Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sverdrup (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 27 March 2004 (=Human basic need= *Keep. I think we can make something out of it. I just need to find a source (in my bookshelf, for example) and maybe I could do something more about it. ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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: 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th
Front Matter
Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

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

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

Decisions in progress

Ongoing discussions

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)
  • Merge any useful text into Ijma and delete without redirect. The article is not about religious rights, but about ijmā', a process of Islamic jurisprudence. It is very POV though and needs verification of facts, etc. —Tkinias 01:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved the text from this article to Talk:Ijma. Delete. Tkinias 04:36, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • 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)
  • Delete, serious POV problem. In English, this is a tendentious coinage. Smerdis of Tlön 15:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Would you remove an article on junkie for the same reason? However, I would support Wile's proposal, because a websearch shows it is common in English usage. Denni 02:30, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Taku 23:48, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with RickK. PMC 04:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Tendentious or not, it is a word (and Scandinavians speak a whole lot of English, so geographically localized use does not mean non-English) —Tkinias 04:39, 27 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)
        • 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)
  • 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 [2]. 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)


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

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

Really? Who wrote 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)
    • It was great stuff Trebor! I hope you hang around! best wishes --Erich gasboy 08:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Synthetic Dream Foundation

Vanity page that self-promotes beyond Brett's own web site. May his dreams come true. ( traceroutes to ISP in Tampa, stated location of Brett=TSDF from ) -- 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)
  • Keep. I'm no underground-music junkie, but I'd heard of their first album. +sj+ 15:38, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • More info: also edited 11 articles of music styles to include this solo project - all reverted. Many of the google links seem to be self-listing directories (e.g. [3]), which could be how the contributor saw Wikipedia. I cannot find the cited movie through Google or Sundance. The project's own bio page [4] states that Brett has begun to be contacted by people in 2004 for work which is claimed to have been done for years. If "Juilard" is the NYC college, Brett seems to only have lived in OKC and Tampa recently [5]. The music is unlikely to be "a mainstay of the German and Scandinavian club scene". The uploaded music to does seem to have found some fans, but I cannot tell whether that reached the magic 5000 sales level (see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies). The inclusion of this article currently seems to also breach Wikipedia:Verifiability and possibly Wikipedia:Auto-biography. If there is a consensus to keep, I will clean up the page, but 90% of the original seems unverifiable / promotional ficton. -- Zigger 03:31, 2004 Mar 27 (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)
  • 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.) 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)
  • If this were an issue of space restriction, there might be some point in merging two similar items such as these. However, Wikipedia is not shelving-challenged. I say keep the article on Irish breakfast with a See also:. It might also be worth having a List of regional breakfasts, since Wiki is still woefully lacking a useful index. Denni 19:42, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
    • It's not about space restrictions, it's about most helpful way of presenting material to our readers. See above. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I say just redirect to Irish whiskey and be done with it. Smerdis of Tlön 04:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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}}}|message with id '{{{1}}}']] ([[mediawiki talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]), 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. --Jiang 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. --Jiang 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 ([6], [7], [8] [9]). 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)
  • Keep. Famous individuals who did numerous notable things. anthony 21:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just because the incident is (in)famous, that doesn't make the individuals involved famous as well. -- Cyrius 04:35, Mar 26, 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)
  • Delete. Utter nonsense. A theory espoused by pyramid wearers. I regret that A. Earthman used up the entire daily quota of 'pseudoscientific rot', because I'd have liked to have been able to apply a few here myself. Denni 19:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense and not even a coherent belief system; total fabrication. Would be an orphan save for a link from Vampire lifestyle. +sj+ 15:59, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
    • Actually, for those interested, I came upon it around the same time I found out all the stuff about vampire cultists. Some of them seem to worship it as some manner of faith... Falcon 06:07, Mar 27, 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. --Jiang 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)
Seconded. Delete Featurecandidate. +sj+ 16:11, 2004 Mar 26 (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)


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)
  • Keep Frogs' legs, delete Frogs' --ssd 04:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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)
  • Keep, but I reserve that it's dumb that the South Park spinoff gets more space devoted to it than the original Dickens character. Ashibaka 03:22, 26 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)


