Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ronald Paul Bucca
Danenberg (talk | contribs)
71 edits
mNo edit summary
Line 234: Line 234:
*[[2004|*]]Keep[[User:Optim|.]] [[Athens|.]][[British English|:]][[Harvey Spencer Lewis|.]] [[User:Optim|Optim]] 18:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) [[Confraternity of the Rose Cross|.]][[AMORC|:]][[Freemasonry|.]]
*[[2004|*]]Keep[[User:Optim|.]] [[Athens|.]][[British English|:]][[Harvey Spencer Lewis|.]] [[User:Optim|Optim]] 18:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) [[Confraternity of the Rose Cross|.]][[AMORC|:]][[Freemasonry|.]]
*Delete. As much as I think Anthony is acting trollishly, in this case I think we should just move the article to meta. --[[User:Imran|Imran]] 02:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. As much as I think Anthony is acting trollishly, in this case I think we should just move the article to meta. --[[User:Imran|Imran]] 02:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*Feel free; it is, however, the only platform for the development of [[Wikitex|WikiTeX]], much beloved by the labourers at Wikitech-L. [[User:Danenberg|Danenberg]] 14:00, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
*Feel free; Wikisophia is, however, the only platform for the development of [[Wikitex|WikiTeX]], much beloved by the labourers at Wikitech­L. [[User:Danenberg|Danenberg]] 14:00, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


*[[Medical Scientism]]
*[[Medical Scientism]]

Revision as of 14:59, 17 January 2004


Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here or vote on even if you think it is obvious.

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{msg:vfd}} at the top of the page adds one automatically.)

Subpages

copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories -- 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

Older than 7 days


January 13

  • (from cleanup) Anigraphical music - idiosyncratic? For an internet term it gets no google hits - best guess-invented term. google shows anigraphic as abbr. for animated graphic, no more. - delete immediately?
    • Delete. --Jiang 01:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Confusing, no context, stub...yep, delete. PMC 04:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Smells like another aleatoric art technique known only on Wikipedia. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Leave for a while, edit. Look at it. I liked the idea. Seem like the guy invented the word and possibly the concept. Mikkalai 01:03, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Nursing skills - poorly written, full of errors, doesn't seem encyclopedic. Alex.tan 17:17, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Poorly written? Rewrite. Full of errors? Correct them. Very encyclopedic imo. These are entries of importance to nursing students and others. - Texture 20:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • move content to Wikibooks -- text is a howto, not an article _about_ "nursing skills", therefore it is not encyclopedic. -- mkrohn 20:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic. I understand the desire to maintain a reasonable standard for good English writing and usage, but we're throwing out too many content babies with the English-usage bathwater. I don't know how accurate the information is or how uniform state certification requirements are. Until someone qualified to pass judgement comments, I think we should keep it. The writing can be fixed. Although I admit to being totally exhausted after trying to revise the first three paragraphs. Dpbsmith 02:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I am a doctor. There's just too many errors. If someone wants to fix it, among the things that need to be done are internationalizing (not every state/country has the same requirements), clean up the errors, fill in the missing pieces, add some organization that makes sense... it's just a huge job. Sometimes v2 should be done by getting rid of v1. I don't think anybody can or will fix this adequately anytime soon, so it's going to stay here as an example of bad english and poor information until someone rewrites it. Alex.tan 11:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but title needs to be changed to something about Nursing Assistants (cuz this is way below what Nurses do), and add history of Nursing assistants, changing roles, advanced nursing assistants (LPN, med LPN), income range, training (this current art. fits on the training part). I think this is sort of an article in incubation. For those with a passion, try to recruit someone in a Nursing assistant program to contribute. Stephen Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 04:23, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But needs fixing. I know some nurses I can ask. SpellBott 07:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is a how-to article. It should only be kept if it can be made into enyclopedic style. moink 21:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. On Kd4ttc's advice, I moved the page to Nurse assistant skills, after consulting with writer. Craigbutz 23:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Seagulling - orphan, idiosyncratic sexual slang; other than UrbanDictionary.com entry, top google hits for this word have bird rather than sexual context. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 23:16, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No ocnfirmation after searching several times on google. No evidence it even belongs in a dictinary failing to be present anywhere. Kd4ttc 04:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Idiosyncratic nonsense. Delete —MIRV (talk) 21:31, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete RedWolf 08:17, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Erect position - dictionary def. Imran 00:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. Comment: Moved to Upright position. Reason: 138 Google hits for "+"upright position" +multiplexer" but only 25 for "+"erect position" +multiplexer". .·..·..·. Optim 14:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·..·..·.
  • Republican communism - dictionary definition, untouched since July. Little possibility of real content. silsor 00:06, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • keep -- "Republican communist" returns >500 hits on google, e.g. [1] -- mkrohn 00:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Because there are google hits for it, redirect it to communism. What is "republican communism" anyway? Would seem from the definition on the page to be a tenent of any form of communism, individual sacrifice for community good. Flockmeal 00:23, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, or redirect. I find it hard to believe that the term "Republican communist" is in common use, or any particular reason to imagine that it means what this article says it means. john 02:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This seems highly improbable. Probably made up. Delete. Mrdice 02:48, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
    • It may seem improbable, but it looks to be legitimate in some sense. Read this article from the Weekly Worker, specifically the third paragraph. This article might have a wrong meaning, but it should be an article, albeit a rewritten one. Meelar 05:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is a real term and is used by some groups to describe themselves. I will rewrite if necessary. Secretlondon 23:05, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Only references I can find for this are groups who think the US Republican party are a bunch of left-wing extremists. DJ Clayworth 16:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Well it does exist - there is a Republican Communist Network in the UK. I am trying to get a decent article cobbled together before the deletion deadline... Secretlondon 22:45, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)


