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 Tappyea (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 9 March 2004 (list of concentration camps for poles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Note that this page is for listing articles that you think are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles you want to see deleted, but doing so would mean a change in policy. In that case, go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to discuss a policy change. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.

See Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#VOTE:_NEW_LAYOUT_FOR_VFD! for a vote on layout change.

Jump to the end of the page to add a new deletion candidate. Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month: 8th - 7th - 6th - 5th - 4th - 3rd

Front Matter

Cleanup

Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

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 -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- Cleanup -- translations

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

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

March 4

( March 3 | 5 )
Torah cosmos | Drew | than | Climate rsch | tencel | List: general-interest Bible passes | Space Shuttle pages | desenrascanso | Ornam'n'crime | Eth. fitnessism | paddywagon | McFly | seditty | St. earflaps | prone |

Torah Cosmos

See talk:Torah Cosmos

Drew

  • We don't need pages on first names. moink 02:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I would just like to clarify that my vote remains delete, despite changes in the page. We don't have, or need, other disambiguation pages on first or last names. Disambiguation is meant for pages in which the whole name is ambiguous. moink 07:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is used as a disambiguation page. RickK 02:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 19:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if it becomes a redir to various Drews. Davodd 00:51, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks good now. No longer related to first names only. Jay 08:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Drew University. Anthony DiPierro 14:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Than

  • Dicdef --Rlandmann 05:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:49, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information on contested issues of English usage is valuable and encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded with etymologies, reworded. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, transwiki to Wikipedia where its new expanded form will fit well. Warofdreams 18:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tencel

  • This one is also Wiktionary-bound. Denelson83 08:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 14:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I said above, I think we should allow dicdefs to be speedy-deletion candidates. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:50, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful

List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

See Talk:List of Bible passages of other than theological interest

Content-free Space Shuttle pages

See Talk:List of space shuttle missions

====Desenrascanso==== Desenrascanço

  • Gets no google hits except Wikipedia derivatives. Made up? DJ Clayworth 15:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the word is a portugese one? The page is seriously POV though.If we keep we need to NPOV it. This is not a vote either way.theresa knott 15:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • You are right dear Theresa, thats the most wonderful of the Portuguese virtues, the one who keeps saving us for the last 900 years! Muriel
    • Despite the true definition and the tender way in which is expressed, delete, not encyclopaediac. Muriel 15:57, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It needs cleanup. VfD is not cleanup. Optim 16:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a real portugese word for "crisis management". Delete because it is not in use in English. (I did not find it in any of the dictionaries I checked.) However if keep, move to Wiktionary (after thorough NPOV). Rossami 16:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If I understand well, it's not just a word. Also, Agora is not used in English but no-one ever voted to deleted it AFAIK. Would you? Optim 16:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Agora is in use in English. Evidence - it was listed in the very first dictionary I checked. From evidence available to me, Desenrascanso is just a word. Rossami
    • I suggest merge with Culture of Portugal Muriel 16:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I would suggest to start a Culture of Portugal article with this info, i.e. move it there. :) Optim 16:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The correct spelling returns several other hits on Google, actually. Fredrik 16:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: valid topic, move to clean up list. The link w/ Dutch sailors is interesting, I wonder if it can be substantiated. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could use some work.Doovinator 21:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ornamentation and crime

  • Original research from 1908 DJ Clayworth 15:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, incoherent (hence nonsense). Dpbsmith 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I did move it to Ormamentation and crime, I mean Ornamention and crime, I mean Ornimentatation and crime, but only because I could'nt stand its' mispeling.)
  • There may be some merit to this page, but I can't see it. Mark Richards 21:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am still trying to understand it - Texture 21:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 21:16, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Bizzarre. If this isn't patent nonsense, nothing is. Meelar 21:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Archaic is the best way of putting it. Secretlondon 22:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research...ish. moink 18:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs rewrite. There is a book, Ornament and Crime, about austrian philosophy, and there is also a little known band, Ornament and Crime. Cool name. The book may be related to some philosophical school out of Europe that would be worth knowing about. The article as it is is just a quote out of the book, which is not an encyclopedic entry.Kd4ttc 16:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Re wrote it as a stub based on your comment, please can you check this, as I can't vouch of the accuracy of the information? Also, if we keep it, the page needs to be renamed. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a stub. You've got the information that links up with this here in the Adolf Loos article. What else do you want/need? <KF> 00:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ethical fitnessism

  • Original research, only 1 google hit. -- Graham  :) 16:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - I can't decide if it is an advertisement for the concept or what but it has no support - Texture 19:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not an advert - it claims to be about Dawkins - and quotes his work. Doesn't count as original research as it is clearly published. But - has anyone got the book to verify? I haven't. Secretlondon 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If it's about Dawkin's parts of it should be merged with Richard Dawkins, I don't think it deserves a page of it's own with one Google hit. I don't think Dawkins actually uses the term "ethical fitnessism", but he may have mentioned "ethical fitness". --Lexor|Talk 03:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to something like Ethics and evolutionary psychology and keep. I'm fairly familiar with Dawkins' popular writings, and but for the idiosyncratic title it seems a fair statement of one ethical calculus based on sociobiology. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Paddywagon

