Misplaced Pages

:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ruhrjung (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 19 March 2004 ((See this creative writing letter)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:41, 19 March 2004 by Ruhrjung (talk | contribs) ((See this creative writing letter))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Read and understand the Misplaced Pages deletion policy before editing this page. Please use the "what links here" link in the sidebar for a page you think merits deletion, to get a sense of its context. Finally, explain your reasoning for every page you list, even if it is obvious.

This page is for articles that are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles which merit a change in the deletion policy. In the second case, visit Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion policy and suggest a policy change.

Press the end key on your keyboard to jump to the end of the page, and click on the lowest edit link to add a new candidate.
Links to entries nominated on specific days of the month: 19 - 18 - 17 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 13 - 12
Front Matter
Use Misplaced Pages:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Misplaced Pages:Cleanup process.

Boilerplate
Please remember 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.) Don't use {{subst:Vfd}} as this makes it very difficult to find old VFD tags which have not been removed.

Sister pages
copyright violations -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- cleanup -- translations

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

Decisions in progress

Ongoing discussions


March 15

(March 14|16|^) | Masha Allah | MW:Religion (again?) | List:severed penises | J.A.Sayers | Power Rangers char-pages | "miserable failure" | MW:Cults | V.I.Pudovkin | To You Beloved Comrade | businessman | MW:Vfdheader (commented out on this page!) | Sweet,Innocent |

Masha Allah

  • Redirect to Allah? RickK | Talk 02:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No it's just an expression. Don't know what should be done with it though. Dori | Talk 03:07, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Are there enough similar expressions (e.g. "Deus vult") to make one page of them all? -- Nunh-huh 03:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is English wikipedia, not arab or farsi. Mikkalai 07:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed opinion after looking into Allah. Allah akbar, indeed :-). Mikkalai 01:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: significant phrase in a foreign language, will be encountered by English speakers. A page discussing all the "God" phrases in the world would be interesting, although I'm too lazy to do it. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • In all languages? I am lazy to even think about it.Mikkalai 01:14, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A good idea would be to look at List of Latin phrases and create List of Arabic phrases, composed similarly: with subarticles only for phrases that have something to say about. Allah and 99 Names of God articles contain seeds of this arabic list. Mikkalai 01:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Anthony DiPierro 18:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Does not merit own page. But List of Arabic phrases is needed. Anjouli 14:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Religion