January 14

  • List of jokes about statistics - The Wiki isn't a repository for jokes. Besides, there are only two jokes on this supposed "list", and it's an orphan. PMC 06:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Maybe soembody shoudl start a Wiki for jokes?SpellBott 07:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 15:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree a joke project might be good. Fuzheado 23:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete reluctantly. Breath of fresh air. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but keep the info somewhere (out of the wiki or at your hard disks) so that we can add it when we will start the joke project. Support joke project. Optim 04:12, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Bmills. Anjouli 15:18, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be from webcomic Ctrl-Alt-Del: http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/ RadicalBender 15:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • This is, in fact, from Ctrl+Alt+Del, and as such is only important to fans of the comic and posibly friends of theirs in on the joke. While the comic is quite popular, there really aren't enough people who actually celebrate Winter-Een-Mas to justify an article about it. Do not merge into Leet, because it's more of a Ctrl+Alt+Del concept than a "leet" one. Besides, there's already a note about it in the Ctrl+Alt+Del article proper, where it belongs until it actually becomes a wide-spread holiday. PMC 00:39, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Rewritten and expanded into a more proper, if rather obscure, entry. Kizor 18:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. SpellBott 08:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Three million six hundred twenty-eight thousand eight hundred - and the point was? - David Gerard 21:59, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More interesting than The Best Page in the Universe. --Wik 22:17, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete! Useless page. silsor 22:40, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, and we should probably think more about what to do about "number" pages in general. Fuzheado 23:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We can have articles with all the numbers in them (List of numbers, List of factors, List of prime numbers...). We dont need articles for individual numbers. .·. Optim 23:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
    • Delete. This article is inaccurate and incomplete anyway, there are many properties of the number not investigated, and even the list of factors is incomplete. The number is AFAIK too obscure for the article to be worth fixing at this stage. But in principle, articles on significant numbers are OK IMO. Andrewa 03:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, and delete the redirect from 3628800 as well, as otherwise we will have a needless problem in three and a bit million years. Andrewa 12:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Move the discussion to Talk:List of numbers/Deletion. Anthony DiPierro 05:33, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the info. Delete the page. - Hephaestos 05:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - how can you possibly know whether this is useful to someone else or not (besides, there may be more to add, you'll never know if you delete it). It's factual, and to the point, which is more than can be said about many articles. The hot wolf plots hellfire 06:24, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Firstly, FoT, it's not very helpful (or very effective) to hide your ID in a signature, and secondly, the onus is on someone to show why this number is interesting, not on anyone to show why it's not. I'm interested if anyone can. The latest update is a start but not there yet. And as the original author(s) of this article couldn't even calculate the factors of a factorial accurately, and my grade 6 primary school class can, I doubt they know enough mathematics to write such articles, or to decide which numbers are worth writing about. Sadly. Still delete. Andrewa 12:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 08:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: can never be found. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Put all numbers into a single page, kind of List of prominent numbers. The first ten ones and *really* prominent ones may have an individual page. Mikkalai 02:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Tom Bradley promotion for a self published author [2]. He reviewed his own books [3] favorably at amazon.com. Maximus Rex 23:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't delete. Tom Bradley's novel ACTING ALONE is not self-published-- http://www.browntrout.com/books/results.asp?MGID=204 The amazon.com page referred to does not contain "self-reviews," but just basic descriptions of the books, which amazon.com encourages. The five stars appear because of an amazon.com glitch, which are frequent. User:202.223.166.2
    • Keep, don't delete. Tom Bradley is a major literary presence. See-- http://literati.net/Bradley/BradleyMedia.htm Any good reference work needs to have a listing for this writer. User:202.223.166.2
    • Delete. Poorly written for an article; just a POV promotion of the author, which should not be the basis of a Wikipedia article - Marshman 04:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but rewrite. Seems a legit author, but article is POV. SpellBott 08:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and I'd like to see a policy change where it is specified that any published author merits an article. Wiki is not paper JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to Tom Bradley (author) and post on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The fact that an article is poorly written or POV is not reason enough to post it here. Bmills 12:08, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • All comments above this one refer to a longer, POVier version of the article than the one I just wrote to replace it. Keep stub. (Also no need to do preemptive disambigiation in this case, Bmills, IMO) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:08, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. Self-promotion of irrelevant author. --Wik 19:48, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

