Jump to content

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 Ark30inf (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 20 October 2003 (multiracial people). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page

Guidelines for admins -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- copyright violations -- foreign language -- personal subpages -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- deletion guidelines -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign

Images awaiting deletion

Software issues mean images can't be deleted at present. Those listed for more than 7 days should be put here.

Image:Doom3title.jpg, Image:Internal reflection in semiC glass block.png, Image:BillGates.bmp, Image:K_Patterson.jpg, Image:George w. bush.jpg, Image:Lightning-Protector-US1266175.png, Image:Manuscript.doc, Image:Adrenalina.jpg, Image:Celje-rscd.gif, Image:Dicass.gif (warning x-rated image), Image:M S A copy.jpg, Image:Rh10X.jpg, Image:Pict0003.JPG Image:Sammikeace.jpg, Image:Websegle.jpg, Image:Melencholia I.png, Image:Floppy disk 5.25 inch.jpg, Image:Xpmaolaugh.jpg, Image:China (58).jpg, Image:Map.bmp

October 11

  • Eager Beaver - describes a bar in the movie Striptease. This article should never have existed. -- Cyan 21:36, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Striptease (movie). Evil saltine 23:43, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Would have done, if I thought it was appropriate. But such a redirect would hardly exhaust the usage of the phrase "Eager Beaver". -- Cyan 01:30, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Abstain. I've expanded this a little. JamesDay 08:21, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect, probably. Otherwise, move content and delete. Other uses of "eager beaver" should be at eager beaver. -- Minesweeper 08:27, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Someone should make an article for eager beaver, and then add at the end, "Eager Beaver was also the name of the bar in the movie Striptease. Wiwaxia 23:05, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't have an article on eager beaver, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. IMO. Martin 20:45, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree with Martin. A redirect would be weird since the usage in the movie Striptease is not the majority usage of the phrase "eager beaver". Axlrosen 17:57, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Redirect would not be appropriate. Angela 22:54, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

October 12


October 14

  • Kutelpuuknetimu
    • Delete. If more information can be included in article (it is inexcusable that the author of the stories is not mentioned, for instance) I am willing to reconsider my position. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:46, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Made-up subject. 0 Google hits. --mav 02:24, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh! It says it's a conlang! We have an article on Cimeran, so why not a page of Kutelpuuknetimu? Wiwaxia 02:30, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK
    • Delete. Angela 02:39, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:38, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:55, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Mattworld 00:43, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. Cool language. I'm including it in my research on Indo-European languages.
    • Delete. "Terra Pvlchra", which is supposedly the name of the stories that this language came from, gets 2 Google hits. (The article doesn't even say who wrote these stories...) Axlrosen 14:35, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Cimeran. Cimeran +conlang gets no Google hits apart from Wikipedia. Angela 02:39, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Tim Skorick. Non-famous. 88 Google hits. Angela
    • Delete. Looks like a page put up by him or by his friends. -- Mattworld 00:43, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Reads like it was written by an idiot who knows almost nothing but rumours about "Tim". If Tim were deserving of an article, this would need to be mostly erased as a very poor quality addition to Wikipedia - Marshman 01:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing in the article tells me that he's worth of a Wikipedia article. Andre Engels 13:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article is about me and the individual that composed it is now in serious doo-doo. I'll blank the thing out, but I hope that administrators erase the entry completely as soon as they get a chance. Thanks. Timmay 09:38, 15 Oct 2003 (MST)

