Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyrius (talk | contribs) at 05:15, 31 May 2004 (→[[Weston Lullingfields]]: rm, kept). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page contains Votes for Deletion listings that have finished their voting period and are eligible for either deletion or removal from the list, as appropriate. Sysops can delete those articles for which a consensus to delete has been achieved. You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.

See also: Wikipedia:Archived delete debates

Ongoing discussions

Needing Transwiki

Individual debates older than five days

May 19

Trigintillion

  • Can anyone explain in detail the reason trigintillion was put on Vfd?? 66.32.142.216 23:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I can help. The following are all, AFA I can see made up names for numbers. They score circa 145 hits on google: Trigintillion - Quindecillion - Tredecillion - Quattuordecillion. Alarmingly there about about 100 more of them, each with more zeros and less use than the last. If we have to have them at all, could we have them on a single page with redircts from the discrete page to the common page. For now could we delete these dubious additions. See http://www.io.com/~iareth/bignum.html for background: "As can be seen, there is neither a single definition for these words nor a consistent means of deriving them ... "Using the rules described above" the author goes on to 'invent' some of the above. --Tagishsimon 23:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had, in fact heard of trigintillion and the decillions up to quattuordecillion before. They're legitimate enough. But I agree on Tagishsimon's proposal. Dpbsmith 23:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC) There is an article on large numbers already, but it doesn't yet have anything like a "list of number words ending in -illion" Dpbsmith 23:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • These terms may not get very many hits, but whoever entered them did not make up the terms--I saw them at least fifty years ago in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. They are legitimate terms. They could probably be combined into one page, if that's wanted. Oops, sorry I got this in the wrong order. Rsvk 23:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

May 20

Devil's beatin' his wife

From Cleanup: Devil's beatin' his wife - an anything more be said about this? origns would be nice but still a dictdef. vfd (I moved this to vfd from cleanup and fully support its deletion - SimonP)

May 21

Pro-American sentiment

No real content; just a poorly written attempt to counteract the Anti-American sentiment article. No evidence is offered for highly POV statements like 'Europeans in general are still grateful to the United States for its participation in World War II and the sacrifice of so many American lives in defeating Fascism in Europe.' Deus Ex

  • No point listing this here. The immense weight of Americans will ensure it stays. Chameleon 19:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Because all Americans are jingoistic idiots. Thank you for your enlightened contribution. Meelar 23:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, it's not my fault that most are. Anyway, as far as this debate goes, I have been fortunately proved wrong so far. So Delete.
  • Delete it. All the NPOV content that article could contain is already providing balance in the Anti-American sentiment article. - jredmond 19:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every page needs the creation of its opposite. —Morven 20:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anti-American sentiment does a good job on this. Lord Bob 21:10, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, everything worthwhile in this article is already at Anti-American sentiment. DO'Neil 21:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fully expected to vote delete until I actually carefully read the entire "anti" article. While it has enuf rebuttal/commentary to be quite admirably NPOV, it really does not include many positive views of the US. (In other words, I strongly disagree with "All the NPOV content that article could contain is already providing balance in the Anti-American sentiment article.") Especially given how many people around the world are willing to risk their lives, and/or give up all their wealth/belongings to immigrate to the US, I believe there are sufficient "pro" facts/beliefs/attitudes/whatever to warrant a separate article. (The current content does need some NPOV help, however.) Also, FWIW, I actually very much agree with many of the criticisms of the US (war on drugs, unilateralism, ignoring PRC genocide in Tibet, overly pampering Israel, not signing landmine treaty, environmental damage, sexual hypocrisy, overly restrictive copyright enforcement, privacy violations, "God" on currency and in pledge, death penalty, past direct meddling in other nations governments, etc.). Niteowlneils 22:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said "All the NPOV content that article could contain..." etc., I meant that all the existing NPOV content in the Pro-American sentiment article is already in Anti-American sentiment; that is, when one removes the heavy-handed POV from the Pro- article, what little is left is already in the Anti- article. - jredmond 04:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I still disagree. The anti- article doesn't (and probably shouldn't) mention the Marshall Plan, the fact that Europeans to this day officially express gratitude for US help in WW2, the space program, the fact that people from eastern Europe specifically cite the US as a factor in the fall of the Soviet Union, and so on. Or should the Marshall Plan article, etc. be removed as POV? Niteowlneils 14:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyking 22:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, until it has had a fair chance at being improved. Or merge with the Anti into Attitudes toward the United States, which is probably a poor idea. The idea that specifically pro-American sentiment is not real enough to be encyclopedic is one that's hard to ascribe to sheer ignorance. Skeptics might read Jean-Francois Revel's recent best seller (in France) on the anti-American obsession; it's so pro-American as to be useless. But the article as it stands definitely isn't good enough. Dandrake 00:44, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have mixed feelings about this one. It is non-encyclopedic in that it does not anywhere define the topic or describe the sentiments. It appears to be part of an on-going debate with the article on Anti American Sentiment On the other hand it does provide a lot of links with other good articles on the subject. Send it to Clean Up maybe. ping 08:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Canada is particularly funny. Delete for POViness and Non-encyclopediness. MvHG 08:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awww! Muriel said what I was going to say! D3L3tifiK473. Denni 04:06, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. RadicalSubversiv E 12:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's crap. And whats this about the sun expanding to consume earth? --Starx 04:23, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure POV and propaganda. There could be an encyclopedic article on this, but this article isn't it and isn't likely to evolve into it. It's just a long pure POV assertion that there Pro-American sentiment exists, and I think it is intended to suggest that the amount outweights the anti. Dpbsmith 21:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV that cannot be saved - Tεxτurε 02:51, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how there can be so much anti-American material here on Wikipedia, but heaven forfend there be anything good to say about the US. RickK 02:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, RickK, if it was good, that might actually be another thing. But it is MacDonald's for the mind. Denni 07:29, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