January 15

  • ATV News Channel -- after reading both this and Asia Television Ltd, I believe that the only ATV channels that are out there are "Home" and "World", and that while there are news broadcasts on those two stations, there is no actual ATV News Channel. Rdash 03:37, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like a promo for their news service. SpellBott 09:19, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anjouli 16:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Dictatress -- The concept of Dictator does not require one to be of any particular gender. Also, there appears to be no female dictators to be found, and while there is mention of one solitary use of the word ever it merits a dictionary article at best. JackLynch 10:17, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • No such word. Delete. Anjouli 16:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Delete. Bmills 16:59, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete. Rdash 19:36, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 22:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge content and redirect... (kind of delete) EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 04:57, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Ballot design acorned - nearly-incomprehensible original material. Salsa Shark 11:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone's essay. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be an honest attempt at an article, but the contributor needs to learn that the first thing in the article must be an explanation ofwhat this is about. I cannot tell if it is a serrious effort or just BS - Marshman 17:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless author makes it vaguely comprehensible. It sounds like it might be a proposal for a new ballot design, in which case delete as original research, but I can't make enough sense of it to say for sure. --Delirium 01:00, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote. Note the new and related Acorn Standard Ballot article. Bmills 11:20, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • W. Thomas Smith, Jr. is on cleanup. I think it's worth keeping, but I wanted to make sure before I take the time to wikify. Meelar 19:27, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote for deleteion, he dumps his autobiography and is too lazy and lacking in respect to spend a few minutes formating it for wikipedia, delete the article (and hang the author :).
    • Keep. RickK (Angela suggests this vote is ignored as Rick is voting to keep everything for no reason)
    • Delete. Looks like self-promotion, and there's nothing to indicate that he's any more important than thousands upon thousands of other authors and journalists. Isomorphic 20:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree w/ Isomorphic, delete. --Jiang 00:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • mv memorialWiki. JDR
    • Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:46, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 19:48, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Tempshill 22:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Gaylord Focker - stubby orphan; of any use? -- Infrogmation 13:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • delete -- not worth an article in an encyclopedia (there is IMDb for this kind of information) -- mkrohn 14:47, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's the name of "Meet the parents"'s protagonist. Really no point. Delete. Mrdice 18:00, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Without a Meet The Parents article it's not worht including just one character in a seperate article. Flockmeal 20:17, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Ben Stiller and move the information there. Anthony DiPierro 06:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, useless. Great movie though. Tragic that it has no page. PMC 00:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Character information should be included in the "Meet The Parents" article. Pointless. Delete. Rdash 19:36, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, assuming somebody writes the Meet the Parents article and links to it. Otherwise I don't really know what to do, but I've certainly seen other seemingly silly articles about fictional charactersJackLynch 05:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ben Stiller is funny, he's just not encyclopedia material. Leave this kind of stuff for movie databases. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Should be mentioned on Meet the Parents. Tempshill 22:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • James_Joseph_Ferguson's sole reason for being in wp is that he died on Sep11. Should he be moved the the sep11wp or is he important enough to warrant his own article? In case of the latter, I think there should be a little bit more info apart from how he died. Mrdice 02:45, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. moink 21:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote: Moved entry to 15 Jan because Vfd warning wasn't added until that date. -- Oliver P. 12:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Good for you Oliver! Move to sep11 and delete by the way. Anjouli 16:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Secretlondon 14:10, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Faulty Conscience a page for a band that gets 0 google hits and has made no albums. According to the article, it's members are all in junior highschool. I can't even find any evidence that this band exists. Maximus Rex 18:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
    • Delete. The page notes that the band isn't even together anymore. Rdash 19:36, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. While there is not a lot of information about the band on the internet, the band was very popular among many groups in New York City. The discography has not yet been posted, as will actual photos of the band, which would prove their existance. Wikipedia also has a lot of pages on bands that have been disbanded (for example, The Beatles). The page does not in any way harm Wikipedia, or clutter it with useless information: a few of the boys mentioend are now in other bands and surprisingly, have record labels. Ex1le 00:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. They get no Google hits, if they were so popular, someone would have mentioned them *somewhere* online. And the Beatles, though disbanded, are an important disbanded band, unlike these guys. PMC 01:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Though the tone is surprisingly neutral for what's obviously a vanity creation, none of the information is verifiable -- unless someone can point out some source that would confirm the various minutiae, like this little gem: "Much time was spent between the boys at Brizel's country house, where Brizel urinated on Vaz's back." Even a source to confirm this band's existence would be nice. Delete. &mdash No One Jones (talk) 05:04, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity page. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:54, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless references are produced to back up importance, or even prove existence. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity page. Tempshill 22:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Arkum. Non sense. Probably created in order to fill WP with garbage. seems fictious. "+Arkum +god" returns 79 Google hits. "Arkum" returns 992 Google hits. "Rotherham" returns 679 thousand Google hits. "Sheffield" returns 4 million Google hits. from Cleanup. ! Optim 20:23, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) !
    • Drunken twaddle (try saying it in local dialect). Delete - unkamunka. 20:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the name, it's a town in Wûnseradiel municipality in the NL, remove the twaddle and redirect until someone writes an article.The Fellowship of the Troll 20:44, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's not even clear that the article on the town should be at this title rather than Arkum, The Netherlands or whatever. Onebyone 21:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I deleted this as it falls under Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. silsor 00:51, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • Its speedy deletion leaves me unable to tell whether it might be misspelling of Arkham (i.e., nonsense of an exquisite sort that is worthy of coverage), and in the darkr as to whether anyone considered its deletion in light of that possibility. --Jerzy 02:01, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)
    • Since it is the name of a real town, why not simply redirect it to either the Arkum, The Netherlands, or whatever the most logical place in the Netherlands is if there is no article yet. Deleting it was unnecessary, and will not encourage anyone to write the article now. I dare you - prove me wrong and write it - go on, I double-dog-dare you. The Fellowship of the Troll 07:18, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • No. silsor 16:36, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)