If this is to be inclusive, it will become larger than the articles themselves. If not, this will be POV. These articles are not intimately connected and should not even be a see also list. The list belongs at list of religions. Just links that to the article. --Jiang 02:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with Jiang. Each article can link to list of religions if desired, but this message won't work. Isomorphic 04:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No way to be neutral, and not terribly useful. Tuf-Kat 04:50, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I still don't see any benefit in this sort of message. (See Misplaced Pages talk:Article series.) -- Oliver P. 06:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to MetaWiki as an example of how not to use a MediaWiki... then delete. Davodd 07:27, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons Jiang mentioned. --Xiaopo's Talk 07:32, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, abuse of process to list here whilst things are still using it. Morwen 08:00, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • then the entire vfd is an abuse of process since articles being nominated are still being linked to and avalable for reading/editing. --Jiang
  • Keep. I understand that some of you arent sysops, and therefore cant edit the pages in question - at least make proposals on the talk pages or on the pump, or cleanup. But I notice how reflexive people are - even on a wiki, where something can easily be changed to suit a purpose, people rather gripe and delete than actually be bold and do something about it. So, the real issue isnt this article but every mediawiki sidebar like it, and this isnt really the place to deal with it (maybe at Misplaced Pages talk:Mediawiki namespace). The point of the sidebars is to bind articles together with some topical cohesion. Articles in the sidebar are'nt going to be over-specific, but all the general categories should be filled. In most cases, it doesnt make sense for the sidebars to be sub-topical, rather paralell and general - to logically link to other articles. In case any of you here are new, this is exactly what the mediawiki namespace was made for, and has been a long time in coming. If you had been around longer, you might more quickly see the need and the potential. -SV(talk) 08:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • the pages should not be protected and if you think they do, then you've been living in a hole for the past few weeks. trying to list every religion in the world in a sidebar was on obviously ridiculous (and not issue with the entire sidebar scheme), as i've demonstrated by populating the list with polythestic religions. Now that you've changed it, I am less strongly for deleting as I once was, but prefer that this goes as a footer since it is no different from see also lists, which are placed towards the bottom of an article. --Jiang
  • Delete (strongly)- All this is is a really bad way to have an ad-hoc category system. The msg just pushes real content aside (such as images and tables that have content about the subject). Just link to religion which in turn should have a link to a list of religious topics. You can also directly link to such a list in each of those article's "See also" section. But having that list in every related article is extremely insane. I strongly support the deletion of this and related MediaWiki pages. --mav
  • You are having a vote about whether the boxes should be on the pages; not a vote on whether this should be deleted. MediaWiki messages are solely a technical measure, if they had not been invented you would not be able to put the <tables>s on vfd, nor do you need to use vfd to remove the msg tags from the articles. Morwen 11:30, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we are having a vote on whether the boxes should be deleted. The mediawiki page makes up all the boxes. This is doing to creator justice by having a larger community decide. Now that we have mediawiki pages, things are different. Would you be saying the same if we had mediawiki from the start? --Jiang
  • Keep I'll be neutral. Jiang: what is it that makes you think that everytime there is a selection, it is POV? We are an encyclopedia, and we have to be able to do encyclopedic overviews/summaries/selections. (I also agree with Morwen (above). VFD is neither editorial nor WP:cleanup) — Sverdrup 15:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't oppose lists. I oppose lists as sidebars since the immense number of entries will not fit. --Jiang
  • Delete. Very much delete. There are many belief systems for which different people would have different opinions about whether they constitute a "religion" or not. And the list would have to be very, very long were it to include every belief system that anyone considered a religion. --Lowellian 21:03, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impossible to list every religion topic, and the very act of selecting which topics should be included is POV. RickK | Talk 02:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • My comment above: We are an encyclopedia, and we have to be able to do encyclopedic selections. This is the daily work in organisating the categorisation and navigation in wikipedia. — Sverdrup 08:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Recreate as a set of better-defined lists. Sverd: I agree that "impossible to list every" isn't an argument against such lists. And I also agree that sidebars are sometimes the way to go . However, this list in particular is very poorly conceived and implemented; the 9 items there are too few, too unrelated to one another, and the articles they link to lack either parallelism (to one another) or reciprocity (to any page containing this message -- they don't all highlight religion).

List of severed penises

  • Nonsense. RickK | Talk 04:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. not nonsense and true. --Jiang
    • moved to penis removal. --Jiang 09:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • [[penis removal now has VfD tag, preventing redir--should be left as simple redir. Niteowlneils 20:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not nonsense, though I don't know that its really necessary. -Seth Mahoney 04:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not nonsense, but delete anyway. "List of" articles are nice if they organize related information in a useful way, but this does not. Also, it makes me nervous. Isomorphic 04:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not nonsense, but as stated above, one has to judge a list by its logical purpose, otherwise you're left with an endless proliferation of lists that never further the goal of accumulating knowledge. Nobody in their right mind is going to look this up. Any information about these cases can and should go into individual articles. So delete. Keep in light of all the info that's been added, but change the title, since it's no longer primarily a list. Everyking 04:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Interesting conundrum. All in all, if we're going to keep it (and I'm not sure either way, actually) I vote to rename it. After all, it's not the penisis themselves that are important, but the people to whom they were attached. I vote to keep, but change the name to something like List of men whose penises have been severed, or perhaps even List of men who have undergone involuntary penectomies. But if we keep this list, surely we're going to need List of women who have severed their partners' penises too? Exploding Boy 05:06, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've tried to add some substance to it and tried to make it about penis severing.
  • Undecided. Wrote the original when I saw that someone had a link to "List of severed penises". I thought the idea of making that link blue instead of red might be funny. There's some very good information in the article, as it is now, but I'm not sure if it all merits its own article and a list format, per se. Perhaps the information in that article could be relocated to castration or genital mutilation. Nice job, all, on turning a half-joking stub article into one with some serious merit. By the way, the stub tag is hilarious in the context of that article. I vote the tag should be kept even when it is a complete article. :) Mike Church 06:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep it and rename it "List of Castrations", "List of Famous Castrations", "List of Castrated Men", or "List of Famous Castrated Men." I prefer "List of Famous Castrations" 66.63.126.171 07:05, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to something else. It is no longer just a list but explores the topic. --mav
  • vote to rename Penis-related violence. Exploding Boy 07:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • The mind boggles. Let's not. Andrewa 17:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with a medical overview of the consequences of castration or mutilation of the penus. Antonio all extra inches still here Martin
  • Keep as redir to Penectomy. Davodd 18:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto Davodd. Niteowlneils 19:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The stampede to rename has resulted in misinformation. A penectomy is a surgical procedure. It is not a name for every lopping-off of a penis.(e.g. Osiris.. e.g. Bobbitt). Info should go back to original place. - Nunh-huh 22:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as is. Penectomy is not always a surgical procedure. It is simpy Latin for removal of the penis. The term "traumatic penectomy" is used in medical circles when (for instance) a road traffic accident is the cause. Anjouli 15:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) (A State Registered trauma nurse)
      • Have you read the penectomy article? Is it your medical opinion that Osiris and Napoleon had penectomies? It's misinformation. It's incorrect. -- Nunh-huh 19:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • But for heaven's sake! Misinformation is to be corrected. Deletion, as the article looks now, is pure stupidity.--Ruhrjung 20:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jerry Alan Sayers