It's inevitable that this article isn't going to be NPOV, but then again, Anti-American sentiment isn't either. Wikipedia would fail in its efforts at NPOV if it deleted this one while leaving Anti-Americanism intact. There seem to be four just options:

  • Keep it, more or less as it is, and endure a not-quite-out-in-the-open debate between the two articles.
  • Incorporate it into a section in the Anti-Americanism article called "Arguments against Anti-Americanism" or "Responses to Anti-Americanism". It's hardly fair that there's no substantive section for the opposing view in the Anti-Americanism article, while there is for articles such as American exceptionalism.
  • Merge both articles into an Attitudes toward the United States of America article.
  • Delete both articles as unencyclopaedic.

My take is that either the second or the third option is the best one. The articles are natural and useful, so they shouldn't both just be deleted. --Atemperman 02:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

Pula (Romanian swearword)

Dictionary definition that's not even in English! -- Graham  :) | Talk 12:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mew glitch

This is a game guide entry. It can probably be fixed up and be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and deleted. Guanaco 17:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. This goes along with Mirror Coat - it, and any other relevant Pokemon articles could be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and merged into one Pokemon strategy article, then deleted here. PMC 18:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Wikibooks Pokemon game guide keeps sounding like a good idea. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:01, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the sound of that. 16:18, May 23, 2004
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, but worthy of Wikibooks. The Wikipedia Pokémon Team has plans for a Pokémon section at Wikibooks, last time I checked. Some of it seems to be covered in Missingno.. kelvSYC 02:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Hanyô, Hanyou, Hanyo, Hanyoo

They all redirect to the same page, the entire substance of which is "In the anime series Inuyasha, a Hanyô (Japanese: 半妖) is the product of a union between a Youkai and a human." Not only are there several misromanizations (in addition to the redirects listed above), but it seems unlikely this could ever be expanded. Redirect to the Inuyasha page and delete. Exploding Boy 00:53, May 23, 2004 (UTC)



Alt.tv.simpsons

Just a newsgroup, not important enough. Wyllium 18:46, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

  • Delete. Perhaps move some content to The Simpsons. Discussions of usenet troll wars, however, seems unencyclopedic. Satori 19:21, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; seems perfectly cromulent to me. Not information of great significance, but it's a decent article. --Ben Brockert :talk: 19:34, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Cromulent as in "Used in an ironical sense to mean legitimate, and therefore, in reality, spurious and not at all legitimate. Assumes common knowledge of the inherent Simpsons reference"? So was that a real vote to keep or a pretend one? Duncharris 20:32, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • No, that was an irony-free cromulent. Nigh on anemic. --Ben Brockert (:talk:) 22:34, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, or else alt.fan.uncle-davey will be next Duncharris 20:32, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with work. I don't see why articles on newsgroups shouldn't be suitable material. Just that not every newsgroup deserves one. Is there room for this material in the main Simpsons article, or would it get spun back out again? - David Gerard 21:00, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only really useful part is the reference to The Simpsons Archive, which is already reference in The Simpson. Discussions of USENET troll wars in general might be interesting--although I have the impression we have a plethora of material on this already. One particular incident in one particular newsgroup does not need its own article. Dpbsmith 21:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 23:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen more obscure articles on Wikipedia. blankfaze | &#9835 01:38, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good. Name a few, and i'll nominate them for VfD. --Jerzy(t) 04:58, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete - both the entry and the trolls are standard to any newsgroup. - Tεxτurε 02:17, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Simpsons & redirect (or delete). Rossami 03:09, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but re-write. The troll war is a *very* minor item compared to the newsgroup's overall history. a.t.s. has a very extensive and notable history (yes, I used to post to it when I was a regular newsgroup junkie), being one of the oldest and most significant. We're talking 15 year history here. Considering Wiki has entries on all computer games, arguments about a.t.s. not being significant enough because it's 'just a newsgroup' don't fly - I'll add to its history now. Krupo 03:16, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This information could be valuable to fans of the Simpsions. Acegikmo1 01:42, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redir, or merge & redir. Pointless. --Jerzy(t) 04:58, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Simpsons and redirect. The comic book guy reference seems interesting. Johnleemk 11:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbarton Harp F.C.