October 15

  • Close reading and analysis of A Farewell to Arms
    • Not encyclopedic, but some could maybe be adapted into A Farewell to Arms Tuf-Kat 02:13, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • This person 67.74.194.65 is posting great chunks of literary criticism posing as encyclopaedia articles Close reading and analysis of A Farewell to Arms, A Farewell to Arms, The Epic Jack Kerouac, TheEpicJackKerouacBibliography, On The Road ("An exploration of Kerouac's novel On the Road as a modern American Epic"). These are interesting subjects but not encyclopaedic at the moment. Adam 03:22, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Wasn't there discussion about putting this kind of material in one of the other Wikiprojects? (Wikibooks?) Andre Engels 13:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Literary criticism is an entirely appropriate subject for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should describe notable theories of literary criticism, famous literary critics, and influential books of literary criticism. Keep as redirect to A Farewell to Arms, where I've moved the content. Martin 16:48, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't see "An encyclopedia should devote several pages to detailed description of a single theory" on that list - seems to me that a short summary ("Much has been written on the metaphorical significance of rain in A Farewell to Arms..."), with a link or two to examples elsewhere, ought to be sufficient and appropriate. —Paul A 05:53, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I think literary criticism is far too subjective for an encyclopedia. It sure looks out of place in that article. If there is a disagreement about the themes or metaphors of a book, how can we resolve it? There are no facts to argue about, as there are in other articles, only impressions and opinions. Seems like the wrong place for that. Axlrosen 20:13, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Axlrosen. Do we want to expand that to movie reviews next? What about album reviews? RickK 01:09, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's just someone's review. Totally non-encyclopedic and thank goodness. Daniel Quinlan 07:49, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
  • Lift Every Voice and Sing
    • source text, probably not copyrighted anymore, but still inappropriate Tuf-Kat 04:49, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless text is added showing the song's cultural importance
    • Delete. If someone chooses to write an article showing the song's cultural importance, they'll have a nice clean space to put it in. Onebyone 15:11, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Fixed now, change vote to keep. Onebyone 16:28, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I will work on making this an article. BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Very good article now. Keep - Marshman 23:06, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. it is informative now. Kingturtle 16:51, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Pasquale Paglia
    • A horrible mess and a probable copyvio to boot. --mav 07:51, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • If it can't be fixed then delete it. Dysprosia 07:53, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I would not be sorry to see this one go. Andre Engels 13:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Appears to have been written by Camille Paglia or her shadow. Clearly just an obit piece. Some parts could be worked into the Camille Paglia article, which itself could use a lot of trimming as it is a self-agrandizing entry. Some people have very little modesty - Marshman 23:03, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. reads like a resume. Unless someone wants to fix it. Kingturtle 16:51, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • STARCKDEUTSCH - obscure conlang? Dysprosia 09:54, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Talking with author to try and improve. Dysprosia 10:21, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • And I doubt that Mathias Koeppel is worth keeping - should be incorporated into that Starckdeutsch if that one stays. andy 11:43, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • With the changes that have been made, Starckdeutsch seems worth keeping. I am in favor of deleting Mathias Koeppel, though. It's only one fact, and that fact is already mentioned in the Starckdeutsch article. Andre Engels 13:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • 130 google hits, moderately interesting content. Needs editing. If Dysprosia can vouch for the accuracy and verifiability of the content then keep. Otherwise delete. Martin 16:39, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. I think its interesting.
    • I do agree the changes have improved Starckdeutsch (albeit a paragraph's worth of copied text), however I still can't find a lot of content on the language itself. I don't speak German, unfortunately, so I can't decipher some of the stuff on Koeppel's website - I'm leaning a little towards a "keep" though. Dysprosia 09:26, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Puretracks - advertisement for a website that ranks #1,657,742 on Alexa. Evil saltine 17:27, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It just started up yesterday, so it's not surprising that it's low on Alexa. It's noteworthy in that it's one of the handful of sites where you can legally buy major-label songs. But I don't know that it needs its own article. You'd find out more by going to the actual web site than by reading the current article here. Maybe that qualifies it as a sub-stub. Axlrosen 20:20, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm the one who added that page and I am not in any way affiliated with their business, so I see no reason to consider it as an advertisement, any more than any other commercial website submitted here.SD6-Agent 21:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. That's correct that it just started yesterday. A bit historic since it is the first online song-purchasing system in Canada. dave 04:07, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Same happened in US yesterday by Apple subsiderary and Napster (I think) coming back next month. These are newsworthy - Marshman 09:24, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • 37 google news hits... borderline, but keep. Martin 22:56, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • John Elliott - NPOV, delete, unless this is an important politician (showing off my ignorance) in which case rewrite pls. DiruWiki 19:22, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • No he wasn't a politician, just another Aussie corporate crook who is now a washed-up bankrupt old drunk. He might be worth an article on a slow day but I'm not going to write it. I'd delete it until someone wants to do it properly. Adam 13:25, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 16