  • Article by a new user about himself. Not apparently important. Also, whatever redirects he's created (i.e. Dusty Sayers). Isomorphic 04:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete. We do have a rule on vanity pages. Danny 04:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would've suggested moving it to their user page (User:Dusty), but that page already existed before they made their vanity page. Maximus Rex, 04:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The article space should be for encyclopaedia stuff only, so pages in the article space shouldn't redirect out of it. And as far as I know, we don't have a rule on "vanity pages". In fact, we have Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, which I think forbids the term from even being used. However, delete if not verified. -- Oliver P. 06:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Unknown, but seems to have done a couple significant things in his life...Antonio Where are my screws??? Martin
  • Keep. Barely lists colourable basis for inclusion with online strip, but -- more detail on acting? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:00, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)\
    • ... I find myself reluctantly agreeing with DCB. The article on CRfH!!! is good; its reference to two non-author editors at the end of the article seems natural; linking the editors to their own pages likewise. If Sayers takes himself more seriously, and presents his past work more as the subject of an encyclopedia article and less as the monologue blurb of a personal blog, by all means keep. More detail on the editing, acting, and teaching, &c.
  • Delete: vanity, nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:47, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; looks harmless and has links to a couple other interesting things.
  • I apologise if I have stepped over the line or broken Misplaced Pages ettiquette. After writing a couple other articles, I suppose the power of creating public information went to my head. I have tried to expand the entry a little bit to make it more interesting and useful; if that is inadequate, I will not be offended if the consensus is to delete my entry. If the vote of a new user with an obvious interest in the page counts, I ask the the page be kept on-line, but if not, I hope at least the other articles I have added, and may add in the future, are better. --Jerry Alan Sayers
    • Move to user page and delete. Seems a nice and reasonable guy, but not quite famous enough to merit his own page. Anjouli 15:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. We need more than 5 days to work this one through IMO. Andrewa 17:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to user page and Delete - Texture 19:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Miserable failure

  • Dictionary definition of a phrase with no meaning beyond the obvious. Markalexander100 07:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge the GWB stuff with Googlebomb and delete this. Doesn't deserve it's own article. Dysprosia 07:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. First off, people may later want to link to "miserable failure" in particular rather than Googlebomb in general. Secondly, it's not merely a dicdef, but actually explains some of the cultural context. Perhaps a stub tag is in order, though. Mike Church 07:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If Mr Kerry calls Mr Bush "not very good", are we going to have Not very good too? Examples of Googlebombing are fine, but in the Googlebombing article. Markalexander100 08:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Unlike "not very good", "miserable failure" (as applied to Bush) has developed some level of cultural presence. For example, I distinctly remember a news-related comedy bit using a recording of Gephardt saying "miserable failure". Mike Church 09:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • redirect to googlebomb --Jiang
  • merge and redirect. Saul Taylor 11:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this particular googlebomb is important enough for it's own page. moink 16:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as Dyspropsia suggested. The common use is merely a definition. The specific example is relevant only because of its use in the googlebombs. Put it there. Copy it into the relevant political pages if you think it's relevant (I don't), but I disagree with the claim that it deserves its own page. Rossami 17:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fairly significant. Everyking 21:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. RickK | Talk 02:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has enough cultural currency to merit a page of its own. Bkonrad | Talk 01:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Only the first pararagraph really belongs there, though. If an example of the expression is felt necessary, it would be better to have one that doesn't require so much external knowledge (and linkage). --Douglas 14:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to googlebomb. --Michael Snow 16:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cults