  • Orphaned slang term, little chance of improvement. -- Graham  :) 16:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary? I think the use of this slang term has outgrown its racist meaning; and is now generically used to indicate a police car (as seen in public enemy lyrics). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:59, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I rewrote with a slightly fuller explanation--still a stub, but could maybe be expanded. Meelar 21:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe this could be redirected to Police car or something of the kind? Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Borderline, but I think it could grow. Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If there were an article on police vehicles in general it ought to redirect there, but (to the best of my knowledge) there isn't. -Sean 06:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful

McFly

See Talk:McFly

Note that Eloquence has removed this ahead of time - and decided to keep it despite a 7-2 vote for deletion. --Wik 16:54, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Seditty

  • to Wiktionary? DJ Clayworth 18:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like outright trolling to me. I can't find the word in google define or in dictionary.com. I'm guessing it's a pun on someone's name or something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I presume this is a personal attack on someone. Secretlondon 22:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Google actually turns up plenty of uses with this meaning [1], so I'm guessing its recent slang. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - trolling - Texture 19:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Current status: 3d/0k (not including nominator)

Stellated earflaps

See Talk:Stellated earflaps

Prone

Dicdef. Transwiki and delete. moink 20:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. dicdefs should be speedily deleted. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwikied to wiktionary and *then* deleted, surely? Secretlondon 22:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes- sorry, i guess there might need to be a new category - "candidates for speedy transwikification"- this could include recipes and dicdefs (although I wasn't part of the recipe discussion, i don't know how that finally ended up, so I might be wrong). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dont even think about it. First, see encyclopedia. Next see compendium. Next see talk:compendium. Next see definition. And finally talk:definition. Bensaccount 18:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Is that a vote to keep, or to delete?
  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 20:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to wiktionary Rossami 21:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Transwiki Imran 02:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 5

( March 4 | 6 )
K.Knote | Sept 2004 | Ding! | Boiko,Briquet | C.Ruchala | CardRealm | cattleboat | Sanderss | Shultz last words | H.Porten |

Kilian Knote

Undeleted as it was deleted out of process without being here five days. Angela. 02:00, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • if Kilian has a page, i want one too. Muriel 16:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; purely a vanity page; no meaningful Google hits. Added VfD notice. -- Seth Ilys 16:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonfamous. Maroux 20:46, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, "job wanted" ad. Lupo 10:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You already have a page. Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as k Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not in the wikispace! Muriel 11:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no value. 80.202.80.207 05:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable individual. Maximus Rex 05:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page theresa knott 10:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a significant person. Average Earthman 17:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity/bore User:PilotPrecise 06:49, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Current status: 12d/1k

September 2004, et. al.

Ding Scale

Gets no Google hits. Made up or original research. Maximus Rex 05:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. April Fool Day joke. Mikkalai 09:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim 09:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rubbish. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) counted as d Optim·.· 12:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke and a bad one. No Google hits (although it's hard to tell because of many hits on words like "grading scale" that have been line-broken and hyphenated!). Dpbsmith 13:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Decumanus 15:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Urm, delete. Bad joke. Besides, 1/0 is undefined, not infinity. -Seth Mahoney 19:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. That's just tasteless. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:27, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - tasteless - Texture 22:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mike Church 22:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bate Boiko and Briquet

Cali Ruchala

Journalist (not especially famous). Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 14:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony, please stop insulting other people for raising legitimate questions. This is a very borderline article -- I'd say this person is just on the edge of being encyclopedia worthy, but Cali's magazines seem professional enough that it tips me over into "keep", barely. Jwrosenzweig 17:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've removed what could be seen as an insult. Sorry. Anthony DiPierro 17:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 20:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CardRealm

Internet card game: we are not advertising. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as it stands - could easily be included in list of card games - Texture 15:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Maroux 22:47, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some individual or coalition of individuals qualified to write on the subject as to why this Cardrealm has general interest does so, providing a better article. Right now, it's merely a stub, put there as an outlink to another site. People come to Wikipedia to learn about things, and maybe some will come to learn about Cardrealm. But a page with only trivial information and an out-link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Mike Church 22:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - No content in the article. No establishment of the product. Advertisement. User:PilotPrecise 06:39, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. Warofdreams 18:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cattleboat

Slang - wikyionary. Orphan. Muriel 12:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 15:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful Bensaccount 23:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Current status: 2d/1k

Lewis Sanders, Justin Sanders

Non famous vanity. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Last Words of Dutch Shultz

A gangster's incoherent death-bed rambles. Source text; doubt it could be made into a reasonable article. -- Infrogmation 20:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Harri Porten

See Talk:Harri Porten

March 6

( March 5 | 7 )
D.Mana | More CEM | Carrying cap | Genovese | C.E.Jones | Headology | Staple | A.Garcia | List of Footballers | S.Dagora | J.Debnath | Milnes | Ximan Studios | Rice cooker pandora | ear banana |

Davide Mana

More Customer experience management


Carrying capacity

  • And then move carrying capacity (biology) here. Disambiguation page with only one meaning. Andre Engels 13:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I'm not aware of any other sense of the term. Psychonaut 17:46, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What about the carrying capacity of a truck, airplane, or even yourself.

Richard Genovese

See Talk:Richard Genovese Vfd header added on the 6th.

Charles Edward Jones

See Talk:Charles Edward Jones Vfd header added on the 6th.