Vanity. Satori 18:52, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Black and White Space Marine on the Black and White Bike

Orphan. Sourcetext (possible copyvio). 4 hits for "There once was this Black and White Space Marine on a Black and White bike". Niteowlneils 19:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiversion

Relatively obscure dic def. Anything encyclopedic about it could probably go on the introversion and/or extroversion (which are barely more than dic defs themselves, mostly redeemed by being myers-briggs typs). Niteowlneils 20:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • There could be an article on this, but this isn't it. Work on, else delete - David Gerard 22:58, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, that's why it's marked "stub". Many other stubs aren't articles yet either. Should those be deleted as well? I'd say keep, if only because I think stubs give more initiative to improve it to a good article than an empty page does. Besides, listing it in "votes for deletion" less than 50 minutes after the page was created doesn't give it much change, does it? Abigail 12:36, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • True. A week should be enough time for it to become something worth keeping. - David Gerard 13:05, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Is this the only stub you are willing to give a week, or do you want to delete all stubs older than a week? Abigail 13:54, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not speaking of "all stubs," and didn't say I was. I'm speaking of this one. If you're so attached to it, you could edit it to make it better ... - David Gerard 14:15, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • I could understand someone who likes all stubs to be removed within a week. But you are focussing on this stub. Why do you want to delete this one, but not others? What makes this so special? And no, I'm not attached at all to this stub. But I'm not attached to most of the content on Wikipedia - that doesn't mean I support deleting it. Abigail 15:06, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • Not all stubs are equal by a long shot. And in any case, I've changed my mind about this one. - David Gerard 15:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not Cleanup - Lee (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you're right - this one should go to cleanup. - David Gerard 15:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move it to Wiktionary and delete. If/when someone has more content to write than this sub-stub, they can easily recreate the article. Note that the two far more relevant articles introversion and extroversion are themselves still stubs. Rossami 21:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it to Wiktionary and delete. The only stub whose deletability is relevant to this discussion is this one, for which no one has rebutted the argument that it cannot rise above stubdom. Even if it can, it will resurrect when introversion and extroversion have risen above stubdom. (They may take a long time to do so, but they clearly deserve the time, unlike this one.) --Jerzy(t) 05:27, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

Call of Duty: United Offensive

  • Keep. 219.88.80.77 added msg:vfd, I am just listing it here. Thue 22:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • As notable as any other random computer game. Keep. -- Cyrius|&#9998 23:28, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless it contains bogus information. Abigail 12:14, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Political terrorism

Either a copyvio or original research. RickK 23:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not an article, merely some observations. Use whatever is useful in other articles, then delete. Wyllium 23:45, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • This is CERTAINLY not a copyright violation. It is also published on my live journal (see 1dimensionalman, May23rd). Do you think I would publish unoriginal material in my journal? It is not meant to be an article, hence the title "notes on terrorism" - this is my first experience with wikipedia, i intend to improve that particular piece soon, as i am well aware how bland the page is.
    Best wishes.
    ODM.
    • Wikipedia is not a place for original research. RickK
  • Seems like "Political terrorism" could be a title for a genuine article, but that's something that this isn't. it's unformatted, unwikified, ugly, and uninformative. Either major cleanup, or delete. blankfaze | &#9835 01:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, you are right. Delete it promptly.
      Wishes. ODM.
  • Under the heading of don't bite the newbieWikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers, I'd like to suggest (and I will try myself) stubifying this article for now and thanking ODM for an honest first attempt. I found it a very interesting read, though very POV to be sure, and in need of wikifying. ODM, I hope you'll take the time to develop this into an encyclopedic form. Denni 01:24, 2004 May 25 (UTC) [Markup by Jerzy(t) 06:10, 2004 May 28 (UTC)]
  • I think too little consideration has been given to taking ODM at face-value. He says he wasn't trying to post an article, and that this is largely a misunderstanding. Are we so stove-piped now that we can't do anything but VfD decisions here, even if common sense requires we go a little off-topic? I request "unanimous consent to suspend the rules", and extension of this discussion for up to a total of 10 days (instead of the standard 5-day cycle), with the goal of finding an article-talk page that may not be perfect for his "notes", but will be more suitable than this page and Political terrorism. It may be interesting to see what it will lead to. ("Exhibit A" for this proposal is MediaWiki:VfD-Nalgene, where, about 30 hours ago, i spewed all sorts of crap that wouldn't belong in Nalgene onto that page (in lieu of Talk:Nalgene), which crap then morphed into a (so far) uniformly praised edit of the article.) I don't expect much to come out of the first 30 hours after the current contents of Political terrorism land on a suitable talk page, but 30, or 90, days may do wonders. --Jerzy(t) 07:46, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Since my first comment was not a vote, this one is: Keep. It needs work, but the basic concepts are worth retaining. Denni 18:14, 2004 May 28 (UTC)


Alphabetical List of Hoboken streets

Why? RickK 23:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Alphabetical list of Santa Clara, California streets. Whatever we do with Hoboken, let's do with Santa Clara. RickK 02:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

...The Press!

Article about an as-yet unreleased musical show. No notables involved. Advert ?