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)
  • 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.[10] 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)

Keep. Irrelevant reasons for deletion. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 12:49, 27 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)


  • 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)


  • 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[11]. (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)


  • 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)


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


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)
  • The correct spelling is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. See [[12]] 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)
  • Keep, redirect Denni 20:01, 2004 Mar 25 (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)


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
      • That's 3 delete and 4 keep as disambiguation, because it's a disambiguation article already. There is no redundancy because Assassins is a proper title, not a plural. Disambiguation on article pages should be limited to cases where there's only one other meaning, or pointing at a proper disambiguation page. Redirecting a mislink on Assassins (musical) that goes to Assassins to Assassin is not a desirable behavior. -- Cyrius 14:08, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but that's a bit pedantic, isn't it? It's a letter 's'. Empires have never risen and fallen on the strength of a single letter. The Assassin page alreadylinks to both the movie at the play - they don't need a seperate page. The only time disambiguations are needed IMHO is with multiple subjects of equal stature - I think the ideological killer part is generally seen as a bit more important than the musical or the Sly Stallone movie... "motivated" as his acting may be. On Assassin, we can just move the links to those two to the top from the bottom, as they should be, combine it all, and redirect assassins, hence the proposal. Quick, easy, and we don't set up a precedent that if someone pluralizes something it deserves its own page.
  • 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



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)
  • 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)
  • Delete all. What a mess. Caps are inappropriate in the titles, even for a redir. If any significant information was added and has been merged elsewhere or justifies an article under the correct name, then we may need to merge histories, but the one I checked was just the name of a victim and I hope they are all like it. I can't see any point in my checking the others as the underthanked sysop who cleans all this up will need to check them anyway. Andrewa 20:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • 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)
  • Keep as stub. Niteowlneils 02:51, 26 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. [13] -- Friedo 06:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Hankwang 10:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can always be resubmitted after the Nobel Award ceremony. Denni 20:32, 2004 Mar 25 (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)
  • Keep as stub. Niteowlneils 02:47, 26 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Reform the article, keep the title! We should name things what they are, a betrayal will always be a betrayal, no matter how much you try to "NPOV" it. But I agree that the article needs much care. Kpalion 22:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it under the same title. 1) Most people in Poland share this view. 2) It was true after all — Central Europe was given away to Soviets (who started the damn WW2) in Yalta. Taw 12:59, 26 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)
      • Well, the drivel can in extenso be expelled to the talk page, and the article itself stubified, but the topic merits an article. If it's single-POV, then make it NPOV.--Ruhrjung 00:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I have to say that I vigorously object to your characterization of the article as "drivel". Not having been involved on it myself, I cannot speak to the goings-on during its authorship, but it IS a crucial issue, if a divisive one! My God, if anything the association between Nazism and Socialism has been sullying the name of socialism for decades, when the two clearly have very little in common. It's very much like the association between liberalism and communism; for far too long one has been interchanged, mistaken, mixed-up and confused with the other, and that is most definitely something that MUST BE ADDRESSED. He who forgets the past shall be damned to repeat it, I need not remind. Wally 06:42, 27 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)
  • Keep only after merciless editing. "Some opinions..."? Gee, sounds awfully POV to me! It is certainly a good topic, but Tkinias's point is on the money as well. Denni 20:40, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is one page that really indicates how people without any background in a particular subject can force a ridiculous position on us simply by waving an NPOV banner. However, neutral point of view does not mean that any ignorant doggerel is to be valued. It means that we cannot take sides between two conflicting points of view with solid basis in well-established positions. Get rid of this crap. Danny 01:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done a complete rewrite of the article, essentially deleting everything there and starting from scratch. What is thought of this? john 07:06, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it's been reverted, but check it out in the history. If there is any support for it, I'll revert back. john 07:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Your version was 99% less crap-laden. It was an article rather than a debating forum. It's doomed. -- Nunh-huh 07:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the re-write by John. It is an excellent overview of the debate about similarities between socialism and Nazism. It even reflects relevant aspects of the debate on Wikipedia. And, what is more, it is NPOV. Sunray 16:59, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. The re-write by John is a work of art indeed. Move to place on excellent prose? ;-) Kim Bruning 17:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important to understand the context of important, if infamous, aspects of history. Best arguments above to keep really are arguments to give even more context, and perhaps a name change. Kd4ttc 22:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. relevant topic. -- Taku 23:51, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very relevant (especially since the Nazi Party was the "National Socialist Party). Jacob1207 15:21, 27 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)
  • Delete—it's a spoof. The names Goquex and Francoix are pretty clearly parodies of type of names appearing in Asterix comics. —Tkinias 11:59, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Try pronouncing that name, it sounds like "Sick Jokes". 15:40, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fx-7400g plus