Headology

Looks like nonsense. 995 hits at google and the first ones are not quite "scientific". There is even a username somewhere... Pfortuny 16:43, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. It's a term used a lot in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series of novels. Graham  :) 16:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If it's fictional, add context. If nonsense, delete. Meelar 19:20, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Granny Weatherwax, since AFAIK she's the only one who uses the term, and her section on the aforementioned page has all the explanation necessary. --67.69.188.153 19:42, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poorly coined term. Mikkalai 00:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but maybe it'd be worth keeping if someone reworked it so that it wasn't pretending to be scientific. Everyking 01:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Move to cleanup. As it stands the page is seriously incorrect because it would lead the reader to believe this is an accepted word in ordinary English. The American Heritage Dictionary knoweth not of headology. However it gets so many Google hits that I am convinced that it is a well-known bit of jargon with some specific meaning among some group of people. Someone with a foot in both the world of the American Heritage Dictionary and the world where "headology" is a word needs to write it with proper context, identifying the group of people (Wiccans? Pratchett fans?) that use it, and what the word means within that group. Dpbsmith 03:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Granny Weatherwax and redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Does it have any currency outside Pratchett fandom? Is it universally recognized as a reference to the Pratchett oeuvre or has it acquired a life of its own? Is it established to be a Pratchett coinage? Inquiring heads want to know. Dpbsmith 12:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where I have come across it outside Pratchett fans, it's been used as an obvious reference to Pratchett's (or Granny Weatherwax's) headology or system of sympathetic magic. I've never come across it outside of that context. Graham  :) 17:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Confirmed - no use outside Pratchett fandom. Merge. Rossami 17:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Staple (cooking)

Typical example of wiktionary term. Pfortuny 16:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Garcia

9/11 victim, not particularly remarkable. -- Graham  :) 16:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Del. --Wik 16:54, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Anthony DiPierro 17:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete; unremarkable and unimportant. Psychonaut 17:46, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not famous. moink 17:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 18:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not famous. Not encyclopedic -Hcheney 21:05, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • To Sep11Wiki. Why do people think that dying is enough to go into an encyclopedia?Maroux 22:45, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself, I don't. I think living is enough to go into an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 00:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - move to memorial - Texture 23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move and delete. Secretlondon 23:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and del. --Jiang 00:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move and delete. Not worthy of entry before 9/11. Average Earthman 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - my grandpa doesnt need to be in here eitherPilotPrecise06:52, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and delete. -- Dissident 17:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of 125 Greatest Living Footballers

  • The issue here is about the 125 footballers, which is simply a wrongly named article. To continue discussing the 100 footballers list, please see Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. This latter list has already been listed on VfD and kept on content grounds. The decision on copyright grounds is deferred to the other page. Previous talk here has been moved to the talk page of the 100 footballers list as the copyright discussion could be useful. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The 125 list should be deleted. Badly named article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Delete. A redirect would be confusing. Angela. 23:51, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Steve Dagora

Not famous or important. --Alex S 17:40, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Says he was famous for being on a postage stamp, at least for a little while. Everyking 18:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub, topic important to philatelists and citizens of Papua New Guinea. I fail to see how deletion will achieve anything other than loss both of content and goodwill. Andrewa 20:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous in Papua is famous enough. Maroux 22:43, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
    • I guess... But he appeared on the stamp at 10, meaning he probably didn't do anything extraordianry to merit it, and it doesn't mention anything noteworthy that he did besides that. Plus his life is so boring. --Alex S 02:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lasting influence (for stamp collectors)
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with it. Ivan 19:02, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

PilotPrecise 06:59, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Debnath

Content removed by anon--see current version. Should we keep? Or is he insignificant anyway, making this a dead letter? Meelar 19:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Milnes

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. At the very least, this would need major refactoring, and I'm not seeing how to do that meaningfully without opening the floodgates to all sorts of genealogical information. -- Seth Ilys 21:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could be described as a vanity page. Unless we want articles on everybodies family, this should go. Maroux 22:41, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • Delete - family names are not inherently encyclopedic - Texture 23:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a probable copyvio from [2], a pay site. Davodd 10:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC) Weak keep now. Davodd 18:05, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it does need editing. --Douglas Milnes 16:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The information is not genealogical in nature, it is historic data. There is no family tree or ancestry structure. Dictionary definition of genealogical
    • Family names are encyclopedic in historical context. How narrow would you define the broadness of what an encyclopedia is? To describe the information as a 'vanity page' is riduculous, as this can be labelled on anyone who writes something on a topic of which they have interest and identify with.
    • Where family names are historic (such as with races and clans) there is no reason for excluding them from an encyclopedia. See Scots and Mongols as examples - and don't kid yourself that just because they are larger groups, they should therefore be included. The major reason for excluding the smaller race/clan/family names from a standard, hard-copy, encyclopedia is simply that it would make the published work too big: here at last is a medium where we can record such information, never mind how infrequently is it referenced.
    • The entry summary for the item very clearly states that the copyright is mine, and indicates the first-published source (which currently doesn't exist on the web). If this information, in this form is available on some pay site, I'd like to know because I'll consider legal action - there is a lot of research in those few words.
    • This all said, I do think the work needs amending. The data about Boernicians, for example, should be moved to the linked page, as has been done with Scots, Picts and Angles from other pages.
  • Delete: nonencyclopedic. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep : Davodd was wrong to suggest that it was a copyright violation. Wile E. Heresiarch may have a point about nonencylopedic - there is much more that could be added to the article - remaining historic rather than genealogical Peter Blackburn 19:29, 7 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: definition of encyclopedia "...dealing with the entire range of human knowledge..." Background information on clans (historic or current) seems to fall within the entire range of human knowledge.
  • Delete. This is not a genealogical site. RickK 23:59, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks nicely refactored now. +sj+ 06:27, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 14:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Family names are not inherently encyclopedic. Genealogical info should go someplace else (a new Wiki-companion project maybe?). Only links to article are VfD and User:Douglas Milnes which does reinforce the suspicion that this is a "vanity" entry. Rossami 17:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite several people blandly claiming otherwise, I can't see any reason why a well-written article about a family name isn't encyclopedic. A family name is a real thing with specific defining characteristics, and is of interest to some. Sounds like an encyclopedia entry to me. Jgm 19:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ximan Studios