  • Correspondence theory - doesn't make much sense. --Wik 00:30, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Opinion and/or source material, not an encyclopedia article. Axlrosen 14:43, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • (BTW I added the complete VfD notification text to the article, replacing "Listed on VfD". The complete text is a lot nicer for a newbie who creates a new article in good faith, and then sees that it may be deleted. Just putting "Listed on VfD" is kind of unfriendly. Axlrosen 15:07, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC))
    • A manifesto, not an encyclopedia article. Unless replaced by different content describing the theory in NPOV terms, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think the subject matter is covered by more talented minds than these, who might do well to read and listen first, then add to existing articles on "truth" and "science" and related philosophies. - Marshman 09:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Made stub. Either allow it to live or redirect it to truth, which also deals with this. Evercat 18:23, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Eh? What's wrong with it? If it's decided that the coverage on the page truth is better then fine - redirect, don't delete. Evercat 18:44, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Confucius email list - advertisement --Jiang 05:20, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV and a Yahoo Group, without more, should not have an entry. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:13, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, not every Yahoo Group should have an entry. Fuzheado 05:26, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, definitely below the 5000-people threshold. -- JeLuF 05:46, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Menchi 07:18, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Gee, that page is almost like if I wrote We love to fly and it shooows!! on the Delta page! Besides, wikipedia is not a place for people to put their emails there. Go become popular somewhere else! Adios, good bye, Adieu, bye bye now! Delete! -- Antonio Skull Tattoos! Martin 2:01 AM local ST. 16 Oct 2003
    • De-Lete. Kosebamse 14:01, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Sorry folks. Revised it in light of these criticisms. Initially thought the list being first on the block would be enough for an entry, but take your points about the promotional element. -- User:tct25 15:43, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete still, IMHO. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not really the place for a list of Yahoo groups. tct25, is there something which has happened in the group which has made a significant contribution to philosophy? Any well known current philosophers participating? Any other reason why this group, rather than the subject is is discussing, merits an article? Should the list be an external link from an article about he philosophy? JamesDay 22:03, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • Stupid multiplex is "an idiosyncratic term not found in any dictionary" (quote from article). Note, idiosyncratic to one person. Google: 7 hits. --Menchi 07:18, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps rather than deletion, this and wrong-way multiplex and anything related need to be incorporated into an article on highway numbering by someone who knows something about the subject (which lets me out). They don't need to exist either as independent articles OR redirects. -- Someone else 07:31, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The whole concept that the numbering system is "stupid" in these instances is a POV not shared by anyone else. There may be valid reasons (having to do with history, cost-sharing, maintenance jurisdiction, and making routes usable by those from out of town). I agree, an article on the reasons could be interesting, but this is just a POV coming largely from ignorance. - Marshman 17:10, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A redirect is good enough. Regardless the current content deleted or not, it is an editiorial choice to be made. -- Taku
      • Using the term "stupid" in an article advertises it as POV, therefore it is unencyclopedic to retain even as a redirect - Marshman 09:01, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Agreed, delete. Delete also all AKFD redirects immediately on these grounds. Onebyone 09:58, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Afraid "AKFD" means nothing to me, so I would have to take that comment as agreement - Marshman
