Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Altenmann (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 10 February 2004 (vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Communitypage Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls for polls on current deletion issues.

Boilerplate

Please do not forget 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.)

Subpages

copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- redirects -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

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

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions



January 30

About 10 days since listed. There is no active discussion going on. I think this is as close as we can get to consensus on subjects such as this. Why isn't this deleted yet? -- uriber 18:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I count 5 delete and 2 keep. Definitely not a consensus. "As close as we can get to consensus," if not a consensus, means you keep it. Anthony DiPierro 18:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No vote, but a comment on the process. Consensus ≠ Unanimity. After all voices have been heard and everyone has had their chance to make their case as persuasively as possible, decisions must still be made. We must avoid the tyrannies of both the majority and the minority. I've been told our rule of thumb in situations like this is 2/3 supermajority. Rossami 20:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The 7 who voted "Delete" are: Texture, Jwrosenzweig, Humus sapiens, OneVoice, Jerzy, JDR, and myself . -- uriber 21:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Texture did not vote delete. He said "Even if the article can be save it will need to be recreated with a new title." Jwrosenzweig agreed. In any case, I just added my vote. Even 7/11 < 2/3 < consensus. Anthony DiPierro 21:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just to get the facts right: Texture was the one who placed the entry on VfD. Jwrosenzweig agreed with him on doing so. And I'm not sure you can count mav on the "Keep" side the way you do. -- uriber 21:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Consensus may not equal unanimity, but it doesn't equal supermajority either. In any case, 5/8 < 2/3. Anthony DiPierro 21:22, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well I voted keep and I'm certainly not the author, nor am I a sock puppet. Secretlondon 19:20, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
You said "I'm not taking sides" - so I counted you as a "non-vote". I apologize for my misunderstanding, and I'll update the count accordingly. -- uriber 21:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The fact this argument is even happening shows why it has not been deleted. It is obviously not clear whether a consensus has been reached or not. Unless someone is prepared to make that decision (which I'm not), it will be listed here forever. Angela. 02:38, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

February 4


February 5

  • Lord Eidolon -- has anyone heard of this? It seems to be no more than the product of an anonymous user's imagination. No-One Jones (talk) 00:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Google is your friend. Keep. No vote. Anthony DiPierro 00:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • 66 hits on a search for "Lord Eidolon", most of them from two websites ([1] [2]), which contain descriptions quite unlike that in the article. 225 hits for a search on eidolon + occultism, all of which are talking about eidolon (Greek for "image") in a very different sense. How about a link or two? --No-One Jones (talk) 00:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • You got the link correct. What makes you think this isn't describing the same character? Anthony DiPierro 01:15, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, I don't know, how about this: Lord Eidolon describes a 20th-century mythical figure, supposedly a reincarnation of Cronus, who has the attributes of a dying and rising god; the pages linked, on the other hand, describe a 240th-century science fiction character, apparently some sort of space captain. That's what made me think that they have no similarities beyond the title (not that it's relevant; see two entries down). No-One Jones (talk) 01:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • The seem to be the same. However, you're also right that they seem to be all derived from one person's drug induced fantasies, so I withdrew my vote. Anthony DiPierro 11:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 03:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 14:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- The Anome 14:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


    • from Daryl Clark "Clark as Johnson always carries a potato and boxes people 1930s style outside of pubs" sounds completely phony. Delete all. (surprised some of these have been around so long) Maximus Rex 06:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems there is really a "Red China Magazine" see [[4]], but you have to search 紅色中國 in google. But I don't know whether it is famous enough within China. wshun 06:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; nonsense/vanity. Psychonaut 10:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Red China Magazine, That these entries do not link to specific sites I take issue with. Although I do not find this site to be a forum for esoterica, I can also state that many things found on wikipedia I cannot find elsewhere using google. As the writer of some of these articles, and the ex-husband of another person interesting in compiling information surrounding this art-group, I must say that most of Smith's/LaBier's/Clark's work, including the magazine, have been published by vanity presses or organizations since folded. The first time I came across Smith's work was in St. Mark's bookstore on the consignment shelf. There was no record of prior printings (copyright expired?), but I know for a fact that The Light Flood (published or possibly reprinted this year), which was given me by an old prof, was printed once before in 1970. Thus I find Smith, LaBier, and, to a lesser extent, their linking partners, to be relevant. Thanks are given to Clark, Johnson in Stockholm Evenings, a work published of Smith that I believe, but have not factually confirmed, was published by Hauser prior to the two's parting ways. For my final argument that these topics are worthwhile, I should direct all concientious voters to both pigironmalt.com and Poetry Motel, magazines where Smith has published once if not several times per. Ocean City: Poems and Artwork is available for sale on amazon.com (and several other sites) as well. However, it is listed as a first printing. All of my letters to the vanity press have yet to be answered, although all I ask for is that I be forwarded to the executors of the work courtesy of the press. If anyone else has info regarding these artists, please come forward. Otherwise, I should go about my cataloguing of their lives elsewhere. I vote that they remain available to the public via this publicly upheld site. Please do not delete. Jon500
    • Can you point to a single website that mentions these people? RickK 04:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • "That these entries do not link to specific sites, I take issue with. Although I do not find this site to be a forum for esoterica, I can also state that many things found on wikipedia I cannot find elsewhere using google." This is something that I wrote previously. I would advise you to reread what I wrote previously, as I also listed two websites where Alex Smith appears as a poet or writer. Amazon lists Ocean City for sale. http://www.pigironmalt.com has published Smith's story "We Walked into the Lake." I hope this helps.
  • Mathematical problem - just a one-line dictionary definition, no history and no scope for much expansion that I can think of right now. Bryan 06:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • rather amorphous and vague, ditto the expansion thing. Delete Dysprosia 06:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. wshun 07:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bmills 15:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and treat it as a stub article. It could, for example, have an introduction followed by a list of articles about mathematical problems on Wikipedia. See [5]. Dissident 02:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Higgs' Laws someone's personal law? Gets 6 google hits: [6] Maximus Rex 06:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; vanity article. Besides which, the first and third "laws" are simply incorrect. Data transmission protocols (e.g., 56K modems) are often engineered on the hardware level such that upstream bandwidth is narrower than downstream bandwidth. And there were (and possibly still are) jurisdictions where copyright is perpetual. Psychonaut 10:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Simon Higgs. Then let's come back and discuss that page. Bmills 14:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - If it gets to stay then I get to write an article on Texture's Law.... :) - Texture 15:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Now that I'd vote to keep. Bmills 15:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia:No original research Anthony DiPierro 22:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; there's no longer anything here. Psychonaut 10:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Blanked by author. Bmills 14:25, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Vrapciste - What is this? -- user:zanimum
    • A village in Montenegro. The text is copied from here. I'm going to post it on possible copyvios. Bmills 16:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