Guff

Dictionary definition. And wrong at that, because "guff" actually means "nonsense" and not "fart" as the article states. Thue 12:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad Jokes. Delete. - David Gerard 18:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • It can mean fart. delete, and anyone to rewrite for Wiktionary? Duncharris 19:13, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • It can mean fart where, exactly? Delete. Niteowlneils 20:00, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provisionally. Googling on "guff fart" yields 954 hits, mostly looking relevant and suggesting that the word really does have that meaning. As to where, the article says it's Scottish, and the Google hits seem to have reference to usage in the UK and Australia. Someone needs to check a reliable slang dictionary. I removed the unnecessary reference to the danger of ignition, since this is covered adequately in fart and lighting farts. We're left with a slang dicdef but, if verifiable, it's an interesting one which I hadn't known and am therefore reluctant to delete. Is this, in fact, the taboo origin of the legitimate word "guff, n, 1. Nonsense; baloney. 2. Insolent talk; back talk?" (AHD4) If so, defining "guff" as "baloney" has a certain appropriateness... Dpbsmith 20:41, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a Londoner (i.e. not Scottish) and I'm familiar with the word 'guff' meaning 'fart'. Im not sure it needs a Wikipedia entry, though, as it's always basically going to be a definition.Harry R 20:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've never heard 'guff' used to mean anything but 'fart', but the article has no value. Chameleon 12:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Ling Record

Similar to Wan Ling Record. This was contributed by a user who was only around for one day and added only quotes. This article consists entirely of, not surprisingly, a series of quotes. - Nat Krause 14:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a name of some Buddhist text [1] and this looks like a collection of quotes from it. I would be glad if Wikipedia had articles about Buddhist texts but they should be in encyclopedic style. Not collections of quotes without any explanation. Andris 14:52, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Chinese cannibalism

see also Talk:Chinese cannibalism

The page tries to justify the sporadic, isolated and fictitious occurences of cannibalism using grossly generalising indicative adverbs, such as "often", "in general", "mostly", "not uncommon" and sentences as "Unlike other civilizations, China has a rich history of cannibalism...relatively common in China" [intro]. . Readers will be induced to accept that cannibalism is a common practice in China. Ktsquare (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Double-plus-yuck. It's not accurate, Marco Polo reported that the Chinese of the time held the Japanese in contempt as "cannibals", and the practices described, except for a few of the (probably unnecessarily) gory details, all appear in other cultures. This could be NPOVed and verified if anyone has the stomach for it, but I very much doubt that we'd have an article worth keeping at the end of the process. Most likely we'd just then merge it into a sentence or two of History of China. So MWOT and delete. Andrewa 21:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into sentences of History of China and a small paragraph of Cannibalism. History is a mirror, isn't? ---yACHT nAVEL 22:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, sentences of Cannibalism, that's my stand. Why do we always care what other people think of China? ---yACHT nAVEL 23:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but merge with history article if any accurate and sourced info. Right now that's not much. The history of the original author leaves one doubtful of the intent. Fuzheado | Talk 00:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons others have given. Reliability of what's there is too questionable to merge into other articles. Anyone wanting to include this material has got to do fresh research starting from scratch, this isn't trustworthy even as a starting point. Dpbsmith 01:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orginal author of the article seems to leave aside crticial information from Kuwabara Jitsuzo's journal article which the article IMO seems to base on. Take a look of my commented article on the corresponding page. However, I still support the idea that the article must either be NPOVed or deleted. Ktsquare (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV and verify. If there is no progress within one week, then delete. If there is, then keep. --Jiang 02:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinions of just one Japanese historian don't deserve an article, for reasons Dpbsmith has given, until they are carefully justified by the academia and the public. Please refer to rule 10 of What_wikipedia_is_not#What Wikipedia entries are not Ktsquare (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know your presumably unusual definition of "primary research," but if you claim that Chinese cannibalism was only dealt by Kuwabara Jitsuzo, it's a total fallacy. There are numerous accounts, from academic papers including 支那人人肉ヲ食フノ説 by 神田孝平　(『東京学士院会雑誌』, 1881), to popular books like 呪われた中国人 中国食人史の重大な意味 by 黄文雄 and 食人宴席―抹殺された中国現代史 by 鄭義. I'm not familiar with western research, but Kuwabara Jitsuzo's article was to prove that an account of cannibalsim by muslim merchants Solayman and Abu Zayd. And Lu Xun even made cannibalism the symbol of Chinese legacy to be abolished. Did your remark come from a strategic reason, or don't you really know that? --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anythign can be salvaged merge to cannibalism and not anywhere else. The Land 15:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chinese cannibalism is an interesting topic for Wikipedia to deal with. There are numerous records of cannibalsim in official documents and fiction. It deserves an independent article. --Nanshu 02:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's a major part of history;it's more of a personal insult, like "I'm gonna eat your heart and liver"Wareware 03:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it as a paragraph of cannibalism. -Poo-T 26 May 2004
  • Keep. This is an intriguing, well-documented fact. It merits an independent section when someone could provide a lengthy, detailed information thereof. And stop deleting my vote. That's not fair. May 28, 2004. Hermeneus
    • IP w/ this as first edit. Do not count this vote. --Jiang 22:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? I've been using this place at least for three years now. "Learned cannibalism in China is different from cannibalism elsewhere. It is unique in the sense that it is an expression of love and hatred, and a peculiar extension of Confucian doctrine." "We need to remind ourselves that the Chinese people are not particularly different from the other races of the world as far as the practice of survival cannibalism is concerned. When it comes to learned cannibalism, however, its practice is quite different. Worthy of note here is the fact that some types of learned cannibalism are found only in China." (Key Ray Chong, Cannibalism in China. Longwood Academic: Wakefield, NH. 1990.) It's an established, traditional culture of China.
      • Sign for it? Wareware 04:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Your vote" was not deleted, because what was signed as Hermeneus was actually done by 222.1.42.161. I only asked that the real Hermeneus make the Hermeneus edit. Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into another larger category. So far, the "facts" mentioned in the article could only be minor incidents -- which, I believe, can be found in the whole human history. The famous cannibal criminal who ate his girlfriend in Germany many years ago, he happened to be a Japanese. But I won't conjure up an article and say "cannibalism is common in Japan." Also, the author's understanding of acient Chinese phrases is arguable -- many of which were actually fictional way of decribing things, not necessarily facts. However, I respect the work, so it should be under a sub-category of cannibalism and stop saying "it's common." Also, references, please. Djyang 15:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who complain that this article contains only minor events forget that the two sections "cannibalism during famine" and "cannibalism in besieged cities" are to be filled. Those minor incidents are adopted as examples chosen from numerous incidents. And cannibalism as a filial devotion to parents wasn't trivial. It was an established custom. Also, people's reactions to cannibalism (e.g. classifying Wang Ban into 孝義伝) say much to you. --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Liberation Act