    • Delete. POV, admittedly idiosyncratic, extremely vague sourcing and practically not useful at all. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:05, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. First sentence clearly admits this term isn't used by anyone, and Google search only brings up people complaining about movie theaters, not roads. It should not even survive as a redirect. Fuzheado 23:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • Ellen Oshey Obviously unimportant. Google shows me "8 of about 13" hits, of which three from Wikipedia or links thereto. Kosebamse 14:23, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now -- but content of page does not seem to justify its inclusion. Perhaps it may become relevant when expanded, but if it does not move beyond this point, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:51, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Maybe a starting point for an interesting article. She was Japanese and daughter of an artist. Not the general lineage for Tory leaders. A more general point: is it just possible that sometimes interestings don't turn up on Google? bmills 14:41, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I'll be the first to admit that, but it's a starting point. If there is something interesting about her, add it, please. That sub-stub looks not worth keeping, though. Kosebamse 14:53, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • I've added some detail in outline. Anyone with an interest in Japanese art and French Impressionism, Samuari clans, GB Shaw, women in history, the ballet and British political history might be able to turn it into an interesting and charming article of great interest to future students of Iain Duncan Smith's life. bmills 15:30, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless something is added that explains why she should have an article. If she is only famous for being related with a British politician and a Japanse artist, one could redirect the article to one of them - probably the politician, since the artist isn't even named. - Sandman 18:39, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Very few Google hits, and all of them talk only about who she was related to, not about any reason why she was notable. Axlrosen 20:48, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a geneology - Marshman 08:58, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Concur with Sandman. -- Finlay McWalter 23:23, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Iam 00:24, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Did she herself do something interesting or is her only interest as wife, daughter and mother of others who don't seem to need to be linked together through her? Or is there a reason to use her as a link, other than probably boosting Google ranking for the others? JamesDay 22:03, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • David Clark -May be vanity page. -戴&#30505sv
    • Delete - Almost nonsensical, and I couldn't find any notable David Clark who's an archaeologist on Google. Axlrosen 20:59, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 23:32, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is nonsensical - Marshman 08:58, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Putting his name on list of archaeologists was done well before the article appeared, so there might well be an article to be written about him. The current one does not look like a vanity page, but does look like plain nonsense. Delete. Andre Engels 10:55, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Drivel. -- Finlay McWalter 23:06, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Iam 00:24, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Brave New World Revisited - it's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. And might even be a copyvio as it says that it consists of excerpts from a book. andy 21:18, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 23:32, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Good book, but doesn't merit an article. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I've made this a redirect to Brave New World which will have a mention of this book shortly. JamesDay 22:03, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Datenschlag - minor website. Alexa rank 358,052. --Wik 23:19, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 23:32, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- advert for S&M site. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The site appears not to be commercial, and the text in the article is definetely not advertorial. According to the information in the article, also seems to have major significance. A subculture which is participated in by a minority, will always have a low Alexa ranking. Evaluating this by a mechanically applied yardstick would just demonstrate the shortcomings of such evaluations. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 18:49, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Abstain - don't know its significance in that culture in Germany. Cimon, perhaps this should be a redirect to sadomasochiism and a one paragraph description of a linked site from there instead of an article of its own? JamesDay 22:03, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Schnee 22:28, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 17