  • Omar Sánchez and Omarsanchez. Article does not mention anything notable about this person who appears to be non-famous. Angela. 21:45, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. .·. Optim 22:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
    • Delete Secretlondon 22:24, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless someone uncovers that he's actually done something significant. The name itself gets 1100+ google hits, but none look particularly notable. Seth Ilys 03:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It looked to me like it was obviously written by the article subject in both cases (note how in Omar Sánchez the birth year os conspisiously left out, for example). And I know two languagues and some Portuguese, yet that doeesnt make me notable outside Wikipedia! Antonio King of the Fcuk'rs Martin

January 16

  • Dual Memory, Inversion of Light - WTC memorial design finalists not chosen. Not of lasting importance on their own; no meaningful non-duplicated content. Anything of interest can be placed on a WTC memorial page (whatever name it's finally given) Seth Ilys 03:20, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into and redirect to an article on the design competition. Not sure if we have one of those yet. --Delirium 20:03, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, merge and redirect. No need to delete. The Fellowship of the Troll 21:29, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • McFly. This is Anthony DiPierro's site and the article was created by him to prove a point about the Wikitravel article listed above. Angela. 04:53, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Your speculation about my purpose for creating that article is incorrect. Anthony DiPierro 05:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not speculation when say it on IRC. Delete. It's a database dump with no users besides Anthony. Maximus Rex 05:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I never said on IRC that I created the page to prove a point. I didn't. And there are users besides me so you're wrong there too. Anthony DiPierro 07:54, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sub-stub that could have been instantly deleted, but good to give it the 5 days. Andrewa 08:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Any article with an external link as the first word is a huge red flag. Davodd 06:52, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikisophia - has anyone even heard of this site? Anthony DiPierro 05:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • *Keep. .:. Optim 18:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) .:.
  • Delete. As much as I think Anthony is acting trollishly, in this case I think we should just move the article to meta. --Imran 02:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Feel free; Wikisophia is, however, the only platform for the development of WikiTeX, much beloved by the labourers at Wikitech­L. Danenberg 14:00, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Kdatlyno - a trivial article about a minor charachter in a book ledgerbob 09:59, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Species, not character, and fictional universe, not book. Fix the spelling, and either keep or merge into Known Space and redirect. Salsa Shark 10:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: trivial, and fictional to boot. "They are a physically large and powerful bipedel species with muscular build and thick hides growing up to eight feet tall." Come on -- this kind of pseudodetail, which was of course simply pulled out of Larry Niven's hat, isn't material for an encyclopedia. Put it on a fan page. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into Known Space - UtherSRG 23:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Protest vote (thanks, Vardion), Acorn Standard Ballot - more original material. Salsa Shark 11:11, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Protest vote re-written. Secretlondon 13:14, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • They both need re-writing, not deleting. The Fellowship of the Troll 17:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep protest vote. I've never heard of Acorn standard ballot, but it sounds like some people here have. If it's real, keep and rewrite. These do not belong on VfD; protest vote certainly is a valuable topic. [User:Meelar|Meelar]] 20:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Acorn standard ballot. No evidence such a ballot has ever been used. "Acorn standard ballot" (in quotes, exact phrase) gives no Google hits; "Acorn ballot" gives seven. Obvious attempt to use Wikipedia to promote an electoral innovation. No apparent connection with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Compare "Instant runoff voting" (in quotes, 22100 Google hits). Dpbsmith 21:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep protest vote now that it's been rewritten. Delete Acorn standard ballot, as it doesn't seem to be a genuinely used term. (The Acorn standard ballot article seems to have vanished anyway, though...). -- Vardion 00:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • You wouldn't think this if Wikipedia correctly handled capitalization when using the "Go" button. ChEcK yOuR cApS. Tempshill 01:43, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Technocapitalism - appears article author is trying to coin a phrase not in wide usage; article is POV 65.58.3.176 21:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Google search reveals ~500 results, including at least one published book containing the term in its title. Seems to be a real term in at least some use, though I agree the present article is not really an article on the subject. --Delirium 21:23, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There seems to be a variety of definitions of this term. This page seems to decribe the variant advocated primarily by only Suarez-Villa. Anyhow at the moment it's little more than a dictionary definition. --Imran
    • Delete. Dictionary definition. Tempshill 01:41, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 17