Delete, for the same reasons as MediaWiki:Religion and MediaWiki:Religiousfigures. It would be too unweildy, and also significantly controversial to list all cults or purported cults (especially the latter). Neutral for now (seeing as it's been changed to a list of articles which are claimed to be essential to the concept of cults). --Xiaopo's Talk 07:50, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ed Poor removed Unification Church from the list. This will be subject to edit conflicts because it is inherently POV. If a Falun Gong member were here, that would be removed too. All that is needed is a link to cult and List of purported cults. --Jiang 07:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It is a footer so it isn't that bad. But the list of cults has got to go and replaced with a link to an article listing groups that have are widely considered to be cults. --mav 09:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inevitably controversial and unnecessary.
  • Delete. Tinder for future flame wars. (Mother Teresa is a cult?) Davodd 12:56, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)No vote. Davodd 02:57, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: inherent POV in term "cult". Wile E. Heresiarch 18:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course the term cult is POV but in spite of that the term should be in wikipedia because the term is used widely. The "examples of purported cults" have already been removed from the media wiki. The media wiki is helpful because the subject is so complicated. If you can do a better job then please do so in the article cult. Andries 19:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. MediaWiki namespace shouldn't be used for article content. See also Misplaced Pages talk:MediaWiki namespace. -- Oliver P. 04:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list of cults has been replaced by a link to an article that lists them. --mav 05:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The popular phenomenon of "cults" itself is worth referring to. See the talk page for Purported cults where there has been some discussion of the issues involved. Fire Star 00:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the concept as it stands now is worthy; there are a constellation of issues related to cults, and it's useful to have them all referencing each other, as long as it's short and doesn't contain a POV that a certain organization is or is not a cult. COGDEN 01:19, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • While I continue my tradition of not placing votes, I remind everyone that this is with regard to the MediaWiki: namespace material used as an article trailer on several cult-related articles, at least some of which are well written. UninvitedCompany 22:30, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Vsevolod Ilarionovich Pudovkin

The article was created with an incorrect spelling of this individual's patronymic. The correct way to spell is "Illarionovich". This was temporarily fixed by adding a redirect to the page, however, since the spelling is wrong, there is no reason for this redirect page to exist. --Ezhiki 16:21, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. No real reason for deletion, nothing else needs that location and it's possible someone else would make the same mistake. By the way, for next time, there's a page for listing redirects to be deleted: Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion. moink 16:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep; useful as redirect. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If someone makes the same mistake, the presence of this article might discourage that person to correct the mistake (since the link will point to the redirect page). This will lead to an article with an orthographic error in it, which, as I understand, is not at all desirable. It is not like "Ilarionovich" is an alternative spelling, it IS a (quite bad) mistake.
Sorry about posting this in the wrong place, by the way.

--Ezhiki 17:17, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, the redirect is fine. RickK | Talk 02:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To You Beloved Comrade

Wikisource. Pure and simple. Mikkalai 16:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Seconded. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Thirded (?) Niteowlneils 19:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is a copyvio anyway. Secretlondon 19:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikisource. Everyking 21:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. Do NOT move to Wikisource, delete. RickK | Talk 02:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikisource and delete - This seems a little old, even in the most recent printing to retain copyright - Texture 19:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Businessman

  • I'm not convinced this stub has any potential. Seems more like a dictionary definiton. Why not redirect to List of corporate leaders or something like that. dave 20:17, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is already in wiktionary. The term is too generic (lost his "copyright" protection so to say:-), so that what is written in the stub is already restrictive and hence misleading. Mikkalai 01:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is something that needs an article; in "What Links Here", the list is pretty long. Is there any way to get an article on this? Keep if we have nothing better. Meelar 13:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Vfdheader