  • Hrudicek, Tenerelarth, Domarq Wel'sk Armalniid - I originally deleted on sight since these yielded zero google hits, and thought they were just nonsense, but the author of the book that these pages seem to refer to asked I put them on VfD, so here they are. Dysprosia 00:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete them. They have no importance to an encyclopedia. RickK 01:40, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Which book is it? Might be a possibility to put this on the book's page. Whether that is done or not, I vote for delete. Andre Engels 07:17, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Silly - Marshman 08:58, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete; can't see any reason why these need their own articles. --Morven 10:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 18:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • No Google hits, no soup. Delete. BL 22:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Jake 05:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Zap away. Daniel Quinlan 07:45, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Wrong-way multiplex - like Stupid multiplex listed above, is a POV article. However, there are individual articles on the US Interstates, and the information here maybe could (if POV removed) be placed under the proper highway article. Since ther term is made up and not even correctly applied (there is nothing "wrong way" about the complaint), I see no value in retaining as a redirect - Marshman 09:07, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Personal terminology isn't encyclopedic, and such articles end up as essays or rants not encyclopedia articles --Morven 10:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Same as stupid multiplex. Fuzheado 14:45, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. BL 22:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Jake 05:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 07:45, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of MILFs - inappropriate and subjective. Dysprosia 10:23, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Indeed. The subjectivity alone makes it unsuitable. --Morven 10:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. For the uninitiated, MILF stands for Mom(s) I'd Like to F**k (oh, I'm embarrassed that I know that) -- Finlay McWalter 13:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • MILF could possibly be an article, but not this. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • you get the same SPAM I get. Delete. An advertisement for a porn site - Marshman 17:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) and cannot get much more POV than that! - Marshman
    • There need to be an article about that abbrevation. Delete. BL 22:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Completely subjective. Delete. Evil saltine 23:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not even that- some of those women are nowhere near old enough to be called that... -- Jake 05:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Don't they have to be mothers, not just of a certain age? At any rate, completely subjective, as, who is the "I"? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE. Daniel Quinlan 07:45, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Negrita Jayde - from Cleanup. Bodybuilder who was engaged to Gregory Hines, and has written an excercise book. Maybe the book is notable enough, or maybe she was an illustrious bodybuilder, but I have a sneaking suspicion that she is here because she was engaged to be married to Hines. If that is the case, maybe she does not merit an article. Again, this is at the very edge. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 11:08, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • No official page on Google, that I can see. Everyone whose even half of being anyone has an official page. Though her program does air on Balance TV (digital cable) in Canada. - user:zanimum
    • That's much of an overstatement about "everyone whose even half of being anyone has an official page". If that's the case then there are a lot of underappreciated people out there! SD6-Agent 16:50, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • She's written a book and has a TV program?! A clear keeper. Keep. BL 22:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Jake 05:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, I guess. Daniel Quinlan 07:45, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep -- Finlay McWalter 15:08, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Taku
  • Image:Baekjebronzecenser.jpg - Buyeo National Museum did not grant to use without permission. They said I have to follow the procedure to get the permission to use, but usually they permit to use for non-commercial purpose. Ryuch 11:15, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of universities in Macau - user:Gboy claims that its "just a start", but I don't think it will grow to much more use. DMOZ/Google Directory lists just the University of Macau, Institute of Tourism Education (IFT), Inter-University Institute of Macau (IIUM), Macau Polytechnic Institute, Euro-Info Centre, European Studies Institute, and some middle school. That at maximum six higher education schools, a few of which are just less formal "institutes". - user:zanimum
  • 1940 in science - Poorly formatted, plus we don't have it for any other year. - user:zanimum
    • But we should have. Keep. BL 22:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • We already have 'xxxx in music' et al, can't see the harm in having them '.... in science' too --Morven 22:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We should have this series. -- Jake 05:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, perhaps with a standard format?2toise 11:27, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but perhaps the standard format should be the decade rather than the year. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Taku
    • Keep. JamesDay 22:56, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Have you actually looked at this page? I'm in favor of "year in science" pages if done reasonably well, but this dreadful little attempt (only contribution by an anon writer) is a poor way to start. Delete. -- Infrogmation 07:29, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like this could be a useful "list" although perhaps redundant with 1940 (same stuff would be listed in both places or a link could be provided from 1940 and fewer "science" items listed at 1940). I already edited out the silly stuff - Marshman 18:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • 8SVX - I can't see how this will even grow to a paragraph. It should just be left inside the IFF format article. - user:zanimum
  • Meeting at the tomb of Saint Adalbert
    • Delete. M123 21:37, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Not delete: The crucial event in the early history of Poland