Full text of a US law. Move to Wikisource. grendelkhan|(blather) 18:31, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

SchneersonQuotes

Delete. A set of quotes of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, late leader of Chabad Lubavitch. Or merge with his biography. Or move to Wikiquote (doubtful) JFW | T@lk 19:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yayhooray

Bad uninformative orphaned stub about a rather unimportant webpage (Alexa rank around 80.000 [2]). More wikispam than a noteworthy article. andy 19:53, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Uppercase Day

I don't see any relevant hits for this orphan. Niteowlneils 19:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I added the vfd header. RickK 02:35, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Who

Nothing there that could be useful. Pointless. Wyllium 22:53, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

May 25

Jason_Richey

a guy that works for Bomis, Jimbo's internet company. Not otherwise notable. Maximus Rex 00:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


CCITT X.409 '84

Gibberish. RickK 01:35, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mind if I stick my nose back in to say that I agree with you? - Lucky 6.9 01:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Orig res, if not tin-foil-hattery. --Jerzy(t) 01:59, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
  • I keep reading it, and it keeps almost but not quite making sense. Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:27, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like the output of a Markov chain. Abigail 14:29, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • [Visualizing Markov-chain chain-edit.] --Jerzy(t) 20:12, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incomprehensible, no links or references or background or context to make it possible to verify whether there's anything meaningful at all behind the bush where a gull calls, coming far, ending here. Finn again? Take, but softly memory till thousands are given the keys to a way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, by a commodius vicus of recirculation. Dpbsmith 16:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonense. Ellsworth 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Cyrius said, it seems on the verge of making sense, but it doesn't. Johnleemk 15:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon Oklahoma Music and BandwagonOK

  • Advertising. RickK 02:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gets about 50 hits on google, half of which appear to be attempts at selfpromotion on forums and guestbooks. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:25, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • This group has no historical or cultural significance and the information given is simply aimed at potential clientele/associates. Delete. HamYoyo|message me 00:20, 31 May, 2004 (BST)
  • Keep. Nonprofit site aimed at helping the music industry in Oklahoma. User:ZaKK

Tom Jackson


Windermere Real Estate

Seems to me like an advert for an undistinguished real estate company. blankfaze | &#9835 04:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


It's not an ad (I don't work for Windermere; I don't even work in the industry) and Windermere is not undistinguished. It's the best-known real estate company in the Pacific Northwest. I wrote this article because "Windermere Real Estate" is listed in the companies section of the Seattle article. (Note: We did decide that only companies headquartered in Seattle that do interstate business should be listed in that section, otherwise it could get unmanageably long.) --User Talk:Lukobe/User:Lukobe 04:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC) (Note added by Lukobe 17:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment: This is just the sort of thing on which we need a mini-policy. I'll be interested to see which way it goes, and will record it in WIWO when decided. Andrewa 07:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep this. It's not an advert--it simply provides information about the company. And said company appears to be fairly notable. Does anyone here doubt that more people have heard of Windermere than some Rambot towns, or math concepts, or whatever else you feel should be included? Meelar 13:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I agree with you; there are plenty more obscure articles. From just the info in the article, though, the company didn't appear to be distinguished. But I am not at all familiar with the Seattle area. And my apologies, Lukobe, for I should have checked What links here before listing it on VfD. I hereby retract my orginal complaint. blankfaze | &#9835 18:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Otherwise we'd need to set an arbitrary limit on when a company is big enough to be included and when not. And that will result in lots of bickering whether a company is on the right or wrong side of the limit. I agree with Meelar, if we don't exclude not well-known cases of other fields, why for companies? If someone takes the trouble to document something that isn't well known, does it harm Wikipedia to include it? I don't think so - in fact, I think that would only increase the overall quality of Wikipedia. Abigail 14:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning toward keep. The local white pages lists six offices including a brand new one not two miles from my house. - Lucky 6.9 17:05, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've tried to clarify its notability in the article. It has obliterated a number of older, previously well-established RE co's in Western WA, at least. Niteowlneils 18:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kyle Wilson