  • Delete. Orphan, Vanity page, of no broader significance. (Although the site itself is moderately amusing) -- Seth Ilys 22:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity/advert - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 00:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rice cooker techniques, Rice an' Peas, Pandora Feast

  • Delete or transwiki the recipes to Wikibooks. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 22:44, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic - Texture 23:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks. (and leave a link somewhere - don't just remove all trace)Secretlondon 23:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • move and delete--Jiang


Banana in my ear

  • Not worthy of being an article. Kingturtle 23:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No vote. Anthony DiPierro 00:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Psuedo-intellectual nonsense. Davodd 00:13, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Extremely fuzzy, but the topic might have potential. No vote. Fredrik 00:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep maybe? Looking at the history, it looks like the original author started with an article about a type of joke, then made the article its self into a joke... For some reason. --Seth Mahoney 00:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It sounds a little silly, but I don't think it's nonsense. Everyking 01:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's an escaped monty python skit. - not encyclopedic - Texture 02:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: doesn't merit inclusion. It's not very funny either. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basically it's just a joke. We should not be including jokes just because they have been around long enough. Andre Engels 10:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bad title, though. But this is a genre of humor, and it is occasionally used for illustrative purposes, as the article rightly notes. It's never going to be a featured article (IMO), but it's worthy of being here. We do need to find a better title, but that's more well-suited to the talk page. Jwrosenzweig 17:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 7

( March 6 | 8 )
J.Del Freje | User:E_Gruber | assertoric | List-of-slaves | Leica | Death ring | Pro audio FW800 | R.Aylett | simulacrum | quant(biz) | jury rig | D.Wright | WP:lamest editwars] | A.Izq & Chiappini | spum | Vile & Ve | homonymic | virus (pl) | 'sexed up' | Cake: Have'n'Eat

Juanita Del Freje

  • Dubious 9/11 victim. --Jiang 08:15, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not interesting. Move to memorial wiki and/or delete. Kosebamse 10:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Shouldnt even be moved since it's likely false. --Jiang 10:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof this person actually existed. Davodd 10:36, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that it's been listed here before and survived is some evidence this person actually existed. Needs to be investigated further. Anthony DiPierro 12:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • what makes you think it was listed here before? --Jiang 12:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That is not evidence the person actually existed. The link you provided suggests that the discussion was against keeping.--Jiang 13:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I would think if the person didn't exist someone would have pointed that out. Anthony DiPierro 13:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't prove the person does exist. Refer to wikipedia:votes for undeletion and get acquainted with our friend, User:The Cunctator. A bunch of these apocryphal 9/11 victims was deleted months ago with objections. Some people just don't care. --Jiang 13:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I never said it proved anything. I said it showed evidence, and that this needs to be investigated further. As for VfU, I'm one of the people who voted to undelete. Anthony DiPierro 13:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. How often do we have to repeat this exercise? We have decided before not to have random 9/11 victims. Those should be instantly deleted. --Wik 13:28, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Even if we had decided not to have random 9/11 victims, they'd still have to go through here to determine if they were random. Anthony DiPierro 13:33, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And don't blank it. Everyking 18:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Great, I see it's already been deleted. Since the article dealt with the controversy surrounding this person's existence, I can see no valid reason why. Everyking 21:12, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've undeleted. Someone deleted it from the speedy deletions page without checking the history and content. Secretlondon 23:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD tag restored. Anthony DiPierro 00:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete... - Fredrik 00:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 02:31, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to 9/11 wiki and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google finds only links based on Wikipedia. I would vote delete if she were real, I certainly do now that she's probably not real, nor a 'famous legend'. Not sure whether she should even be at 9/11 wiki. Andre Engels 10:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonfamous. -- Graham  :) 17:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimemorial and delete. Rossami 17:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move if applicable, but delete anyway. -- Dissident 17:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimemorial and delete. Warofdreams 18:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Ernst_Gruber

No User Contributions, WP is no Homepageprovider, BTW s.o is spamming ([[4]] and others) the german WP with contributions with this name (and other names, anonym. is blocked in the de:WP already), possible part if some sort of blog.network.--Nerd

Assertoric

Has been transwikied to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Assertoric, sub stub dictionary definition only. -- Graham  :) 00:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Should be a matter of speedy deletion. Fredrik 00:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't even agree with the dicdef that is there - Texture 02:33, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Christian slaves

  • A list of two members, which seems a little unnecessary anyway. RickK 01:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Either delete, or extend it as a List of famous slaves. Andre Engels 10:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The second member of the list is not described as slave. Mikkalai 11:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Andre Engels that a list of famous slaves would be worth compiling. Not that I'm volunteering however. MK 17:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Humus sapiens Talk 23:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Leica Geosystems