  • Does not show <nowiki> tags tags or meta links properly. I don't see how this is helpful to be in the mediawiki namespace. Why not just make the changes directly on this page? Angela. 20:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • will SV come over and explain the point of this? --Jiang
  • Delete. It was a good idea, but trying it out it didn't work (nowiki tags didn't work, m:Meta_page didn't work), and now the MedaWiki msg serves no purpose. — Sverdrup 21:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sweet and Innocent

The band's discography lists no album by this name, just a track. Someone on cleanup suggested this might be Michael. DJ Clayworth 20:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No vote yet. The list of tracks is very similar to the album "Behold the Beginning". Does anyone else know more about this artist? I am kind of new to wikipedia, and i am unfamiliar with Michael's exact style of vandalism. Would he just use a real album and change the name? - DropDeadGorgias(talk) 20:51, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
Michael's style is to make up things. RickK | Talk 02:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Mild keep. This site implies it was a single in 1980, then an album in 1988 (not 1989). Niteowlneils 23:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That link seems to be broken. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It's back now. You're right, and I also found the group's official site which also lists it. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, but I think there is something odd here. I wonder if the album has two names, depending onwhere it was released? DJ Clayworth 17:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 16

(March 15|17|^) | "See this creat. writing letter" | Q (disambig) | List:fictional Oxford/Cambridge colleges | Jap. translation note | Robin champion | VentureLodge | L.Sanger(!) | East. Germany | Le Tene | Joke article(sic) | Tsán lang. | H.Jacobsen | H.Christensen | schnorrer and shnorrer | Pacific All. Advisors |

See this creative writing letter

I don't think that Misplaced Pages should be a repository for fluff such as this.

  • Delete. Mikkalai 00:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Added vfd notice. Delete. jengod 01:21, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK | Talk 02:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't even tell what it is. I don't even know what a "creative writing letter" is. I'm guessing it was done in response to a course assignment of some kind. Certainly not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 02:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's creative, but not encyclopedic. - Seth Ilys 02:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another one that made me laugh, but please delete. Moncrief 06:59, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would have been funnier if it was wikified. Davodd 10:46, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though it curretly is very funnily wikified. :-) — Sverdrup 18:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, or keep as external link. Although not encyclopedic, the comparison between two books are quite accurate, only it is not written in the usual article format, which makes it more interesting. Also, this work definitly is not submitted without copyright permission! It is very original. ;) But perhaps it just doesn't belong here.
  • Keep, or maybe move to the Misplaced Pages:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page, it could belong there. ;-)
  • Keep, this is a good example of parody and satire (maybe merge with these), except perhaps our dear Catherine has got her suspicions right for once. :) Too good to be lost forever, so if this has to be deleted, it should at least be kept with Misplaced Pages:Best of BJAODN, and let it 'rest in peace'.
  • Delete -- not what we do here. I assume the unsigned comments above are not counted as votes? Jwrosenzweig 19:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep only as BJAODN--it is an excellent example of pointless overlinking. Note that it was created deliberately as a link from Northanger Abbey, although I still don't get the connection or point.Elf | Talk 19:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no encylopedic substance
  • Delete Ruhrjung 20:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Q (disambiguation)

This page is made redundant by the "Meanings for Q" section on Q. None of the other letters have disambiguation pages. Either they all should, or this one doesn't.Nohat 01:17, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)

  • Keep. Some of the things listed are questionable, but enough of them are valid to warrant disambiguation. But I wonder: is this just another creative way to include stuff about Atlanta radio stations? Yeah, on second thought, delete. This thing is pointless. Everyking 01:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The only things on this page that aren't already on Q are the Atlanta radio station and the video game character (who doesn't have an article). Everything else is already covered on Q. Nohat 01:28, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q. The latter is already working perfectly as a disambig page. Mikkalai 01:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And remove the disambiguation stuff from Q. It makes more sense logically to have a separate disambiguation page. I don't see why Q is supposed to be any different in this regard from, say, Forest. Certainly you wouldn't want to merge that with Forest (disambiguation). — Timwi 02:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q. The disambig/alternate meaning section is (or should be) a standard part of articles on letters. -- Seth Ilys 02:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Would there be any point in keeping Q (disambiguation) around as a redirect, if the remaining content is merged with Q?
  • I have no strong views on where the disambiguation information should be, but if at Q then this should redirect there so that people can find it and to prevent it being recreated accidentally. -- Oliver P. 04:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q for consistency. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Q. Consistency is important. — Sverdrup 16:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge. --AaronSw 17:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of fictional Oxford colleges, List of fictional Cambridge colleges