February 6

  • Greater Prussia "Greater Prussia is a term which may be used to refer to Brandenburg-Prussia, The Kingdom of Prussia and the subsequent Republic of Prussia as one continuous entity. The term is artificial. It may also be used to refer to the Kingdom of Prussia at its greatest extent."
  • Wha River created by a user with a history of making fictional entries. 0 Google hits. Maximus Rex 00:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete all of SmartBee's fiction. RickK 02:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Then put that user under a hard ban. Denelson83 03:12, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Nobody is allowed to ban anybody anymore. RickK 03:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Well that's plain stupid. IMHO, if someone persistenly adds blatantly false information to Wikipedia, then (s)he needs to get banned, regardless of whether (s)he has also contributed true information. →Raul654 03:52, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bans can be enforced by Jimbo still, I believe. Bmills 12:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. suspicious in and of itself that everything wikified in the article is red. --zandperl 01:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Quebecois Separation Referendum 2004. This sounds like a lie to me. I have not heard anything about this at all. --Denelson83 03:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Created by SmartBee, all of whose work is questionable. RickK 03:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless someone can find a citation. Nothing on CTV news recently about a proposed referendum. Psychonaut 10:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I haven't heard anything about this either, and I live in Quebec. Delete. --No-One Jones (talk) 10:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and refer to Wha River discussion just up the page. Bmills 12:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • With the Liberals in power in Quebec, this is just fantasy (and anyway if would be 'Quebec separation' not 'Quebecois separation'). Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Swag. Wiktionary. Angela. 08:00, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fuzheado 08:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Wiktionary. Bmills 09:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; Wiktionary. Psychonaut 10:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to cannabis. Keep as disambiguation page. Anthony DiPierro 21:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't know the meaning relating to cannabis, but anyway there are several different meanings for this word so that would be a poor redirect (swag = a thief's booty, a garland, a lurch/swagger, a subsidence, a shop, the bundle of belongings carried by transients, a large quantity, a trifling object) fabiform | talk 03:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • From dictionary.com, "Herbal tea in a plastic sandwich bag sold as marijuana to an unsuspecting customer." Anthony DiPierro 03:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as the disambiguation page the above discussion shows it needs to be. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Multiple definitions are still definitions. Point the links to Wiktionary and readers can just as easily find out the different defintions there. Rossami 04:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. In Australia a swag is a roll of belongings carried in a blanket, and a very important part of our history. I'll do a stub in the next few days if nobody else does. Andrewa 01:07, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. As above, a swag is a very specific and unique item in Australian culture. There is quite a large trade of these things in camping stores etc. (very handy item)
  • Astraphobia substub. Astraphobia is fear of thunder and lighting. It is especially common in young children. It is the the List of phobias By precedent, candidate for speedy deletion, unless someone writes more. Mikkalai 08:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not that substubby, though maybe it can be put somewhere more usefl. Dysprosia 08:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to List of phobias and merge, unless this phobia is in some way noteworthy. --No-One Jones (talk) 10:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Discutant - improve and -> wiktionary Mikkalai 08:58, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This was prematurely deleted, presumably because of the lack of a VfD tag. I undeleted it and added the vfd tag so it can sit here until due process expires and it's deleted. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Steve Labelle - 105 google hits; if we dont know this guy, then delete --Jiang 09:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Bmills 09:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Appears to be a vanity article; he seems a bit young to be famous, especially considering his profession (disc jockey).
    • Keep. Not vanity. Anthony DiPierro 21:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - snoyes 22:15, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. 105 google hits is generous: if you search for "Steve Labelle" and DJ (his claimed area of success) you get 2 hits, neither of which seem to be him. Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article says that he started DJing 5 months ago. Secretlondon 20:06, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yellow Pig Day- Google's already indexed it, and various users of Wikipedia content have already copied it to their databases, but it was just created minutes ago. All reference on the net seem to be to our content, or to bloggish sites. - user:zanimum
    • Not a vote (yet) Hours ago, actually. It seems to be something of a private joke (see here). Can the author please step forward and explain? Bmills 13:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only two google hits, and neither provides any clue as to what this is. Fuzheado 17:22, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be an Amherst College thing [7]. Hmm, but hcssim is Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics (and note the yellow pig on the top of the page). I'd say merge somewhere and redirect. But I'm not sure where yet. Keep. List on cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 21:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • More here. You really only got two google hits? You didn't do a very good search. Anthony DiPierro 22:05, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This was already deleted 21:41, Oct 30, 2003 Angela deleted "Yellow Pig Day" (listed on vfd for 5 days; all real votes to delete) Maximus Rex 22:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The original was actually better. Apparently this is more popular than we thought. Anthony DiPierro 22:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Or the originators are more persistent than some about reposting an in-joke. I vote to delete. Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm the more recent author. Sorry to cause trouble; didn't realize it had been here before; was browsing the deletion-policy-discussion page, saw the paragraph below, and [as YPD is a real verifiable day, and people really do throw parties on July 17 or, occasionally, travel across the country to celebrate it in Amherst] thought to add it. I would be happy for it to be a) merged with a page on yellow pigs [which, as a phenomenon, are apparently far more widespread than I should like to believe], and b) added to a list of "Days" as recommended by Maximus; is there such a list? +sj+ 03:01, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