  • Calculator models? I don't know... I feel like having a stub on every calculator is not useful - better to have an article that describes the history of the development of the calculator, or even, if we must, one articel that lists all calculators and an article for particularly notable ones. 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)
    • Comment: I'm still not ready to vote in this, but I do want to say that two of those arguments are invalid. We can list every type of calculator, camera, every weapon calibre and so on. It's more we don't want to. Perhaps this is mere pedantry, but my second objection is important. We do want to list important (not necessarily just famous) calculator models (if such exist) just as we list important people. The question is, where and how do we draw the line? Andrewa 23:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia does not need wallspace. If it's of enough interest for one person to write an article about, there are probably a hundred who are interested in reading about it. Besides, as an unabashed calculator junkie, I agree with Everyking. Denni 20:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

::The problem isn't that we'd run out of space, but that each one would be a stub (as this one is). A list, with occasional articles about particularly interesting ones, would be fine, but this one is not that interesting. Dozens of articles each saying "This was a calculator that was a variant of another calculator" doesn't tell you anything, but a well structured articele about the development of them might, if anyone was interested in doing more than simply listing the fact that it exists. Mark Richards 00:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That, and we have to judge labor concerns here as well. If it can be agreed that SOMEONE is going to do it - and I think, reasonably, it can - then that someone who does do it will more likely be doing that just so it's done, and not be working on an article that is more important, such as Assassin (shameless plug). The precedent is rather staggering; do we really want open season to have work diverted from every project so that every dumpster, toaster and lawn chair model has its own article? Space may be unlimited, but manpower is not, and we have entire countries whose history, culture and politics are sketchy. Unless the calculator has an army, it can wait, methinks. Wally 06:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Mark Richards: keep only the significant/notable models. There isn't a need for an article for every calculator. whkoh [talk][[]] 09:22, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename to Casio Calculators and make it a section there. A list of all the calculators by a manufacturer would be of use. The article is pretty small. Eventually with a bunch of casio calculators there would even be reason for analysis on the line. At least put the name Casio in the article so searches on "Casio" would pick it up. Kd4ttc 23:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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. --Jiang 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)
      • YMMV, but I don't see much about "human rights" in the doing of the Landsmannschaften. But that discussion would belong onto the talk pages for the articles, as in making them NPOV. BTW: I'm a German ... -- till we *) 12:53, 27 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 [14]. 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.