  • advert. moink 03:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be a popular company. Do you think this could be cleaned up to not be an ad? Anthony DiPierro 04:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm. It seemed pretty run of the mill to me. But maybe. If someone cleans it up so it's not an ad anymore I'll withdraw the nomination. moink 05:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It's only been on Wikipedia for a day now. I'm sure it'll get cleaned up. Hopefully within 5 days, I guess. Anthony DiPierro 05:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a well-known, established brand. As for "advert", please be careful with cliches. The article says pure facts. Mikkalai 17:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It was an advert when I listed it. Sometimes articles change while they're posted on vfd. I have no idea if it's well-known or not. moink 21:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Mikkalai, the statements made are purely factual. Average Earthman 18:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factual.Doovinator 21:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Death Ring

  • Delete - either pov, vanity, or advert depending on the reason for creating the entry - Texture 03:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: 12,300 google hits for "deathring.us". 17,600 yahoo hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a webring. By definition it will have many hits. - Texture 04:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that only popular webrings would have many hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It also doesn't appear to be a webring. Searching for deathring and webring on google only comes up with 5 hits. Anthony DiPierro 04:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-article. Non-famous. Non-important. Linked site contains a large number of copyvios. --Imran 05:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just some internet-site. Also little NPOV content. Andre Engels 10:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Changed to film disambig page - still an orphan. Davodd 10:14, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep disambig. Meelar 11:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not famous, vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep disambig. +sj+ 06:45, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

Pro Audio Firewire800 HD

  • Delete, promotional. No obvious reason why this particular product rates an article of its own. Dpbsmith 03:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 04:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete. Unexpandable. +sj+ 06:46, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Delete - Dammit Jim, this is an Encyclopedia, not a product data sheet.PilotPrecise 11:08, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Aylett

  • Vanity page. RickK 04:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • What makes you think this is a vanity page? Anthony DiPierro 04:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. Everyking 05:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak vote for keep. moink 05:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - reaching professorhood and writing a popular-science book are in my opinion enough to keep. Andre Engels 10:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Author. Davodd 10:54, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Published. Established. PilotPrecise 07:09, 8 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Quant (business jargon)

Also seems bogus. — Timwi 17:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I used to be one. It's a whole subindustry on Wall Street. -- Decumanus 17:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: valid topic. Should probably redirect to quantitative finance or something but that's a clean up issue. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Second the redirect. Allow quantitative finance or even quant culture. Quant itself is jargon, more appropriate for a dictionary. Mike Church 22:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote, but I have heard the term occasionaly. Also some university business schools combine all the stats, calculus, financial math, etc. into one department called "quantitative methods". mydogategodshat 00:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If the article is kept, it needs to say who uses the word quant. Having a PhD in statistics with a minor in math, having taught math and statistics at five different universities, I've never heard the term except here. I suspect it may have currency among business people, so that it should be labeled as business jargon rather than either "maths" (which would be appropriate if mathematicians or statisticians used the word quant). Those same business people who decided to use the term rocket scientist to refer to those who apply sophisticated mathematics to the financial markets are mathematical ignoramuses who don't know that, for example numerical is nowhere near synonymous with mathematical. Michael Hardy 00:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And now I've moved the article. Michael Hardy 00:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (even after move and edits). It is a real nickname commonly used in investments, business and business consulting communities, but it belongs in Wiktionary, not here. Rossami 14:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jury rig

At the moment, this is just a dictionary definition, and I'm not convinced it's worth expanding. Deb 17:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geez, I can only type so fast... :-) On the prowl for a good picture now. Stan 17:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be expanding nicely. moink 18:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting in its own right, even more so as the explanation of the now generally and widely used phrase. Niteowlneils 03:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A nice little article. Jgm 19:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Wright

See Talk:Daniel Wright for discussion -- Graham  :)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever

  • All this does is promote lame edit wars. It rewards instigators of edit wars with publicity. This does not help us fight edit wars; it encourages them. We should not be glorifying such behavior. Kingturtle 17:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: this has already been listed on Vfd once before, and was kept and taken off listing without reaching the full five days. My vote is to delete for the above reasons. -- Graham  :) 17:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Infrogmation 17:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Kingturtle. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We may not like them, but edit wars are an important aspect of the sociology of Wikipedia. Everyking 17:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. They remind us all that we can get caught up in silly trivia and forget to see the wider view. I don't think we're glorifying edit warriors, if anything, we're mocking them. moink 18:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing new to add. Tuf-Kat 18:09, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Been through here and survived. No reason not to delete. →Raul654 18:11, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 20:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is clearly labeled as whimsical, and is as good a thermometer as the wikiholic test of what goes on here. While Wikipedia is not a joke (quoth Angela), neither should it take itself so seriously that it self-puckers. Denni 22:28, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is no different than the bad jokes and deleted nonsense page. I don't think the existence of these pages will encourage future occurances. When I look at the examples of deleted nonsense or lame edit wars it dosnt make me want to start doing it. mydogategodshat 23:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Meta. Angela. 01:50, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not like we're overdosed with humour here. DJ Clayworth 04:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not glorification, and as DJC notes, a little more humour wouldn't be a bad thing. If this moves to meta, bad jokes and deleted nonsense should also move there. +sj+ 07:58, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Keep. Humorous and educational.Doovinator 21:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alejandro Izquierdo and Chiappini