  Day Pages: MrJones asked whether there should be a policy on whether 
  pages about days (Pi Day, Yellow Pig Day etc) are allowed and whether there 
  ought to be a separate wiki for them. Maximus Rex explained that such pages 
  are kept if they concern real verifiable days, and felt a separate wiki for 
  them may not be useful. He suggested merging them into one page.
  • Paul Wiegert - Appears to be patent nonsense. Found via the "random page" link. Only link is from 3753 Cruithne (which might help explain part of this garbled message's intent). -- Dan Carlson 14:10, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • It was posted to the reference desk about 4 days ago. It has no place in an article. I'm deleting. →Raul654 14:12, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've undeleted this to follow due process, because it appeared here first. Please list things like this at Wikipedia:deleted test instead of here. Jamesday
  • Chimalman - This is an Aztec goddess, but Nina? This is less a Vfd, but a clean-up notice. The original mentioned her favourite colours, even. -- user:zanimum
    • Or Wikisource. --No-One Jones (talk) 17:30, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, wikisource. Got that wrong. - Texture 17:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Hobbit-lasses - I can't find this as a hyphenated word anywhere on the internet. I think it is two words that are not the exclusive term for female Hobbits and the list of links can be moved to Hobbit - Texture 17:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Content has been moved, and this is now a redirect with no links to it. Vote to delete. -- The Anome 19:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Habiru - dubious?
    • The article or the content? Hapiru (the alternate spelling) gets many legitimate google hits. I see some discussion about the contents but I'm not sure why you list it for deletion. - Texture 19:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The page is well written, plausible, but patent nonsense; I suspect that's why it is here. Hapiru was the Assyrian name for the Hebrews, which makes me suspect some kind of suspect agenda is at work here. The referenced site at the bottom seems to go on about flying saucers and the Urantia Book. (The truth, by contrast, is found in Oahspe.) -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:02, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • That link was put in by User:Wetman possibly as an attempt to sabbotage. I request the history page is looked at. The topic Habiru is well worthy of a wiki entry why delete? Why not just edit it or re-write it? At least I made an attempt to put something there even if it is considered wrong by those without enough conviction in their own knowledge to edit it. It is a pity some people vdf every time they cannot think how to edit. Must be from terrible insecurity and an act of acknowledgment on their behalf of their self limitations.Zestauferov 14:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, it is nonsense, like all the other articles created by User:Zestauferov; judging by his user page, he seems to be pushing our buttons. Adam Bishop 21:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. As others have said, "Habiru" is a real word, and possibly related to "Hebrew", but this article is full of utter nonsense. Josh Cherry 00:08, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Owlish fantasy. Delete Wetman 14:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless someone can convince User:Zestauferov to assemble reliable information in a plausable manner. I'd like to try to rescue this entry, but I'm tired of having to deal with his fantasies. -- llywrch 20:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The term exists in the corpus, and there is legitimate scholarly debate about who it might refer to. If the current contents are a mismash of fact, speculation-presented-as-fact, and nonsense, then it needs a rewrite, rather than a deletion. Ben
      • If you do the rewrite, then I'll be happy to change my vote. Just be prepared for Mr Z -- llywrch 00:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bollocks - delete and move to Wiktionary? - Texture 19:39, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed Wiktionary, but before we move it we'd better correct it - at the moment it is a load of self-reference; it has the secondary meaning of "Rubbish" in every variety of English known to me.
    • Also the canine variety has the opposite meaning. Secretlondon 22:13, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • shouldn't bollocks redirect to testicle? Kingturtle 08:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as the disambiguation page the above discussion shows is appropriate. Jamesday 10:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Can't hurt. Anthony DiPierro 12:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks more like a Wiktionary entry to me. Definition(s) and usage. No real encyclopedic content. Links to the page probably should be redirected to testicles. Rossami 04:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • The House On The Hill (poem) - This is more a clean-up request. The article had a vfd notice attached on 18 Dec 2003, then spent some time in the copyvio quarantine and when it got out on 23 Dec 2003 it kept the vfd header, but wasn't deleted. A christmas present? Anyway, it's the source of a poem. Delete or wikisource or just remove the vfd header? Lupo 21:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and move to wikisource - Texture 21:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikisource unless drastically cleaned up in the next few days. Anthony DiPierro 12:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I have been through the List of phobias and while there are some phobias listed that are very common and have some decent articles written about them, the following appear to be little more than definitions and I dispute whether they need to exist separately: Anglophobia, Athazagoraphobia, Automysophobia, Bathmophobia, Clinophobia, Hoplophobia, Onomatophobia, Paraskavedekatriaphobia. -- Graham  :) 23:16, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - these are basic dictionary definitions and not articles - Texture 23:28, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Let them expand when somebody who knows about them finds them. Everything starts as somewhat of a dictionary definition, but I doubt many dictionaries have those in them - Fizscy46 23:34, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Replacement by redirects will do the same. Mikkalai 01:18, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect or keep. Anthony DiPierro 12:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep them all, some perhaps as redirects. Keep and expand Hoplophobia beyond the rewrite I just did - it's a fake phobia, part of the US firearms debate, not a real phobia. Jamesday 16:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 7