Michael Theodoridis

  • Already exists at Sep11. Angela. 02:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete.--Jiang
  • 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)
  • Keep. anthony 21:57, 25 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.--Jiang 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. --Jiang
  • 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
  • Note from Jimbo: It is my opinion that this is solely a matter of internal policy, and not a legal risk in any way, shape or form. If it were true that we were violating some law or court order by publishing this information, that would be at least a valid point in favor of deletion. But this is the sort of thing that is absolutely central to the First Amendment, and there are no legal issues at all for us in this case. Having said that, I think that there are some serious questions of professionalism here, and I agree with Fuzheado when he says "It's a tough call." If I were voting, and I'm not, I would vote to delete or at the very least redirect to a page titled 'Kobe Bryant accuser' or similar. But since we don't have a formal policy (yet), and since there is no legal issue at stake, we will defer to the usual procedures of VfD. Jimbo Wales 18:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • 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 [15]. I've no words of wisdom at this time on the issue. It's a tough call. Fuzheado 10:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • "could cause Wikipedia to be shut down" combined with a speedy delete sounds like FUD, since it seems nobody has bothered to support this notion. Can anybody? silsor 22:05, Mar 25, 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? [[16]]
  • 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)
    • AFAIK, there is no legal reason to remove this page, unless it is illegal in the entire United States or in the state where the Wikipedia servers are located to disclose this information. silsor 18:05, 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)
  • I don't know if I should even comment not having heard of Kobe Bryant, never mind his accuser. However I don't think he should be used as a way of getting round the privacy laws protecting (alleged) rape victims - which is what I understand this case to be about. So therefore delete. Secretlondon 18:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure where I should be mentioning this, but the page just resurfaced with a name as the title. It had much less info than the article under discussion. Content was: "The woman accusing Kobe Bryant of rape." Since there's no consensus right now, I speedily deleted it. Hope that's ok. moink 19:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Another factor to be considered is that this woman apparently has been threatened by people who regard themselves as Kobe Bryant supporters. Publicizing her name could increase these threats. MK 19:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The information is already public. silsor 22:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • The fact that other sources have made the information public doesn't mean this website has to publicize it. MK 04:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It should also be noted that several women with similar names have been harrassed because semi-reputable websites misreported her name. If we can correct factual errors that are running rampant on the net, IMHO, we should do so. The practice of not releasing the names of alleged rape victims in the news media is only a custom in the US news media, not a practice mandated by law. This case has led a number of media outlets to call into question the wisdom of this policy. After all, her hometown, school, past relationships, employment history and sexual history have all been widely reported in the mainstream media. With all that being broadcast openly in the mass media, is her name really that much more? -- Seth Ilys 14:58, 26 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)
  • Delete. Taku. Instead of this, probably we could have an article translator or something.

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:, 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)
  • Delete if not verified. Fennec 14:45, 26 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)
      • Keep and post to cleanup. I now have a personal reply apologising for the automated reply, and saying he's happy to abide by our decision on whether he's notable, and that while he has edited the article he didn't create it. The MediaLens website acknowledges him as one of its three creators, as does our article on it. I think he at least scrapes in on this alone. Some other possible claims to fame but that's the best IMO. Andrewa 22:56, 25 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)
  • Delete. Nonfamous. Warofdreams 16:15, 25 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)
  • Delete. This is a great work. You know it's much harder to write nonsense than something making some sense. -- Taku 06:27, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Information ecology

  • Delete. See above. --Wik 01:56, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Cyrius | Talk 19:40, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Taku 23:53, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have made an hopefully useful stub out of the article, and I'm pretty sure that information ecology is a term that will become part of academic language in different disciplines and should be defined on Wikipedia, but not as part of some-ones personal esoteric project. -- till we *) 13:13, 27 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. Now good stub. Andrewa 05:56, 27 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)


  • Substub. Gentgeen 16:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Sirniki. Andrewa 16:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well done team. Question of title should be resolved on the article's talk page, with redirect from the rejected one. Andrewa 23:21, 26 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 no 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)
      • Sounds reasonable for an exception. Perhaps cases like this should be reflected in the policy. Guess I wasn't hungry when I made my suggestion. --Humus sapiens|Talk 19:51, 25 Mar 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)


  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Could easily be NPOVed if bullet points are turned into short paragraphs describing arguments for and against these being basic human needs. Keep. Warofdreams 16:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, but define fist the terms "basic", "human", and "need", and prove that these needs are specifically human and not for, say, a dog, who also needs shelter, food, appreciation, etc. Mikkalai 18:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs sounds about the same to me. This entry doesn't seem to justify itself. Ansate 00:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (or rename as basic human needs). Useful concept, could be made NPOV, and isn't the same as Maslow's. -- till we *) 13:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think we can make something out of it. I just need to find a source (in my bookshelf, for example) and maybe I could do something more about it. — Sverdrup 15:51, 27 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 [17] 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)
  • Move to BJAODN. -- ChrisO 16:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Ad for a software product. - DavidWBrooks 20:50, 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)
  • Delete. Person doesn't seem to exist. Sander123 14:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - probably fictional -- Cyrius | Talk 19:45, Mar 26, 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)
  • Keep. Taku 09:36, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)