  • Delete - world renowned vanity page and advert for his website - Tεxτurε 05:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was painful to read. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:22, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought we had LiveJournal for this sort of thing. Delete. - David Gerard 07:25, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • He makes Shawn Mikula look like a good poet. Delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 13:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, how nice! He gave himself permission to post this. Delete swiftly on silent wings of extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, yeah, I really cracked up when I saw "Released with permission from Robert K. Wilson." Oh, and "Justification came next in the selfishness of yesteryear" ... haha, does that even MEAN anything? Move to Bad Jokes, or not, I could care less, but DELETE. blankfaze | &#9835 18:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You delete what you do not understand. 69.165.14.27 (signed on his behalf by Cyrius|&#9998 06:44, May 26, 2004 (UTC))
    • Delete. Large scale egos do not warrant inclusion. Genuine world reknown is required. Three google hits for the name, one of which is for someone dead for a century, four Teoma hits, including two dead and a local newspaper list of graduates. This indicates no reknown whatsoever. Average Earthman 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • You realize, of course, that most Wikipedia articles cover subjects that would be known only to relatively small numbers of people in particular parts of the world.. Everyking 16:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poetry is pathetic. The blog is even more pathetic. I wonder what the life is like? Delete yesterday. Denni 22:11, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I don't think it's necessary for people to include criticism of the poem or the poet when this is the place to discuss the worthiness of the article. MK 03:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, MK, but the poem is the article. He has also linked his blog to the "article", and Blankfaze does not exaggerate. If you open your living room door to people, you should not get upset if they comment on the mess. Denni 05:28, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

Haha, dunno if anyone else got this but someone left a message on my User talk page about this Robert Kyle Wilson case. I figured I'd share it with you all: blankfaze | &#9835 18:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am offended at your lack of taste. Mr. Wilson is a talented poet, as evidenced by his numerous speaking engagements across the midwest.
He is a poet and you can quote it.
E. Buell
Denison University

I got a personal note from the Bobber himself on my user page. It took me to task for the quality of my life, spending "all my time" as I do, working on a "virtual encyclopedia". There was more, but DELETE is such a darn handy key...Denni 22:27, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

I got one as well, claiming that I am "unable to recognize greatness when it smacks [me] in the mouth." -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:37, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
It gets better. I went back on Our Bobby's blog page [7] and it seems he's boycotting us and accusing us of "having too much time on our hands." That's the nice thing about working with a computer all day. I can work and have some fun here as well! - Lucky 6.9 23:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The lot of you does need to lighten up. What you are doing here is ultimately of little substantive importance, so don't take it, or yourselves, too seriously. However, I have found this "debate" to be quite entertaining. But enough is enough. You have my permission to delete the submission and move on to more important issues, such as debating the worthiness of grind punk bands from the early nineties. Go you!

Knowledge, in of itself, is meaningless, if not tempered by wisdom.

Attributed to Robert Kyle Wilson

I'm sorry that you feel that building a free multilingual encyclopedia for the world is unimportant. We'll let you get back to writing angsty poetry in the Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings style and publicly telling the world to go to hell twice a week. Sorry to have wasted your precious time. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:24, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • " I turn twenty-four in little over a month. Odds are I will buy myself a whore. But, instead of engaging in sexual intercourse, I will spend an hour berating here because she is ,in fact, a dirty, dirty whore. I can't wait till June 28th. " (from Robert Kyle Wilson's "self-effacing" ...uh-huh...blog). So, Robert, tempered by the wisdom of what? A wart? A chancre? A particularly obnoxious social disease? Hey, man, I'll miss you - this is one of the ways I lighten up - by taking the opportunity to slag obnoxious worms like you, with no feelings of guilt whatsoever! But alas! It's back to articles on Lincoln's shoes and chewing gum through the ages. At least it's "too much time" we have on our hands, and not something else, ifyaknowwhatI mean... Denni 04:27, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Once again, we of little "substantive importance" are granted permission, this time to delete his oh-so-unappreciated "article." And, he's now quoting himself in the third person. Bobby, go buy your hooker. Have a ball. And consider applying your quote to yourself. Oh, and don't forget the penicillin. You're too much fun to lose at such a tender age. - Lucky 6.9 17:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob, I tried to speak up in your defense. But your subsequent behavior isn't helping you any. By the way, you misspelled "pseudo-intellectuals" in your recent revision. MK 05:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Massage_Therapy_School_-_NMSNT