  • Shaheen Lakhan was written by his obvious sock puppet and is again self promotion.--Jiang 01:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not written by his obvious sock puppet and is not self-promotion. Anthony DiPierro 12:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Refer to the page history and look at his userpage. Notice any similarities? Do you not find the contribution history of User:SOmai suspicious? --Jiang
        • Suspicious, perhaps. Obvious, no. Contributions should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Anthony DiPierro 20:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Written by his obvious sock puppet and again self promotion. --Wik 19:30, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I just reverted the edits on [Shaheen Lakhan] by User:Kuhn3, who came here to vote keep, but had his comments reverted because he got caught in an edit conflict and didn't bother to merge. Another sock puppet by the same user. Click on "what links here". The degree of self promotion this user is putting in WP is disturbing.--Jiang
      • Comment: Just reverted to my edits that are publically known and should be included in such article, of course, with the VfD message. --Kuhn3 18:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • KEEP. Don't revert keeps (or deletes) when you don't agree. Also, don't manically preach delusive propaganda to bear your decision. Anthropos made a initial request for an article creation for Shaheen Lakhan (Village Pump). Willkins agreed and created a redirect until the article was created. I concurred with Willkins and suggested that the current user page (in third person) be moved the article. Somai did just that. I and others have since edited the article appropriately. Therefore, KEEP by Anthropos, Willkins, SOmai, and I. This is certainly not self-promo --Kuhn3 18:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No, that's "keep" by you alone. If the others you named wish to vote, let them do so. This page has one of the hallmarks of self-promotion: it's a lengthy article on a person who is not especially noteworthy. I say delete or reduce to a stub. --No-One Jones (talk) 19:33, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I suspect that User:SOmai and User:Kuhn3 are both Shaheen Lakhan. It's peculiar that the first thing each of you do is to agree on the village pump (agreeing with each other in the process) and then create an article for yourself. User:Kuhn3's addition to the article completely wiped the previous text. Also note that votes originating from those that lack edits aren't counted here.--Jiang 23:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have been edited articles on wiki for a long time, but until recently decided on establishing a user name for the need to make a mark in such forums and respond to Villiage Pump inquiries/requests. However, it seems as if you wish to nullify all votes that you do not agree with. Wikipedia is a free and comprehensive encyclopedia and I as well as others feel that certain individuals should have an article, especially when proposed by multiple long-standing members of the wiki community. My voice counts in this vote, for I have actively contributed and have an argument. BTW, I am not Shaheen Lakhan, as Jiang voices her suspicion quite prominently. --Kuhn3 00:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If you edited here for so long, then why would you change a version that adheres in formatting with the wikipedia:manual of style to a version that does not? Seasoned wikipedians know how to format their articles and begin with bolded letters. You also changed "External links" to "Links", as is done on User:slakhan, against WP convention. And what about User:SOmai who created the article in the first place? --Jiang
        • Comment: When I performed an essential major edit on the page Shaheen Lakhan, I ADDED the bold title, as I did with other new articles failing to comply with the manual. However, with the case of links, there was a wiki link and external link, so I just used Links, not inconsistent with the manual. This is enough administrative work; I should get back to the real purpose of Wikipedia. --Kuhn3 05:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No you didnt, it was bolded before - [8]. You added text in front of the bolded name, which is against wiki convention. In what other articles do we have "Links" heading? We usually separate "External links" and "Related topics", per the MoS.--Jiang
    • Keep. I will agree that it appears something fishy is going on as many of the Google hits are somewhat vague and I would guess that it's a result of a tendency to over-represent his connections with prestigious universities. But it is not clear to me that the content on the Wikipedia page it is entirely self-promotion. I don't think there is enough evidence to support deletion. --Nohat 19:54, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not quite important enough for an article. moink 19:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oeconomicus source dump, doesn't say anything about subject or the variable spelling thereof. Onebyone 01:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Copyvio. The original page [Ancient History Sourcebook] specifically states:
    • This text is part of the Internet Ancient History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
    • Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No representation is made about texts which are linked off-site, although in most cases these are also public domain. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
    • © Paul Halsall, August 1998 halsall@murray.fordham.edu