WHAT?! --Monsieur Mero 02:43, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge with Colleges of Oxford University. --Imran 02:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. There are at least two other similar lists: List of fictional schools and List of fictional seats of learning. I think all of those should be merged into one. Andris 02:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of fictional seats of learning, but not Colleges of Oxford University. — Timwi 03:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I suggested merging with CoOU as that article already has a partial list of fictional colleges. --Imran 12:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Of course keep. Probably as it is, as I'd guess there must be thousands of fictional seats of learning. If not, keep as a redirect to List of fictional seats of learning. -- Oliver P. 04:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why do we want to delete this? RickK | Talk 04:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm, this information is actually useful (I'm a fan of His Dark Materials, and I never knew that the colleges were fictional), but I'm not sure this is the best way to present the material. Maybe merge with Colleges at Oxford University or merge with the articles on the particular works of fiction that they come from? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:57, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the content, at least... merging with the other fictional educational institutions sounds good. - Seth Ilys 18:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of the things I like about wikipedia, the little obscure lists that you find by browsing other pages. I wouldn't have been inclined to read these articles if they were part of an enourmous list of fictional institutions. It doesn't make much sense to merge them with the real parent institutions either, since they exist in separate universes. Lupin 10:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep. Perhaps link from Colleges of Oxford University. --Anjouli 15:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fascinating, encyclopedic. Andrewa 17:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Japanese translation note

  • Does this belong here? RickK | Talk 04:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • seems useful for Japanese translators, not here. --Yacht 04:47, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • move to wikipedia namepsace and link to Japanese MoS. --Jiang
  • Keep. My understanding is that this is the same kind of article as Harry Potter in translation. Our agreement is to keep that kind of translation information in the main namespace. This is not just a note for translators. -- Taku 15:22, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Potter trans. article has the chance to be complete and sharply defined; there are a small number of Potter publications released, and only the key translations (names), which aren't likely to change from one edition to another, are listed. This in contrast is one translator's efforts to standardize translating hundreds of terms of varying significance, during one stretch of translation from jp: to en: -- with neither the long-standing pertinence of a good article nor the opportunity to become complete. I like the idea of putting it in the WP: namespace; though meta might be a more suitable place for it. Move. +sj+ 12:02, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
    • Harry Potter is translated from English to another language, not the other way around. People won't care about the Japanese since they can't read it. Translations are already provided to Japanese in the articles themselves. Since this is the English wikipedia, people won't be looking for the Japanese to find the English. In addition, we shouldn't be referencing ourselves in articles. --Jiang 21:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, if people care nothing but English then Harry Potter in translation doesn't make sense at all. Your using a double standard. Besides, we have a number of articles with the title of a non-English language like kami and some German, French and many other languages titles. I see no problem providing information about non-English words. Finally, what is wrong with linking articles in wikipedia? -- Taku 15:11, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • You completely missed mey point. Re-read my comments above and I'll repeat: An article based solely on translation is innapproprate, not having Japanese in articles. In those cases, as with harry potter, its from English to a foreign language and not the other way around. People are going to look for English to find the nonEnglish. This article assumed people are looking for Japanese. People are interested in the foreign language, but how? I oppose using wikipedia as a reference or subject of phenomenon in articles, not "linking articles in wikipedia"--Jiang
    • I got a better example. List of Latin phrases. Don't tell me Latin is ok while Japanese is not. Misplaced Pages is not an encyclopedia of English languages. People look for some non-English words as well. Oh, also we have a number of Greek alphabets articles. In your logic, they should be gone? because "people don't look for non-English"? Ack! it is completely against the inclusion policy of wikipedia. -- Taku 15:27, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • List of Latin phrases is not a list of every possible phrase in Latin, but rather those that have passed into occasional English usage (though this practice, alas, is falling out of favor). I would be very open to a List of Japanese phrases translating Japanese phrases that are occasionally used in written or conversational English. This particular article, however, should be deleted. Jwrosenzweig 19:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Texture 19:17, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Robin champion