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)
            • If you're typing it once, then it's not hard to type. If you're typing it a bunch of times (for whatever reason), then use cut and paste. As it is 'dab' is too obscure, while 'disambig' is a simple truncation. -- Cyrius 20:16, Mar 25, 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)

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)
  • Keep - being an article about food does not require exile to Wikibooks:cookbook -- Cyrius | Talk 19:49, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Vinod Scaria

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

  • Comment. Doesn't seem made-up, but I'm not sure how notable (searching just the name gets well over 1,000 hits). Trying to filter out self-contributions, "Vinod Scaria" -"owned by Vinod Scaria" -"Scaria All" -Wikipedia "posted by" still finds over 100 hits. Niteowlneils 16:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Certainly not made up. Raises interesting cross-cultural issues. I'm tending towards keep although in a sense it is self-promotion. Difficult to evaluate. Andrewa 21:38, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Google hits mean nothing, my name gets several hundred. Obvious from the article that he's not notable. We don't need articles on editorial board members of every journal in existence. -- Arvindn 08:06, 27 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 [18] 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)
  • Keep. It's a real thing. --Tagishsimon

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. 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 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)
  • Keep. It's not great and still a bit of an advert but much better than it was. Of interest to Nintendo players perhaps. -- Derek Ross 15:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (well, I'm leaning towards "keep"). Given the edit activity on this article since its inception I get the distinct impression that the website is some sort of "troll heaven" and I think it would be useful for people considering using the site to have this issue covered here in an NPOV manner. (However I've seen no mention of this facet in the article yet, though I admit I've only skimmed it.) - Hephaestos|§ 17:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. EarthBound is enough. whkoh [talk] 09:34, Mar 26, 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)
  • redir to AIDS reappraisal. Niteowlneils 16:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've redirected. No need to delete.--Ruhrjung 00:12, 26 Mar 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. Now that a few more cities have been found (I thought there was only the one), I change my vote - keep. Ambivalenthysteria 12:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unneccesary, will never have content. Warofdreams 15:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. For consistency we should have a list per nation. — Sverdrup 19:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also, I've added the 5 others from the CIA world factbook map. Niteowlneils 02:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Consistency is nice. The cities may not be large, but they are the main settlements on the island. —Bkell 03:00, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - consistency is a good thing when you don't have to do something stupid to achieve it. -- Cyrius 04:50, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. But if the page does stay, it should be renamed to something like "List of communities in Niue". MK 04:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe; are these incorporated as cities? Sometimes defined cities can be quite small. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article, though I agree that a renaming may be in order. They are the principal settlements and deserve an article, but calling them "cities" may be misleading. pne 17:02, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've found sites that list 17 and 21 total cities/towns for Nuie, so presumably these are the bigger ones. I also found this map with 25 named cities/towns/villages[19]. Niteowlneils 01:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • 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. Quite right. But have a look at the original and you'll see what I meant. Charmed is not mentioned. Now a good article. Andrewa 02:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • That's why I said it was badly written. -- Cyrius 04:51, Mar 26, 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)
  • Keep. Not a good article, but should improve. Subject seems encyclopedic. Warofdreams 15:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same author keeps contributing Charmed characters and they seem to be listed here regularly. They need cleanup, but not deletion. RADICALBENDER 16:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


  • Tagged as speedy delete, but probably not so. --Jiang 07:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef, seems unlikely to expand. Warofdreams 15:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Cyrius 20:19, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