    • Mikkalai 01:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Independent of the merits of the listed article, material in the public domain cannot be "re-copyrighted" simply by putting it into electronic form. Translation copyrights are a different matter. We can and should safely ignore any claims of copyright to public domain content.—Eloquence 03:29, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • This is a public domain work. The original text dates from 370BCE and this translation is from a work published in 1912-1913. The scan from that work doesn't create a new work in US law because it involves no creativity. Jamesday 16:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of lifestyles - (also "alternative lifestyles") - a seemingly random list of unconnected things, inlcuding, among others, adoption, bisexuality, Baha'i, Atkins diet, wealth and single parenting. The article is wildly non-NPOV, and its factual accuracy is disputed (also by me). Serves no obvious purpose. Delete.
    • So far, the factual accuracy has only (not also) been disputed by Exploding Boy. Secondly, this list was put on VfD last October and then removed again (but I was unable to retrieve that discussion). There must be a reason for it being removed again. It's the old problem: Whenever someone discovers a page the whole procedure may start all over again. Thirdly, how can anyone be so strict and draw conclusions from unfinished sentences? Keep. <KF> 04:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What I meant was that in addition to listing the article for deletion I have also disputed its factual accuracy. Sorry, don't understand your third point; could you clarify? Exploding Boy
    • I'll do that on the talk page. <KF>
    • Delete. Seems like it's inherently POV as to what goes in such a list. Since I doubt the list is particuarly useful, it's more trouble than it's worth so get rid of it. ShaneKing 10:43, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Surely we can define lifestyles in an NPOV way. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 12:26, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Release Part 1,2 & 3 ambiguous title, almost no content --Jiang 09:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Blackalicious and delete (we don't need the history, as it's public domain information). Anthony DiPierro 12:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The title has nothing to do with the content. RickK 01:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Can this ever go beyond a dicdef? I vote delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good subject, good stub. Just BTW, I'll add the VfD notice. Andrewa 19:47, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary in its current form.—Eloquence
  • Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I feel really bad about this one. She's not an encyclopedia subject, but she certainly deserves to be remembered somewhere. Wikimorial and delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This was already listed in VfD back in May, 2003 (see Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell). I supported deletion, but there were not enough votes to delete. Kingturtle 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not encyclopaedic - are we to have a page on every kid who's ever comitted suicide? What makes Sarah different? Delete. (Also support move to Wikimemorial) PMC 23:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Isomorphic 01:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:List of blank pages - an empty list Anthony DiPierro 16:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Would've been great if it was just a completely empty page, but sadly, no.Exploding Boy 16:26, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's linked to from a lot of places. Just because it isn't currently up to date doesn't mean it will never be. It's a useful page. Angela. 10:03, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why shouldn't blank pages be listed on vfd or cleanup (or unblanked directly), instead of taking the extra step of listing here? What is the use? Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sordidnym - As far as I can tell this is a made up word. I can't see any reference to it on the web except in sites that have copied Wikipedia content. -- Ams80 16:29, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, same reasons as above. -Branddobbe 20:20, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Alien artefacts This material is thoroughly covered and more easily findable at any of the establish "Alien visitation"-type entries. Delete Wetman 17:22, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to one of those established "alien visitation"-type entries. Onebyone 19:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete misspelled and redundant page; at least convert to redirect. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del; mv'ed info to Erich von Däniken's bio. JDR
  • Wikipedia:List of stubs without msg Page no longer used or updated. -- Graham  :) 23:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • When the server is happier maybe it should be updated. Secretlondon 23:44, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • But now that the {{msg:stub}} tag is more widely known is this page really needed? -- Graham  :) 13:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes because there are still many that haven't got the msg, and it's easier to add now. Secretlondon 15:56, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • (No vote). I will updated it once a new (and fairly recent) SQL dump is available. In the meantime, we could delete/blank the page, or just remove the entries for listings that say "has msg". Personally, I prefer the last solution. -- User:Docu