  • Self-promotion. --Wik 18:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - identical vanity articles - Texture 18:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. moink 18:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worse than vanity, it's foolishness. Everyking 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity. Psychonaut 19:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. RickK 00:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant. Average Earthman 18:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spum

Neologism. -- Decumanus 18:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Too new. moink 18:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • So what? Keep. Everyking 18:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Second moink, delete. Fredrik 19:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; too new to be encyclopæedic. Psychonaut 19:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I am the writer, so if I shoudn't vote, remove my vote? To keep the text I will transfer it to my user page anyway. Ellywa 20:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borderline as far as being encyclopedic, but being well-written and well documented tips the balance in favor of keeping it. Dpbsmith 22:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless we plan to include every single neologism. Quibble splatwock raraxial. --Imran 02:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 03:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary and delete. Rossami 17:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can restore it if it ever becomes more widely used. Average Earthman 18:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vile and Ve

  • We have pages for Vili and Ve. After looking at the history, this page looks suspiciously like it was started as an advert for the musical duo mentioned. Google hasn't heard of them. I have already added the one piece of useful information here (that Lodur may be an alternate name for Vili) into the article on Vili. Isomorphic 18:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with delete of the viola players. Could someone check if those two gods actually did build Yggdrasil? I've merged that info, want to make sure it's accurate. Meelar 19:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't move it because I couldn't tell if the article meant that Vile and Ve made Yggdrasil or that Odin made Yggdrasil. Isomorphic 20:08, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Homonymic

  • Dictionary definition. -- Graham  :) 19:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this page. This is an entry for a dictionary (Wiktionary), not an encyclopedia. Also homonym is not a synonym of homonymic. Homonym is the noun form of homonymic. -- Owen and Rob 19:44, 7 Mar 2004 (GMT)
  • Wiktionary and delete. Rossami 17:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Virus (plural)

  • Not encyclopedic. Comes across as a topic for debate. Suggest adding to an article on iregular plurals. Mouse/mice but not house/hice? Denni 22:01, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty decent article on a frequently mooted issue. (Although you'd think the very first point, "Wikipedia (see English plural) and most English language dictionaries give the plural of virus simply as viruses" would settle the matter. As for "topic for debate," I'd say it's a fair example of presenting more than one point of view. Dpbsmith 22:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fredrik 22:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Recurring topic. Poor title, though, it's not disambiguating from other things called virus. -- VV 23:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frequently arising matter, deserves a page. Aside from any other factor, if we don't have this page, we will be forever dealing with misguided edits to many related pages. Tannin 23:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. The plural is not parenthetical but central. How about Plural of virus? moink 23:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and done this rename. I don't think there'll be consensus to delete. -- VV 02:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge with Virus. The discussion doesn't warrant its own article, and would be best suited at Virus Dysprosia 04:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary and delete (even after move). Rossami 17:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

sexed up

  • Keep. (Has a vfd tag, but was not listed here until now.) The current content sucks, but it is a common term, and could become a useful article--how/when/where it originated would be interesting; also a reference to the phrase "sex sells". If nothing else, it could redirect to Hyperbole, with appropriate reference added to that article. Niteowlneils 23:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with above suggestions.
  • It was a key phrase in the Hutton Inquiry which is why the content is why it is. Please add/amend. Secretlondon 23:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neutral. IMO this is not a particularly useful contribution and never likely to be, but nor is there any persuasive case for deletion. Human knowledge? Borderline. A poor choice of article name at best. The material could perhaps be NPOVed and moved to an article on journalistic bias or similar by someone interested in the topic, with a redirect. Andrewa 23:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This article definitely needs changing. It is becoming sexed up itself!
    • I've removed the POV content, and expanded it. Could still use some work, but is an example of what it could become. Niteowlneils 23:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment : Neutral. As the original author I agree that it wasn't the most informative first entry I could've made to this place. The example was meant to be sexed up as a self reference, however I realised I should've expilicitly stated this and have tried to ammend it appropriately. Bad newbieness, sorry. easilyremembered 23:47 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but needs a bit more. Dysprosia 04:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common term. --Johnleemk 07:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Common term but words, phrases and their use flow better in Wiktionary than they can here. Rossami 14:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Encyclopedia is about facts, not about words however idiomatic or neologismic they could be. Do you really want all these "beefed up", "screwed up", "dressed up" and hundreds of other ups here? Mikkalai 18:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have one's cake and eat it too

  • Delete. This article is too imprecise and cumbrsome to warrant inclusion.--Tappyea 23:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak vote to keep Owen&rob 23:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a common phrase, and it seems precise enough to me. Everyking 23:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless dictionary definintion. Tannin
  • Delete. Definition of cliche phrase. Mike Church 06:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common phrase. --Johnleemk 07:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary and/or delete. Hard to expand. (I don't think dysprosia's expansion belongs as part of the article/entry, for instance)... +sj+ 08:03, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. It's a real phrase but definitions, phrases and their usage flow better in Wiktionary, not here. Rossami 14:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. It is more of a definition than anything else. Should be moved to Wiktionary. Jacob1207 17:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary. -- Dissident 17:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 8

( March 7 )

Temperance (disambiguation)