  • Tagged as speedy delete, but probably not so. --Jiang 07:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and list on cleanup if existence is verifiable. Warofdreams 15:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. I can find multiple pages that confirm his reign even if it was brief. EG[20] Niteowlneils 17:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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)
    • Delete it, mate. Stands to reason redir is Sydney to a bob to give people a real bum steer as to what you blokes meant. I mean think of it, just because ratshit might be strine, now that doesn't make strine ratshit, does it? And fair go, are you about to make a redir for every slang term under the sun? What is this, bush week? At the very least, say rs instead, there may be sheilas around. Andrewa 23:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • That was neat! What language was it? -- Cyrius 04:58, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • Strine, aka occer, is the dialect of spoken Australian English that Fred Dag and Paul Hogan both used to great comic effect. The word was popularised (but not invented) in the title of the book Let Stalk Strine, and is an attempt to phoneticise the local (!) pronunciation of "Australian". I do know people, both city and country, who speak like this normally and with no intent of humour, in fact I believe Paul Hogan is a native speaker, that's what is so funny. And I'm serious about no redir, I think it's mildly offensive and unnecessary. Put it in the article by all means. No big deal, just my opinion. Andrewa 21:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • My question was intended as a joke :) -- Cyrius | Talk 01:36, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure there's anything worth merging, probably redir if not delete. Warofdreams 15:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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)
  • Keep. Agree with Jfdwolff. Warofdreams 15:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I respect your intentions, Jfdwolff, and I'd be in favor of keeping if the article actually contained some of the philosophy surrounding questions, as it stood (before today's addition of the silly "famous questions" list) it was hardly even a stub, in my opinion. Just a dictionary definition, and not a particularly enlightening one at that. Sorry.--Woggly 15:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems more like a dictionary definition. Sander123 15:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not think a page which may include a good study on to be or not to be, that is the question, ought to be deleted. Keep and let's hope someone will improve it. Pfortuny 15:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's nothing there. If anybody decides they want to do a philosophical treatment of questions, they can make a new one. -- Cyrius 20:22, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and list on cleanup. Good topic, some good material and some mistakes, already more than a stub. Andrewa 23:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of famous questions

  • links only
  • Delete. 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)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. RickK | Talk 15:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original humour by various anons. Very funny, there should be a place for this but it ain't us. Consider protecting if the VfD notice goes AWOL again. Andrewa 16:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • D. Don't forget to add it to BJAODN — Sverdrup 19:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Tuf-Kat 21:31, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. - Fennec 01:59, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The (anonymous) user who made this is some sort of loon. Check out his edits in "Question" and an admin's user talk. Ashibaka 03:17, 26 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)
  • Keep. Looks a lot like the perfect stub. Warofdreams 15:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, now a good stub. Earlier versions were deletable however as substubs IMO. Andrewa 16:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub -- Cyrius 20:25, Mar 25, 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)
  • Delete immediately - Why should we give them a week's free exposure ? This is an obvious, no apology advert. -- Derek Ross
  • Delete. Advert by anon, no history. IMO speedy is the way to go, but I guess we're still not agreed on this. Andrewa 17:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it twice for being such a terrible ad. -- Cyrius 20:28, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless seriously, seriously cleaned up. -- Fennec 02:04, 26 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)
    • See his photos. Don't you see the spiritual energy arround his head? He is chosen by God to spread the truth to us. Jt3 15:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is about facts, not about the truth. Fennec 15:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, if it stays cleaned up. Fennec 16:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Darn. It was cleaned up earlier, and it's gotten worse. Delete if this keeps up.
  • Delete, along with the patent nonsense articles created from links on this one. - UtherSRG 15:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The man has written a book (which is more than some). Let's try for an NPOV article before deleting. DJ Clayworth 15:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You are right, but there will come a time when not having written a book will be more common than the contrary, I fear. Just kidding :) Pfortuny 15:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Tsatsaris has appeared in London and Stuttgart. He published books in New York. His books are being read by millions of spiritual seekers worldwide. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Jt3 15:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article can be turned into something useful. I haven't found a single reference to him in the mainstream media, so I have some doubts about how well known he really is. -- ChrisO 16:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I say keep. People who have devoted followers who go onto Wikipedia and write articles about them and their teachings probably reach some threshold at which we can consider them minor religious figures who warrant inclusion. Everyking 17:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What followers? I think Jt3 is the man himself: Ioannis Tsatsaris -> Joannis Tsatsaris -> JT. He is clearly not famous. His website doesn't appear to be linked from anywhere else, according to Google [36]. He's never been mentioned on Usenet [37]. There appear to be no websites about him other than his own [38]. With such a total lack of any prominence (heck, I'm more prominent than that!) he clearly falls into the non-famous category. I think this is just a case of personal self-promotion. -- ChrisO 18:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, could be. I'm inclined to be generous, though; he has published a book, hasn't he? Everyking 20:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, less than 2 pages of relevant google hits. Also delete redirects Epistos Publications and The Revelation After Ioannis - Deus Ex 19:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If a Greek speaker reads this, could they check out the page that describes his press and TV appearences for us (link on Talk:Ioannis G. Tsatsaris) DJ Clayworth 19:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: personal promotion, crankery. User:Jt3's edits are all IGT articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I return more search engine hits. No, really. RADICALBENDER 05:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - RadicalBender returns more hits. No, really. -- Cyrius 05:06, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopædic and probably a vanity article. &amp;mdash;Psychonaut 15:55, 26 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)