The text for this page was taken directly from the school's website verbatim. Additionally, an existing page (New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics) already existed for the school and was linked to from Albuquerque before this page was created. There seems to me to be little justification in having an article with a LESS descriptive name to replace a pre-existing article. --Abqwildcat 05:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Knut_Lyngar

vanity page. Name gets 6 google hits. Zoda, who wrote this page, is Knut Lyngar's nickname according to [8]. Maximus Rex 07:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've added "Non-syndicated radio disc-jockeys that haven't become a major news item due to controversy, etc. Out." to WIWO. Niteowlneils 19:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


True Magic

Article not written in encyclopedic style, looks like a copyvio, content is source text at best and even the name is POV. Please kill it. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping-stone democrat

Cap N1ne

Looks like vanity. Messy, unwikified deadend. Unworthy! blankfaze | &#9835 18:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Phartcore_metal

"Phartcore was coined by Kiyoshi Morgan, in 2004 to describe a previously undefined category of music..." No google hits. Maximus Rex 18:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if no evidence can be found - David Gerard 19:21, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No google hits. Thue 19:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it doesn't seem to be an established genre, and we have no way of knowing if it exists at all. Sounds like it was only intended as an insult to somebody. Everyking 21:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fart"core sounds like somebody's personal joke. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote against deletion of this genre because it obviously has some merit if it insights negativity towards it. I vote for keeping the genre as listed because there is nothing that suggest it doesn't exist. The explaination for fartcore has technicality to it and it shows the limited perspectives of other users who claim that "it doesn't exist". It is obvious that the entry was made to categorize a real group of genres, that were previously undefined. If grouping genres into a new genre is wrong, why are entries like Nu-Metal allowed to exist? Because you "Say" it is real? Again, I see no votes to remove many other musical genres which I find by default don't exist in of themselves. Some of those genre entries are based on misnomers and fallacies! Nu-Metal is not actually Metal for example. Fartcore, goes to describe something that "is as it is" instead of misleading someone to thinking its something else. SkunkHunt May 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is no such word as phartcore. If there were an article about fartcore, it might merit retention. RickK 23:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the entry into wikipedia is not an article of itself? There must be an outside reference to a document talking about Phartcore somewhere? If there was an article of such nature, then what? Is voting against this genre mainly due to negativity in realizing that it might actually be true? Should example bands be mentioned in the wikipedia entry of Phartcore? I still retract to my original vote against deletion on the basis that it actually categorizes without misleading, where as some genres are misleading even in their own naming. Misnomer, or fallacies aside, I think its funny to be so offended by the rationality behind it, however silly it may seem, I take it seriously to defend this entry. I however, conceed to the Wikicommunity if it were to be voted out. I did not intend the entry to be a joke, but if it can't be updated to be compliant with "merit for retention", and get some kind of positive response from someone, go ahead and delete it. I apologize that you had to read the entry in the first place. Thanks. SkunkHunt 23:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The votes against it are caused by the fact that we have no verification of its existence, and its name reads like a poorly disguised example of toilet humor. "Insights (sic) negativity" is not a valid reason to keep an article. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:00, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, for heaven's sake! SkunkHunt, please take a moment to read the article assuming that you didn't write it in the first place. One person just coined the phrase, possibly as an insult or inside joke. There is no such thing as "phartcore metal" outside this discussion, and this probably should be speedily deleted as patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 00:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
"no such thing as "phartcore metal" outside this discussion" is an assuming statement. Outside this discussion, discussions occured with other people involving the discovery of Phartcore. You dismiss this possibility when you say there is no such thing as this discussion. How is that possible if I am here today to discuss it with you. I didn't just make it up at the spir of the moment. It was something I heard someone talking about at a music store. Until I can find some documentation to verify its existence, I'll just have to accept your determination about what I know exists or doesn't exist. SkunkHunt 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We're all voting to delete this thing because we're afraid it might be true. Your contention is ludicrous. RickK 01:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that the title is encyclopedic. The current contents appear to be an attempt at humour, which leads me to guess so is the title. Andrewa 01:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that its "all of you versus me" on this one. I did however state facts to verify the existence of this genre, and if it is "an attempt at humor" like you say so, then so is "Nu-Metal" ... "Rapcore" and every other non-true or misleading genre. Why? Merely because I said so? Not really. I concede. Delete the phartcore metal genre from wikipedia, I'm sorry that you can't see at all in a serious light why this category was discovered. SkunkHunt 11:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Orphan, at least article-wise. Zero hits on both Yahoo and Google for "Phartcore metal". Niteowlneils 15:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dunc Harris | Talk 17:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Skunkhunt, but it seems you do not exist. You are merely a product of your own imagination, but since an imagination can only be a product of a concrete intelligence, then even your illusion of existence is only an illusion. You are, in fact, nothing more than the projection of an article composed entirely of moving electrons, insubstantial in and of themselves, which have coalesced to form the illusionary words phartcore and skunkhunt. When this article has been deleted, your illusion of your illusion will also cease to exist, but you, being nonexistent, will be unaware of that moment. You may be offended by the rationality behind it, however silly it may seem, but you ought to take it seriously enough to delete this entry. Denni 22:29, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
  • Utterly brilliant (and hilarious) as always, Denni. May I direct your attention a little farther down the page to the happy discussion we're having about "Toas?" Your remarkable insight would be greatly appreciated. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I don't exist is an example of the dogma you guys are giving me. I will have proof to end this "vote for deletion" soon enough. SkunkHunt 22:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research. What is with the long drawn-out rambles on this page lately, anywho?