  • This page is redundant. It has been superseded by Temperance. To put 'disambiguation' in the title is unnecessary. Owen&rob 00:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • leave as redirect. --Jiang 00:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no need to have Temperance (disambiguation) since Temperance now contains the page and there is no need to have 'disambiguation' in the title (although there is, obviously, the disambiguation message at the bottom).
    • It's important to say that titles that include "(disambiguation)" are anomolies, not the routine; the creating editor may be confused about that. --Jerzy(t) 01:26, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Niteowlneils 00:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Anthony DiPierro 00:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pray tell me what is the reason to keep an artificial page to which no links are expected as a redirect? Like any bureaucracy, these XXX(disambiguation) pages start their own parasitic life. Mikkalai 18:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Mikkalai - Texture 18:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Grandfather's brother paradox

  • No hits from google. --Imran 18:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not the legitimate paradox - Texture 18:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Made up. Maximus Rex, 19:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doggabyte, Nonabyte

Look dubious, with no clear evidence for their existence: the SI prefixes stop at Yocta, AFAIK. Also see other similarly named articles by the creator of these articles. -- The Anome 01:07, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Wiktionary. Looks real, but it's nothing but a long-winded dictionary definition. Anthony DiPierro 01:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The only use I can find is wordplay (eg [5] ). -- The Anome 01:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html lists only yotta (1024) through yocto (10-24). Burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that the others are recognized. Dpbsmith 01:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) The external links cited on the main page are only references to the proposed binary prefixes, "kibibytes," etc. The talk page cites [6]. This URL retrieves a document, and the document does list doggabyte and nonabyte in the appendix, but the document is not about SI or other prefixes and gives no other references for their use. The articles on doggabyte and nonabyte IMHO absolutely must state that they are not SI prefixes and give the provenance for these words—who defined them, what organizations have accepted them, and where they are used. Dpbsmith 01:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and ask the original author to verify source. If the author is unable to do so, delete it. It looks, and may very well be, perfectly valid. I've heard a similar prefix used for very small numbers (Not nano, smaller). Metasquares 02:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The area of numeric nomenclature is not some obscure borderline science or political jargon of newspapers, and the terminology of this kind must be reasonably recognized before it is put in the encyclopedia. Mikkalai 03:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If these are kept the redirects should be undeleted. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dubious jargon definitions. Mike Church 06:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)]
  • Delete. Fake (if humorous) units with no backing from a recognized standard. +sj+ 06:17, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Proof or delete. I expect delete. Fredrik 10:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ibn Juzayy

  • New article w/ no real information, and "summary" ("Buff Guy") makes it sound like a vanity page. --zandperl 04:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh...[7]. Legit and important. To use a legal definition, "Keep, with prejudice." RadicalBender 05:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. +sj+ 09:22, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Keep if turned into a proper stub. Fredrik 15:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The single bit of information on the page is already included on the only page that links to this article. Jacob1207 17:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Jacob1207 Changed to keep if redirected - Texture 17:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect to the author Ibn Battuta. This could even be the classical case where keep and redirect is appropriate in fact, assuming nothing else is known about the subject, and given that there's already a reasonable article on the author. Many people who can't remember the author's name will remember this name. Andrewa 19:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Now a good stub. Andrewa 20:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Uncertain. Now a marginal stub, and a redirect may be more appropriate IMO, see Talk:Ibn Juzayy. Andrewa 20:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't redirect. That would strongly discourage creation of a new page. Anthony DiPierro 20:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I've already done it. I wasn't quite sure what the procedure is! I suggest you now either build a good stub, if suitable material exists, or list the redirect on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Andrewa 20:07, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meeve

  • Seems made-up or some sort of an inside joke. Only relevant google hit is an urbandictionary.com entry [8] with 1 vote, possibly from the same submitter. --Delirium 07:36, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hope Meeve doesn't come after me for doubting his existence. Everyking 07:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Brains!..." Bad night of the living dead spoof - Texture 15:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like 99.9% pure nonsense to me, issuing from some space case's head. At best, it's contemporary fiction that will be forgotten in approximately 3.72 months. jaknouse 15:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - for the reasons given above - Niteowlneils 21:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Feo

Vanity page; not even a complete name (Daniel Feo Pizolante) see Talk:Daniel_Feo for discussion (further justfication)JimD 10:13, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

  • Delete. The initial edit makes it even clearer why this should be deleted. Maximus Rex, 10:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - for reasons given above - Texture 15:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - for reasons given above - Niteowlneils 21:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Press releases/How to send a press release

Do we really want to encourage people to spam newspapers and other agencies with our press release? This page invites anyone to send it anywhere; lots of newspapers are then bound to receive multiple copies. Additionally, it advises the reader to fake their From header... — Timwi 10:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well clearly if people are sending press releases wrongly, we need a how-to to tell them how to do it rightly! Thus this is clearly a content issue not a deletion issue. (NB we have a log so that newspapers should not receive multiple copies) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Then certainly this page should link to that log. Even better yet, the log and the explanations should be on the same page, and that page here should be deleted. — Timwi 13:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Newspapers don't necessarily consider this spam, or at least it's useful spam--they have to find news somehow. Besides, how is it "faking" your from header? You're sending it out on behalf of Wikimedia PR, at their request. Meelar 21:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if improved. Having a how-to PR article is probably desirable, but should have more detailed info about avoiding overuse/spam (IE recommend checking the logbook before sending anything). And it shouldn't tell people to fake the header. Niteowlneils 21:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thunderpants