  • Delete. This could be good page. But I don't see the point of this. Sander123 15:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless fixed up. Fennec 16:16, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Page has been changed to redirect to car safety. Keep redirect -- Cyrius 20:09, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Andrewa 02:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, keep redirect. Fennec 14:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spofi Interviews

Huh? It's junk. -- user:zanimum

  • Delete- possibly merge. It links to SpoFi, which should itself redirect to SportsFilter, which also looks questionable (but cleanup-type questionable, not VFD). Other links include red-broken-links and a copyvio or two. Fennec 16:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and look seriously at SportsFilter. This series of articles promotes a particular weblog site which claims 1,000 members. So, do we also list every Yahoo group as soon as its membership hits 1,000? How about individual usenet groups? Andrewa 16:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete ad -- Cyrius 05:09, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I got this last night from the creator of the article...

Hey Zanimum --
Being the person that created and built the content for most of the SportsFilter related stuff, I just wanted to drop you a line and say go ahead and delete. Being new to the Wiki scene, I/we hadn't realized the nature of this site. We weren't using Wikipedia for self-promotion, just wanted to have a source for new members to come to to learn a bit about the site. Sorry for being a pain in the ass. We're now looking at building and hosting our own Wiki on our site. Thanks and again, apologies.
Ufez Jones.

NOTE: The following votes are each taking place in their own MediaWiki space text. This is an experiment to try to cut down on edit conflicts and make maintenance easier. Thank you for your co-operation



First 100000 digits of pi

Template:VfD-First 100000 digits of pi

Will Schlitzer

Template:VfD-Will Schlitzer

Planetary pairs

Template:VfD-Planetary pairs

Michael Jordan trading cards

Template:VfD-Michael Jordan trading cards



Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense


Who deleted my text and why? Why it was replaced by this msg:vfd nonsense? Administrator 22:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I screwed up the transfer to MediaWiki. Should be fixed now. Please engage in all debate on this item's MediaWiki page. -- Friedo 22:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of people who died of starvation

Template:VfD-List of people who died of starvation

March 26



Eden Schutt

Template:VfD-Eden Schutt

Doc Sigma

Template:VfD-Doc Sigma



Iain Sinclair

Template:VfD-Iain Sinclair

B,C,K,W System


Talk:Deng Xiaoping/temp






Veteran train

Template:VfD-Veteran Train



Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends on DVD and Video

Template:VfD-Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends on DVD and Video



March 27

Pamela W. Burton


Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years

Template:VfD-Wikipedia Articles requested for more than two years

Molecules with silly or unusual names

Template:VfD-Molecules with silly or unusual names

List of computer games featuring exploding sheep

Template:VfD-List of computer games featuring exploding sheep

Joshua Roberts

Template:VfD-Joshua Roberts



Spelling the Vacuum

Add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Spelling the Vacuum

Levy Quinn, Leonard Taylor, Lisa M. King-Johnson, Toshiya Kuge

Template:VfD-Levy Quinn et al


Template:VfD-Network marketing myths

David wang

Template:VfD-David Wang

Add new entries above

NOTE: The VfD page is currently experimenting with a new format to cut down on edit conflicts. To start a new VfD, add a section to the bottom, as usual, and put your comments on MediaWiki:VfD-YOUR-PAGE-HERE. Include the page on VfD with {{msg:VfD-YOUR-PAGE-HERE}}. Make sure you include a link to the edit page like this:


or: {{subst:DD}}

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.