    • Keep. BL 22:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • POV, but this does sound like a historical event. If this is the best title for a real historical event not documented yet here, then it should be kept and made NPOV. --Morven 22:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • As near as I can determine, little is known about this legendary meeting, and scholars aren't even sure if it happened at the tomb or just on the road, traveling to it. Delete this article--any important information about the formation of Poland could go into the articles on the historical figures who reportedly met, and/or into whichever article from the History of Poland series applies. Jwrosenzweig 04:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • No reason why this needs to be a separate article. Merge into something else and delete. RickK 06:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article involves Poland, Germany, and St. Adalbert. We should have had it before.GH 16:04, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Note [GH] is the author of the page, and has already voted. Maximus Rex 16:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge or die ;-). -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We should cover just speculations or myths, if so. Wikipedia is not only a book of history. -- Taku
    • Keep. The questionable accuracy of this legendary story make it even more interesting. - SimonP 18:34, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Regained Territories a very biased account of territories lost by Germany after WWII. M123 21:43, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Not delete: why biased? There are only some historical informations from middle ages, not even complete! Nothind newer then 1350.
      • Note above comment written by the author of the page. Maximus Rex 05:38, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 22:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Probably better made NPOV than deleted. --Morven 22:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • At least it needs work. If it stays, it should be moved to a clearer title, perhaps something like "Polish regained territories". -- Infrogmation 04:25, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is a reasonable topic even though the stuff there now is not so good. Agree with Infrogmation in the name. --Zero 04:52, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • The title "Regained Territories" or "Polish Regained Territories" is inherently POV since the areas in question would've had to have been Polish to begin with in order to be regained. This does not need a seperate page. Do any of the people voting to keep actually know about the topic they are voting for? Maximus Rex 05:38, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Keep. Are you trying to question that Silesia or Pomerania used to be a province of Poland? There are some rifts as to how long for, but the historical facts are not in question. The second point that the term itself was used after WW2. The reader should have a chance to understand background of the meaning.GH 16:07, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • Note [GH] is the author of the page, and has already voted. Maximus Rex 16:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Keep. Right, the name ought to be changed, but such a topic will re-emerge if deleted. The problem is rather how to handle this kind of articles where the few contributors tend to have very strong feelings attached.--Ruhrjung 07:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Although the title and the concept are POV, why can't we report POVs? We can make the article NPOV while discussing the POV it reports. RickK 05:57, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Quite. We manage to have a NPOV article on Lebensraum without endorsing it, so why not this? Keep. -- Finlay McWalter 15:08, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be part of article Polish history -- deosn't stand on it's own. Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Keep. It still needs improvement but it is an encyclopedic topic. - SimonP 18:34, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Drang nach Osten another biased entry by the same user as the last one. M123 21:55, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • [[User: AM] Not delete: it was term used by German nationalists and taken by other nationalists. It become the part of the way people saw history around WWII. Therefore it should be clarified, if the historical process happenned as it was alleged.
    • Keep. BL 22:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • If this is a term that might be used in an English-language work, then keep. --Morven 22:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. I've never seen it referred to in English works other than in German language (with explanation or translation usually attached).--Ruhrjung 07:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A genuine expression (including in english-language historical works), in Britanica, lots of valid google hits. While the current content is patchy and POV, it's not irredemable. -- Finlay McWalter 22:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Jake 05:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be part of article German history -- deosn't stand on it's own. Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • The German Drang nach Osten is as much important for the history of the Slavs.--Ruhrjung 07:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Taku
    • This is an important concept in German history and certainly deserves its own article. Having said that, it needs rewriting or -- even better -- might be merged with Lebensraum. --KF 20:25, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Keep. Translates to "War in the East" and there was/is a well known board game called Drang nach Osten, marketed in English-speaking countries, which also merits coverage in this article. JamesDay 23:07, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I believe a better translation would "Push East". Maximus Rex 01:04, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • My apologies to German speakers. Probably came to my mind because it's the title of another wargame on the same subject.:) JamesDay 07:19, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Rock'n'Roll - i realize it is a redirect, but is ANYONE ever going to type in Rock'n'Roll? Kingturtle
    • What does it hurt? Besides, they might, and people definitely might link to it. Pointing to a redirect is better than pointing at nothing, and having it there reduces the chance of someone writing a duplicate article at Rock'n'Roll not realising that another article already exists. --Morven 22:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Check "What links here" and fix those links, instead of listing the redirect here, would be my advice. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 22:38, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • To answer kingturtle, judging from the backlinks, at least four people have typed in Rock'n'Roll in Wikipedia articles. Also, there's no positive reason to delete (or at least, none has been given). So, keep the redirect.Martin 23:02, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Infrogmation 04:25, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- Jake 05:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep~~