February 8

  • Kendall Bruns subject only has 344 google hits (wikipedia no. 3), looks like self promotion. --Jiang 02:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Subject has 344 google hits. Doesn't look like self-promotion. Anthony DiPierro 03:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • My name registers 30000 google hits (probably none really referring to me). What's the threshold for inclusion? --Jiang
        • Verifiability. Encyclopedic subject. NPOVable topic. Anthony DiPierro 16:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • All three? Since when have obscure subject found their way into enyclopedias? Should I create a website about myself and usethat to satisfy the verfibility req? --Jiang
    • Delete. Looks like self-promotion. --Wik 03:33, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, self-promotion/vanity. Maximus Rex 04:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Ditto with Anthony. --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ambivalent. This is about as grey-area as it gets. Not famous, but not totally obscure. My instinct says that he himself probably created the page. This is a hard call to make. →Raul654 09:05, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Self-promotion. Isomorphic 00:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonfam. --Imran
  • Parson's Razor seems made up. 1 Google hit. Maximus Rex
    • Delete. 1 Google hit is never a good thing. --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Polemical and probably made up. Delete. Kosebamse 09:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only found one google hit, it refered to a Mr Parsons who was contributing to that thread. Secretlondon 19:51, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fisher's Deduction no google hits, by same person as parson. Sennheiser! 03:58, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. seems made up. Maximus Rex 04:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. 0 Google hits is even worse! --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Same as Parson's razor, above. Delete. Kosebamse 09:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've found 1 google hit, but certainly idiosyncratic. Secretlondon 19:51, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Alchemigram idiosyncratic or made up art term. No google hits not related to wikipedia [9]. Maximus Rex
    • Delete. 0 Google hits is even worse! --Ryan 08:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have given this cite over and over and over again. Read the book Surrealist Experiences by Penelope Rosemont. I am getting sick of the ignoring of offline cites followed by the assertion about a lack of online references. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep until cite can be checked. Anthony DiPierro 16:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-important, non-famous. --Imran 01:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC).
    • delete fantasy.--Jiang
      • The level of dishonesty and disingenuity is reaching a very high level. Clearly this is not a "fantasy"; I've given a cite for it. Through there is a lot of valuable information on the World Wide Web as searched by Google (Google doesn't index everything) if Wikipedia is going to be reduced to a regurgitation of the information indexed by Google it is going to be of very little value. I would ask again for people to look up this cite and then make a judgment. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:11, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I however have searched several dozen art journals, Lexis-Nexis and several major databases of art criticism. All of which have turned up zilch. Far too minor to count as famous or important.--Imran 16:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • As you are essentially saying that you will not look up the reference I've provided, I question the validity of your vote. If you are going to look up the reference I've provided and then come to this conclusion, o.k. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bethany Massimilla - person who works for CNet. Not famous. Secretlondon 11:55, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Person who works for CNet. Famous. Anthony DiPierro 16:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's known that you believe every person should have a page, whether they're famous or not. So why pretend that this person is famous when that is not the case? Onebyone 17:46, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not pretending. This person is famous. Anthony DiPierro 18:24, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Or does working for well-known website qualify for 15 words of Wikipedia fame? Ianb 16:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bryan 16:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Delete. Kosebamse 16:58, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - Hephaestos 17:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; not notable. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, nonfamous--Jiang
    • Delete: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a vanity press Bmills 09:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I am going to seem crass here, but Carlie Brucia and Samantha Runyon should be deleted. It is terrible that thousands of kids are abducted each year, but this is not the place to document each and everyone of them. Kingturtle 17:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Loads of kids are killed every year. One for wikimemorial if people feel the need to write about them. Secretlondon 17:57, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. People who were not famous in their lives do not become famous (and therefore encyclopædic) upon their deaths, unless they have a particularly unusual or record-setting death (e.g., Eddie Slovik). Let's keep articles (at least long ones) on run-of-the-mill victims off Wikipedia. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This was national news. Carlie Brucia was famous before her death. Samantha Runyon probably was too. Anthony DiPierro 18:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • National news in one country. And famous as they were abducted I presume. They weren't famous before that, surely. I presume they are just cute, white American kids (as I understand that cute, black American kids who are murdered tend not to make the US news) Secretlondon 18:30, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • National news in the one country where the majority of the readers live. And yes, they were famous before they died. As for your racist remarks, we shouldn't exclude people from Wikipedia just because they're white. Anthony DiPierro 18:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Remove from Wikipedia. (I follow the news, and ive only heard of the Runyon person, but neither deserve their own articles.) Sennheiser! 18:40, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I happen to live in Tampa, Florida, so the fact that Carlie Brucia is the only thing I've been hearing about for the past week probably doesn't mean much. Anthony DiPierro 18:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Another one you might want to look at is Nicole Brown Simpson. Anthony DiPierro 19:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Thats totally different. There is probably a better example. Sennheiser! 19:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • How is it different? They're all people famous for crimes committed against them. Anthony DiPierro 19:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • It is different in that OJ Simpson was a major US Football player and Mrs. Simpson was part of that story. This content might do better in an article on child abducton. Kd4ttc 01:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Information is verifiable and factual and of interest to readers who care about famous crime cases. Eventually Wikipedia should have a lot more information on crimes than commercial sites such as [10]. Of course it's important to limit the content of these articles to the factual and verifiable. However, the suggestion to move this page to the memorial wiki is misleading -- the memorial wiki is intended for personal tributes and comments, not for factual, verifiable information about deceased persons.—Eloquence 19:11, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. My responses earlier were cultural and filled with the fear that the US media was a determiner of encyclopedic quality. If these sort of articles are important to Americans then of course keep. I mustn't judge you by my less sentimental culture. Apologies. Secretlondon 19:57, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Chronicling these cases is important to find out what drives the killers, what their social background is and so forth, which is of course essential to prevent further crimes. That, I would say, is not "sentimental" at all. However, under the present titles one of course expects articles about the person being murdered, which indeed raises suspicion about their relevance in an encyclopedia. Perhaps a title like Carlie Brucia murder case would be helpful to avoid this; then again, it is more cumbersome.—Eloquence 20:44, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Here's a good test -- if we deleted this article, would we reasonably expect it to be recreated often? If the answer is yes, then I think it's a keeper. These are folks who will probably have a lasting legacy and will be referenced by the media, politicians, legislators and activists in the future, so we should include them. (Note that this is subtly different than the constant debate here over the 9/11 victims or Iraq War casualties, where certain individuals may pass this test too, but not all.)
