definition, not much else. Fuzheado 11:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Redir Australian English. Dysprosia 11:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect -- Cyrius 14:55, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Question

Dic defn moved here from speedy deletions - this is not a vote. theresa knott 13:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. There's lost of philosophy surrounding "questions". I do favour a revert to my original; the link to list of famous questions doesn't do it any good. Jfdwolff 15:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

====List of famous questions==== links only

I vote for deletion. This is just a silly list. Sander123 14:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Actually I deleted it several times already as a candidate for speedy deletion (wikipedia is not a link repository), but the author complained calling me a "cop" so I stopped to delete instantanously. andy 14:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Incoherent list and some unspecified links. Jfdwolff 15:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This version is just silly. However, if someone were to make it a list of important philosophical questions, then I would reconsider my vote. Average Earthman 15:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Complete rubbish. Saul Taylor 15:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

====Rimur==== dic def. Move to Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 14:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Could be turned into a respectable article, given time. —Frecklefoot 15:22, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
A perfect example of why "dictionary definition" should not be grounds for deletion. How else can stubs begin? This is an important topic in the music of Iceland, probably made by someone following a redlink from that page. Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lucky Penny Productions

Commercial ad or vanity page, not famous. Toby W 14:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Abigail 14:47, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Even if said company was famous or meaningful in their contribution, this article is pure advert and must go! --Pete Richardson 14:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. After reading it I still don't know what they actually do. Saul Taylor 15:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - advert. And not a good advert at that. Average Earthman 15:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ioannis G. Tsatsaris

Advert. Google hits appear to be self-promotion. -- The Anome 15:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Hoplessly POV, if valid at all. —Frecklefoot 15:19, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Do not delete. He is my prophet. He will save the world. Jt3 15:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Arvindn 15:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Incoherent and uninformative. If famous at all, a completely new article is needed. Warofdreams 15:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Visit his website and buy his books. He was the first to teach Anti-Lawfulness. He can talk with God and the Angels and he has communion with the Higher Positions of Universes. Jt3 15:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Safe driving

Not an article, just a quote. No pages link to it. If it hadn't been created by Ed Poor, I'd probably have said speedy deletion. Perhaps he might explain it. Warofdreams 15:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Add new entries here

This page is edited frequently. If you want to prevent edit conflicts, write your entry off-line first and then start a new section edit for this section in which you can copy/paste it.