  • Shirley Q. Liquor looks like a vanity page. --Jiang 00:32, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. >1000 Google hits. Tempshill 01:41, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like self-promotion by user 66.32.144.63. --Imran 03:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 05:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but prune. silsor 07:39, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but must be pruned. RedWolf 08:11, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep ledgerbob 10:42, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep because it has a lot of Google hits. SpellBott 12:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Abort. dicdef. Imran 03:12, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 05:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. silsor 07:39, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary. SpellBott 12:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Micronesian music Some anonymous person's comment on life it seems. RedWolf 03:44, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Redwolf's on the money. - UtherSRG 05:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 07:39, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 12:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • One thousand one Unless someone wants to do one to nine hundred ninety nine, I don't see a need for this article at present. RedWolf 04:11, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 07:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But only if it is expanded a bit. 1001 is a special number often used to mean, well, a lot. 1001 Arabian Nights, 1001 the detergent. 1001 ways to.... 1001 uses for ... Certainly a more famous number than many. (Mathematically speaking, more interesting than almost all of them if we go up to infinity.) And let's not forget 1001 Dalmations. (Thsi film was 101, the book was 1001.)SpellBott 13:08, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Noxious trade - dictionary definition. Wiktionary? silsor 05:40, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 05:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. RedWolf 08:11, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • X86-int - do we really need encyclopedia articles on assembly language commands? silsor 08:22, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We definitely do not need separate articles for each instruction of a processor. If the author wants to use one article to list the instructions perhaps that might be okay. Anyone doing any x86 programming is going to want to find a book anyways. RedWolf 09:42, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Socialism and Nazism - irredeemable. This page was created due to a debate on Socialism as to if Nazism was socialist. The entirety of this page is devoted to POV assertions that it isn't, and a few "reasons" why it is. I can't see how this page is ever going to be anything other than a debate, and showpeice of POV. Jack 11:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course, as it is now (17 Jan 2004) it is pure rubbish BUT. The comparison between Socialsm and Nazism as economical and political systems in inherently interesting (so much so that it gave rise to the famous "The Road to Serfdom", of F.A. Hayek). But I have said this in the talk page. In my opinion the article is needed but not as it is now. So, Keep it. Although for now it looks as though it is going to be a battlefield.Pfortuny 11:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's complete garbage. Keep. (Think it as a sort of lightning rod to protect the rest of the encyclopedia against the bizarre fantasies of extreme right-wing kooks.) Tannin 11:41, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looks perfectly good to me (revision as of 06:44, 17 Jan 2004 JackLynch). I'm completely baffled by the objections above. The nature of the relationship is reasonable thing to wonder about—surely everyone wonders about it when they first learn that "Nazi" stands for "National socialism." The relation between them is a perfectly legitimate subject. Isolating contentious issues into separate articles is IMHO a good thing to do. Coming to this as an outsider to the debate, the particular statements that are currently on the page sound reasonably objective, and, in principle, objectively verifiable or falsifiable. Nor does the article seem wildly out of balance to me. Looks like pretty good work to me. (I'm too lazy to check all the previous versions to see whether this is a wildly unstable page that I might just have caught in a brief moment of balance). Dpbsmith 14:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2173939"