October 18

  • Stanford Dollies, unexplained acronym, no country or any other context. Someone might know what it's about, otherwise delete. jimfbleak 07:29, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this one, there's only 15 google hits but it might still be well-known enough to keep. Evil saltine 07:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Just not much to say about this... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - from the Google hits they don't seem any more important than any other pep squad from any other college (or high school), and we certainly don't need an article on each one of those. (What would they say?) Axlrosen 18:08, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Dockyard. Dictionary definition. Orphan article that has been moved to Wiktionary already. Angela 09:40, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • (moved from Talk:Dockyard) - Now come on... Wikipedia is not a dictionary... even if Yard is okay, something as pithy as this isn't... shouldn't we just redirect this to wharf? -- SJK
    • (moved from Talk:Dockyard) - I vote for deletion/redirection. Kpjas 17:08 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Evil saltine 23:51, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the revised version. It's now an article instead of a dictionary definition. Still needs work to describe dockyard equipment and add more examples, though. JamesDay 00:25, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to shipyard, and point out the differences there. --Menchi 00:32, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm redirecting. JamesDay 23:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • List of baby names. No, no, PLEASE no. Let's kill this before it grows. RickK 23:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected to List of first names and I left a message on the author's talk page telling them not to do this. Angela 23:42, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wharf - Dictionary definition. Evil saltine 23:51, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • There seems to be enough in pier (wharf is along coastline, pier sticks out from it, same commercial role) that the result of a redirect and merge might be too large. What do others think? I like the redirect, not sure about the resulting size. JamesDay 23:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 18

  • Image:Renfair.jpg purported photo of Isis formerly linked to User:Isis. Since her user page has been deleted, should this be deleted too? --Jiang 01:33, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Axlrosen 01:04, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • LSTDPCA - Feeble inside joke. Delete. DavidWBrooks 02:33, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Evil saltine 05:22, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 18:14, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 15:10, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. If more information can be included on what the Planetarion forums were, &c. I might be willing to reconsider. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 19