  • Look, this is just silly. "Crazy fun for kids"? Has no place in a self-respecting encyclopedia. Jonesy 13:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real movie. Real dumb movie. Bad stub. Needs to be fixed, not deleted. moink 13:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Moink. I've added the director and cast. The page needs moving to cleanup not deleting. theresa knott 14:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are other movies (even really bad ones) with pages. Needs more info, however. Jacob1207 17:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggest anyone who wants to delete things that have no place in a self-respecting encyclopedia recheck Wikipedia:Deletion policy (you have read it I suppose?) and probably discuss some changes on its talk page. But I think it just means you don't like the movie. I suspect I wouldn't like it either, but it certainly exists, I remember its revolting advertising, and that's no grounds for deletion IMO. Andrewa 19:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Coming along nicely. Niteowlneils 20:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good lord, this movie sounds awful. Meelar 20:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kalfwgrim

  • Delete - can't find a viking by this name - no reference to his fame/importance - Texture 14:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Timwi 14:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yahoo/google finds nothing. Niteowlneils 20:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The letter W does not occur in standardized Old Norse texts. Likely fictional: delete. Smerdis of Tlön 21:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- thanks for the sharp eyes, Smerdis. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chico McMurtrie Chico MacMurtrie

Just a quote, nothing else. — Timwi 16:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete (reaffirmed - vanity) - the email included leans it toward vanity - Texture 16:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google search turns up only his website and a few brief mentions of only local or niche interest. Jacob1207 17:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 17:32, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote, but if decision is delete, remove name from list of "famous roboticists" on robots page (which was added today by the same anonymous user). Rossami 18:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub. He had a solo showing at the Tech museum, and has permanent artwork in San Fran. (there are other "local" articles) Niteowlneils 20:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Moved to Chico MacMurtrie. Was already linked from Electronic art. Anthony DiPierro 23:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DAIM

  • Delete - vanity for graffiti artist - includes tag names of his "crews". - Texture 16:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jacob1207 17:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verifiable. Keep. Verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 17:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has no place in an encyclopedia. Why would anyone look it up?
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. moink 18:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 20:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Mixed feelings. Article as is sucks. And I don't know if wikipedia wants to promote graffitti artists. On the other hand, among such artists, he apparently is one of the more notable. A Yahoo search for famous graffiti artists daim finds 119 hits. Searching for just daim gets 135,000 hits, tho' many are for other uses of the word, but it includes magazine interviews of him, and places his work has been shown. Maybe a stub or a disambig page, as Daim Zainuddin was apparently a powerful political figure in Mayalasia. Niteowlneils 20:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Should it be spelled in all caps like that? Anthony DiPierro 23:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently famous. Meelar 20:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page for a petty criminal. --Hcheney 22:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

  • Majority of votes on VfU were to undelete. Angela. (this is not a vote)
  • Keep. Widely read author. Certainly passes "audience of 5000" test. Meelar 20:19, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely. Everyking 20:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Arthur George Carrick 20:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks legitimate to me. Jwrosenzweig 21:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Was this deleted for being a copyright infingement? [9] Anthony DiPierro 21:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't think so, but since it apparently is: delete rather, rewrite. Fredrik 21:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Absolute Nonsense

  • Might be worth to be incorporated into Spam, but no reason to have this orphan IMHO. andy 21:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Used to bypass e-mail filtering, so should be merged with some article about e-mail filtering. Bayesian filter doesn't exist yet, perhaps a stub should be created there and this content merged with it. Fredrik 21:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 23:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neofire

  • Vanity. Delete. RadicalBender 22:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded andy 22:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the very definition of vanity. Whether he created it or not, it is not important or famous enough to be more than a vanity posting. - Texture 22:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's the biography of a website. There are many other articles devoted to websites. I guess you should delete all biographies and band articles too because they're considered vanity? Bonfire2k4 22:20, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ex post facto delete. Vanity page. --Hcheney 22:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see how it's vanity. Doesn't that mean it was created by the owner of the website? Anthony DiPierro 22:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. Vanity also means 'something useless or unimportant', and if it was written by a friend, it's almost the same thing as if he had written it himself anyway. Delete. Fredrik 23:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I've never heard the word vanity used in that way. In any case, this article certainly isn't useless or unimportant. Anthony DiPierro 23:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • How is this article useful or important? It's about a weblog, one of tens of thousands; and at that, one which isn't in any way remarkable. Fredrik 23:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It tells you about the weblog. Also the webmaster. That's a lot more useful than many of the other pages on here. What's useful about Mount Hope, New York? What's important about Carlisle Floyd? Does anyone care about the Grand Duchess Tatiana of Russia or Raymond Lambert? Anthony DiPierro 23:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Horst Helle

  • Delete - this is a resume including email, address, and phone number - vanity - Texture 22:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to de: and let them handle it ;-) — Timwi 22:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lord Harcourt

  • Speedy delete. 'f u!' is the only content.--Tappyea 23:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Morning care

? — Timwi 23:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Comedy but absolutely useless. --Tappyea 00:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Concentration Camps for Poles

An enormously long list of Polish and German place-names, with no context or explanation, plus some odd bits of Polish text. What is it about Polish history at Wikipedia? Adam 00:03, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete or some serious work needed. There must be some more explanation as to what this list is of and some tidying up to be done if it to be kept. --Tappyea 00:06, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2685898"