      • The child abductions that have lasting legacies I've changed accordingly. For example, Polly Klaas has been moved to Polly Klaas Foundation, Megan Kanka was moved to Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation (but has since been moved back) and Laura Kate Smither has been moved to Laura Recovery Center. These articles now focus on the legacy, while still containing the crime information. Kingturtle 23:40, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I appreciate the intent, but I think that particular approach is problematic; the title focuses on one outcome (foundation, recovery center) while ignoring other aspects of the case (the offender and their background, the media coverage, the victim etc.). If a broad title is desired, I would suggest something like Polly Klaas murder.—Eloquence
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a morgue; that is, it is neither 1. A place in which the bodies of persons found dead are kept, nor 2.A reference file in a newspaper or magazine office. If these sad deaths lead to something of encyclopedic importance the article can be written when it occurs. Dpbsmith 02:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If anything, isn't this exactly what Wikipedia is for? It fills in the knowledge gap that has traditionally existed between newspapers (breaking news) and the history books. Wikipedia is already a very widely used reference (top 1000 most popular web sites and topping all other online encyclopedias). It is a place where the information of accumulated news events can be compiled, written about and told in a comprehensive and succinct way. I am sympathetic to the fact that pretty white teens from middle class families get media coverage, and lower class minority girls who are murdered are largely ignored. But that's a larger problem than what to include here and now. And for now, these names are in the media ecology, and they should be here as well, in one form or another. Eloquence and Kingturtle's suggestions about naming the articles about the events and implications, rather than the personality, seems like the best idea. Fuzheado 02:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. And with the original names. I meant for them to be biographical pages, but how much else can one write about a 5 year old and an 11 year old whose lives were cut short?. I meant them as biographies, and what is known about the victims is basically all that is there. Samantha Runyon and Carlie Bruscia reached celebrity before their tragic deaths, and not only that, encyclopedias are supposed to educate people. White, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Arabian, boy, girl, whatever, this are cases that shall be known about by the general public because children worldwide are in danger. If we delete or change the names of these articles, then we might as well do the same with the article of the king who was killed six days after birth. Whats the difference? I know my comment might create some controversy, but hey Im the man who went and got himself a Paris Hilton style hat today so controversy surrounds me, it finds me and I look for it..LOL keep, and without changing the names. Antonio Paris Wannabe Martin
    • Keep. Verifable information that ought to be around once the press have gone. (Side note, news of this case was not restricted to the local news: it received a small segment on the UK news). Further there are plenty of precedents for keeping this material - British readers may like to consider this article in the same light as they would Soham murders - a not dissimilar tragedy that occured in Britain. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Verifiable and encyclopedic. Deleting these would set a poor precedent for Wikipedia's comprehensiveness. - Seth Ilys 14:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints was moved from Scientism per the example set in Allopathy that was used to delete [criticisms of modern medicine]. Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The proposer would appear to have redacted opinions with which he does not agree from Scientism into this separate article, and now wants those opinions deleted altogether. Please don't use VfD to censor opinions you don't like. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Then kindly restructure the text to remove the tirade. [Criticisms of modern medicine] was deleted for the same reason that this article should go. -- Mr-Natural-Health 20:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • (no vote) This page is for discussing current deletion votes only. Please take disputes about articles to the relevant talk page. Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:55, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for the moment. More antics of a single-issue activist, who seems to be the only editor of this particular page, including creating it and listing it for deletion. Andrewa 09:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge back into Scientism and then delete. Bmills 09:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • User talk:80.43.12.186, User talk:68.8.200.212, User talk:66.158.35.2, User talk:195.157.55.115 - talk pages no longer required, better delete in case other users have the same locations -- Graham  :) 21:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • talk pages should be set up to automatically self destruct after one year of no editing. Sometimes, it might be useful to refer to a user's talk page if he has a history of vandalism and was banned before. Unless these can be shown to be dynamic, I vote to keep for at least a few months. --Jiang 23:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm very glad you brought that up, Jiang. I've been wondering about that a lot, each time I put some "suggestive" comment on an anonymous page after vandalism, thinking I'm going to freak someone else out later.-- Decumanus 00:34, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The Metaweb - promotion of website - content: "Superficially, this site looks like a set of FAQs about a novel that I wrote entitled QUICKSILVER. As time goes on, we hope that it will develop into something a little more than that. We don't know how it will come out. It's an experiment." and a link - Texture 23:19, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, Neal Stephenson is a famous sci-fi author and this is a wiki experiment accompanying his latest book. Our article is crappy so far but I'd list it on cleanup instead of deleting it.—Eloquence 02:51, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does the fact that he is well known make any difference? It's never good to write wiki articles about yourself, maybe someone should move contents to page about the writer or turn it into an article about the website. Mrdice 04:41, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
      • I've moved the article in this direction. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's already on Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki, use this page to describe it better and link there from Wp:SuMW. --Phil 09:39, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a vanity press Bmills 09:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I think this one be re-worked away from vanity. Keep, keep a tab on the article at cleanup. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 9