User:195.93.34.12/message

I have fixed the bad formatting that was disallowing this mediawiki message from appearing properly, can someone please now state their justification for listing this page here? Thanks. -- Graham  :) | Talk 21:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_Anderson

Stuffology

Patent nonsense. Meelar 20:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Trosh

A Trosh is a small weevil made out of carbord. It has only one purpose, to hang on a tree during christmas. No meaningful google hits for 'Trosh' and 'christmas'. I don't get why it links to that website. I am listing it here because the author deleted my msg:delete. Thue 21:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that a trosh is used at christmas to hang on a christmas tree. That site used to have info about the decoration but it seems to have changed, I'll take off the link.

Toas

Blatant ad for a martial arts school in Pensacola. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Blatand ad? Toaism is real and this entry as made to avoid confusing with Taosim, also real. The link to the founder of Toas Kung Fu is only helpful because their site more accurately describes Toas. It's not an ad. If you find other Taos Kung Fu schools you can add them to the list. How does you claiming this is an ad make it not worthy of being entered into the wikipedia? Again, this is a claim against the validity of an entry that has merit. What of Aikido? Would you not want any links to schools be provided for that entry? What is the logical sense in denying an entry like this? SkunkHunt 23:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. This is not the yellow pages. One doesn't come here looking for information on specific martial arts schools. Nor is it an advertising repository. Ads get kicked off of this site all the time. If this was an article about Toas Kung Fu, you'd have no argument here assuming that there is widespread use of the art. Since this, IMO, meets none of the criteria for inclusion, it should go. It's not even a good list, as you suggest. This article is highly point-of-view, totally non-encyclopedic and is about a totally unnoteworthy martial arts school. - Lucky 6.9 00:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes as "widespread use of the art" ? Obviously there has been some widespread use if the art made its way all the way to here from Persia. I guess this is being overlooked while the entry is being judged. Like I stated before, I guess it wouldn't be cool if the founder of Aikido was listed in his art, or some of his endorsed schools. You calling it an 'ad' does not make it an ad. That is that. And your claim that the school is "unnoteworthy" is just your opinion and not a fact. Do some research into the topic as I have done. That is the reason why I made the entry. Did you know that some people are confused between Toas and Taos? I noticed Toas wasn't in wikipedia and added it. Is there a popularity contest that I don't know about? SkunkHunt 11:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Widespread?!? The only hits on Google that connect with "Toas Kung Fu" link directly back to the school. Period. And, since a great deal of my job is devoted to developing advertising and marketing, I believe that I'm exceptionally well-qualified to identify an advertisement. This school does not warrant an encyclopedia entry, nor does it warrant blatant free advertising. Why do you insist on defending these articles? - Lucky 6.9 17:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Again, this is just you saying its an advertisement. I'm sorry that you cannot accept it as a real martial art. That is purely your own opinion and interpretation. However, I guess if you want to be ignorant to it, go ahead and delete Toas, erase it from wiki, but you won't erase the fact that "it actually exists". I'm sorry if you are intimidated by the fact that it is real. I am not in denial about that though, however. That is why I made this entry. Again, your word against mine. Oh well! SkunkHunt 23:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Toaism is real and this entry as made to avoid confusing with Taosim, also real." Well, Taosim must be real. It gets 914 Google hits, and appears to be a simulacrum of the actual religion of Taoism. It may therefore be necessessary for an article to exist distinguishing between these two shadow-reality concepts. I would recommend articles also on Taismo, Tismao, and Tsimoa for the same reason. However, most people should be able to distinguish readily between Toaism and Amotsi, Sitamo, and Maoist. I can also understand the difficulty some people have with Toas and Taos. I mean, one's an alleged martial art and the other's a popular ski resort. SO easy to confuse. Denni 06:12, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I just knew I could count on you, but you forgot to mention "Aitsmo." Easy mistake. One more comment: Persia hasn't been called "Persia" for a long time. The proper name is Iran which, as everyone knows, is a hotbed of Far Eastern martial arts practices. - Lucky 6.9 18:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having held his Toas to the fire for a bit, I figured I'd let him off on this one. Besides, I was assuming he meant Persia, Ohio, a "city" of some 350 residents just a spit and a whistle west of Des Moines, where each and every individual is a licensed killing machine, I should think.(And I left out Masito, Moista, Tomisa, Saimto and Ostima just because.) Denni 22:31, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

I ask everyone here to examine Tai Chi Chuan and THEN tell me its not okay to have links to a school. Is "Toas" being hypocritically ostracized? ... SkunkHunt 23:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. More like "forcefully ejected." 24.65.177.33 19:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome War Relocation Center

Tarppy

To quote the article: "A special and local term used in The University of Hong Kong ONLY". Unimportant, unverifiable. Fredrik 22:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Ulrike Köhler and Jochen Köhler

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old&oldid=3796414"