  • Asassineted, Asassineted, Asassinated, Asassinated, Assassinated - all redirects to List of assassinated persons. I suggest that all but the correct spelling be deleted immediately. Btw, I'm not sure I found all the variants. --Zero 11:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Why delete? Imagine that a person with spelling problems in english (like me, for instance) is looking for assassinated persons? Unless the redirects use an enormous space in the wiki, i say keep. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 11:26, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless a redirect is problematic, it is highly unlikely to be deleted. Is there any reason these are problematic? Angela 11:30, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Is this serious? Do we have entries for every possible misspelling of every article, to accommodate people who can't spell? Tony Blare Tony Bliar Tony Blaire Tony Blear Tony Blaer Tony Blér? Adam 15:35, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep, of course!--Ruhrjung 07:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I think we should fix the misspellings, but I suppose we could keep the misspelled redirects. They won't have anything linking to them once the articles with the misspellings are fixed, but they will at least be there for the next time someone misspells them. Adam Bishop 17:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree w/Adam. It is the place of a Dictionary to catch mispellings and direct user to correct spelling; not a legit function of Wikipedia, except in special cases - Marshman 18:03, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's long been a wikipedia policy to keep spelling mistakes. We might even get a lot of google hits by being one of the only sites that link to these alternate spellings. - SimonP 18:34, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • (I'm the proposer.) I'll add that not only are the spellings ending in eted really silly, the whole set of words violate the rules for article names. They are past tense verbs. If anything, the names should be assassination etc. Who is ever going to type in assassinated (spelt correctly or not) as an article title? Also, though it is true we keep mispellings after they are fixed, in this case someone created all these variants intentionally at the same time. Is that what we want people to do? --Zero 13:12, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't think people are going to type them as article titles, but someone might make a link to assassinated, which would then go to the right place instead of being a red link. Adam Bishop 13:17, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Equestrian - wikipedia is not a dictionary. and i cannot see any way this article could be anything more than a word definition. Kingturtle 16:57, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Um. I stubified it. Keep. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
    • Keep. Evil saltine 00:42, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. What links here says why. I've added the more common meaning for horse riding events and linked to overview section in Horse and some sub-topics which have pages. Mentioned that the sculpture portion is a stub for Equestrian (sculpture) and could be moved there if enough material accumulates. JamesDay 00:48, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Pi Approximation Day This is made up. A joke. It does not belong in an encyclopaedia. MrJones 18:06, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I've never heard of that one, but there is Pi Day, which is March 14 (3/14). That's kind of a joke too, but it's a "real joke" I suppose. Adam Bishop 18:18, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • That page also should die. MrJones 19:24, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Why? In any case, at least we don't have an article about the Prime Number Shitting Bear :) (Yet...) Adam Bishop 19:38, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • It is rubbish and doesn't tell one anything. Why keep it? I don't deny it exists, but should we have informaton about every 'day' that gets invented? Every site that refers to it that I found was either cranky or otherwise full of nonsense. It doesn't really bear consideration. Throw it out. MrJones 20:07, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
            • Actually, at my high school (albeit a math and science HS) we did celebrate Pi day. And I've heard several other references to it since then. It's a legit phenomenon --Raul654 20:47, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
            • Just because it's strange doesn't mean it should be deleted. Evil saltine 00:27, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
            • We had Pi Day at my high school too (although I don't really recall anything special happening, except the math and science teachers being excited...) Adam Bishop 00:44, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

October 20

  • The picture of Margaret Sinclair Trudeau, Image:Margaret Trudeau.jpg, states that "photo scanned from Book cover. Used in Wikipedia under "Fair Use" provisions of a public personality.". Is that a valid "Fair Use" provision? I wouldn't think so. What do you guys think? Xamian 04:21, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not part of the fair use guideline. Not at all. It's not hard to get permission and we need to pay attention to the law. It needs to be removed. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • The same user who posted the photo above also posted Image:JeffreyD.jpg (linked off of Jeffrey Dahmer, stating that the photo is fair use because it is on a whole bunch of websites. Is that a valid reason?
    • Nope! I got a speeding ticket while driving with traffic. Do you think the cop cared? Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • List of biracial people - this list could get long. Fuzheado
    • Keep. There are dozens of lists to get really long. -- Taku
    • Remove! --Ruhrjung 07:30, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove, but only if we also remove other lists based on race. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • I moved this to List of multiracial people before I found it on VfD. Put the notice in the article, guys! DJ Clayworth 13:49, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. What's the problem with having a potentially long entry if the content is information? MK 12:17 EST, 20 Oct 2003
    • I doubt that it's useful, but keep, since I see no specific reason to delete it. A potential cross-referencing nightmare - anyone adding information to it which is not in or added to the page of the individual in question should be hunted down and yelled at. Onebyone 17:17, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I've got not problem with this one. Ark30inf 17:37, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1597262"