  • Guy - reads like a copyvio, but I can't find where it's copied from. But what does the article have to do with the title? RickK 00:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (unless its made up). If theres no evidence that its a copyvio then its best to assume that it isn't. The article seems to be about an r&b group called Guy, so perfectly relevant to the title. Saul Taylor 01:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • overeating - just an ad. Same anonymous user is adding references to the same organization in other articles. Isomorphic 00:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Spoke too soon. User is still editing it. May turn into a useful article. But I'm wary of NPOV problems, so watch this article. Isomorphic 00:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • GreySheeters Anonymous - Advert. Mrdice 04:27, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
    • Delete. I added the VfD nore. Bmills 13:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, file on cleanup (cf overeating, above). A google for "greysheeters" finds quite a lot of stuff, from disparate sources. A variant on "overeaters anonymous". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:43, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Reproduction speed - dicdef. --Imran 00:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. (So refreshing to see something that actually belongs here). Anthony DiPierro 00:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to wiktionary - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No. Keep. There must be thousands of articles like this one here in Wikipedia, and we don't want to (?????!?) get rid of all of them. <KF> 20:23, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Polish succession war is a duplicate of War of the Polish Succession 00:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge, than make one one into a redirect to the other. (Btw, did it finish in 1735 like the first one says or 1738 like the second one says.) Saul Taylor 01:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Fighting ended in 1735, but a formal treaty wasnt signed until 1738. (kind of like Korea)
  • Urgoy - what is this? a name? --Jiang 01:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Now a redirect to Uighur Bmills 12:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 1 E-21 s - not encyclopedic Anthony DiPierro 03:27, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wikipedia has loads of articles on numbers (five, nine), deleting this would mean deleting all. Also, this article is part of Orders_of_magnitude_(time) Mrdice 04:37, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
    • Keep. Although the smallest time unit with meaningul content is currently 1 E-18 s, there is real work being done in zeptosecond physics that could be referenced here. - Seth Ilys 14:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - currently not encyclopedic. - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep- its only a matter of time before it gets filled in. Don't break up series requiring them to be later reconstructed. Rmhermen 16:29, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • The whole series should be moved to a single page. Anthony DiPierro 22:30, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Break series if there is no content. It can always be reconstructed. --Hemanshu 16:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A timewasting nomination, by someone too lazy to bother putting on the VfD notice on the page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cypherpunks anti-license - this entry seems entirely to describe one person's web page for a hypothetical "license" that doesn't seem to have ever been used anywhere else. The only references to it on Google are its Web page, the Wikipedia entry, mirrors thereof (some to an older wiki version), and a couple people's links lists. —Steven G. Johnson
    • Delete, please. Mrdice 04:32, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
    • Delete - fictional - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Shnorrer -- slang definition. No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary, and maybe send Wik along with it? Or are we allowed to do that? Pakaran. 04:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pakaran on both counts. Anthony DiPierro 04:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment about Karl Schnorrer moved to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 22:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Since when is "slang definition" a reason for deletion? Just as with the term shlemiel, a whole (sub-)culture is hiding behind shnorrer. Read Leo Rosten's book(s) before putting such words on VfD. And of course there is also a novel by Israel Zangwill entitled The King of Shnorrers. <KF> 12:36, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Wiktionary is the place for slang definitions - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Bmills 15:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, great arguments you've got here. I'm impressed. By the way, could you refer me/us to that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that slang has no place in Wikipedia? Because if that's true, I'll nominate Baseball slang. <KF> 18:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not the slang part that's a problem. It's the dictionary definition part. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Anthony DiPierro
      • Oh, that's fine with me. So let's nominate Baseball slang, which consists solely of dictionary definitions. <KF> 22:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Believe me, a cryptic reference to another page that contains lots and lots of ideas, guidelines, rules, etc. is not (let me repeat this: not) an argument. You seem to have three other "arguments" at your disposal which you use in a random fashion: "dictionary definition", "slang", and "encyclopaedic" (see Baseball slang below). <KF> 23:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Once again. Brash fighting on the delete page. Shnorrer is an entry entirely devoted to a definition of a word (let's ignore "slang" here). That violates the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" on the page that Anthony mentions above. Baseball slang is an encyclopedic entry that talks about how slang has affected American language, and then lists examples. Now, it is perhaps not the best written prose, but it is encyclopedic, not a straight dictionary entry. Move Shnorrer to wiki- dictionary, and delete. Lyellin 00:52, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I wasn't making an argument. The argument is already made at Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've never used "slang" as justification for a deletion. As for my use of "encyclopedic," I think regular contributors will know what I mean. If you don't, I encourage you to stick around for a while and see. There's a lot of shorthand notation that goes around on these pages. I'm sorry if I was brash. Anthony DiPierro 01:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Over time I think this could become an extremely encyclopedic article on a cultural archetype that has a lot more behind it than a simple dictionary definition. --Alex S 01:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. KF: The Baseball Slang article isn't very good, but falls into the "lists" category (which is my vote below). Tempshill 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Computer controlled - can this ever be a useful article? Is there something it could be redirected to? - SimonP 05:10, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Wiktionary - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Bmills 15:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Possible article (though it should be 'computer control') but not this one. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of streaming media addresses - a mere list of external links -- The Anome 17:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - extremely useful list of links that does not seem to exist elsewhere - Many are live news feeds. - Texture 18:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. Besides, links are not persistent things. Who will maintain their up-to-dateness? A robot must be set up. It is pretty frustrating to walk thru a list of valuable links only to find out half of them are dead. Mikkalai 02:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • MUD trees - an example but no content or explanation - Texture 17:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's also an exact copy from the site it lists in ext. links ("DikuMud Heirarchy (c)1995-2000 Derek Snider"). --Mrwojo 17:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for same reasons as above. Psychonaut 18:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chief of Staff - already deleted once wasn't it? - same text as the last one. - Texture 18:14, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It was, which makes it an instant deletion candidate, which I have done. Morwen 18:37, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Capitalist view of Open Source - Very POV and un-encyclopedic. -- Wapcaplet 20:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone has been reading too much Ayn Rand. Beyond redemption. delete -- Viajero 20:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I will write an article called Randroid. Oh look, it's there already. Delete. - David Gerard 21:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Original research. Unavoidably POV. I couldn't find anything useful in it to salvage. Delete. Anthony DiPierro 22:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. While it is interesting, it is hardly encyclopedic. --Sennheiser! 22:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Just link to the essay from another article. There's no need to replicate it here. Angela. 23:34, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 01:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Baseball slang -- move to Wiktionary and then delete because this is (a) just slang and (b) only dictionary definitions. For details, see the discussion about shnorrer above (VfD, 9 February). Advocatus diaboli, 23:00, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 22:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, by all means keep. Sara 23:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • While I agree this is largely slang definitions, they are definitions that share a common thread -- in fact, one of my reasons for listing them was to give evidence that baseball has had an impact on American slang, and the only way to do this is to point out to people that many slang terms they use are derived from the sport. Perhaps there could be a larger section describing the slang itself (comments, other information) to make it more encyclopedic. In any case, I think there is enough to make it worthwhile. Of course, I'm biased. Revolver 01:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I might also add that although the article is titled "baseball slang", and each slang term has a baseball meaning, EVERY SLANG TERM also has an independent non-baseball meaning that has "evolved" from the original meaning, so this is NOT just a guide to "how to talk like a baseball fan".
    • Keep, but rename the article to "List of baseball slang terms". This isn't an article on baseball slang and I very much doubt it will ever be. The article falls into the large category of "list of xxx" articles. Tempshill 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - encyclopedic presentation - Texture 01:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Lucdisc - This is a Pokemon character, but the page is extremely underdeveloped compared to many of the others (compare with Pikachu and Snorlax) and hasn't been touched in months. There are probably other Pokemon with similar stub articles--perhaps they should be listed on cleanup instead? --zandperl 02:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2351207"