  • Vanity orphan; 6 google hits for ("robin champion" "consulting") -- Seth Ilys 15:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)*Vanity & advertising.
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unpediac. -- Zigger 20:01, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/advert - Texture 19:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VentureLodge

  • Well, not much to say, 152 google hits. --Yacht 08:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • The same user created VentureLodge, Lisa Ross (already deleted) and Keiran McKay, given the relativly low profile all of these things I'd say they weren't encyclopedia worthy.
  • Keep. Of regional interest; sounds like something useful to know if planning a visit in the area.Doovinator 13:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. non-notable.--Jiang 21:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 21:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Doovinator is right, but that only makes it a suitable article for Wikitravel, not Misplaced Pages. Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No VfD tag. Anthony DiPierro 17:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 19:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

  • Google does not think he is very famous. FirmLittleFluffyThing 18:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Larry was a great (Wiki/Nu)pedian (...I think - it was definitely before my time) but is definitely not encyclopedia worthy. →Raul654 18:03, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google is irrelevant. Anthony DiPierro 18:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 18:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jimmy Wales has argumented carefully and sincerely why he should not have an article on Misplaced Pages. My opinion is that the articles on Larry and Jimmy is a shared issue. — Sverdrup 19:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • "Speaking objectively and neutrally, if this were about anyone other than me, I would say that of course it's fine to have an article." - Jimbo Wales
    • If this is kept, I'll try to move this into the Misplaced Pages namespace (and that we don't need vfd for). The article is currently interesting to wikipedians only. — Sverdrup 16:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • If the vote is to keep, then you should not move it to Misplaced Pages namespace. If you'd like to change your vote from Delete to Move to Misplaced Pages namespace feel free. Anthony DiPierro 03:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevant. Ludraman | Talk 19:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevent, needs expantion though. Jrincayc 23:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: relevant, significant. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is this man relevant and significant in terms of description of world wide knowledge ? explain please; Ant
      • There's some kind of political conflict going on here; what's that about? Wile E. Heresiarch 14:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Larry Sanger used to redirect to User:Larry Sanger for technical purposes - user names used to be in the main namespace. When the username space was created, all old names were redirected to avoid breaking redirects. Then recently someone tried to make Jimmy Wales and later Jimbo Wales into articles rather than redirects (see the talk pages). This turned into an edit war involving the usual subjects. The edit war wildfire then spread to Larry Sanger - some people just like to do that sort of thing. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. His "relevance in terms of worldwide knowledge" results from the fact that he (with Jimmy Wales) founded Misplaced Pages. Michael Hardy 03:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand. Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales both need to be made decent articles of their own. Each of these men has done encyclopedic things both aside from and including his work with Nu/Wikipedia. An article on JW would be easy to write, and would certainly not be a redirect to Misplaced Pages; one on LS might take a bit more research, but should at least reference his teaching of philsophy and meta pages like hislist of columns. +sj+ 14:19, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. AaronSw 17:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to User:Larry Sanger. The current article contains NO information that is not available there. --Michael Snow 17:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - user page exists with pertinent info. - Texture 19:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Germany

  • The page contanis mainly a Neo-Nazi propaganda, offensive to Polish, Lithuanian and Russian people. Mestwin of Gdansk 18:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • In English language East(ern) Germany refers to the ex-DDR state.
  • Keep. VFD is not a place to work out your POV disputes. Maybe go back to the article's talk page to work out your differences or possibly request mediation? moink 18:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless someone can explain how this is merely neo-Nazi propaganda. We have to document views even if we don't like them, don't we? There may be a lot of controversy around it, but that also means a lot of work has gone into it. Everyking 18:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but under different title. "Eastern Germany" is too close to East Germany (DDR) and might suggest that wwikipedia either supports BdV claims or considers the areas in question a German terrtory.Halibutt 22:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gdansk's need to attack people who disagree with him do not belong on this page. RickK | Talk 01:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:Gdansk is a vandal and a troll. Nico 19:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Territories outside of Germany cannot be called Eastern Germany in a serious encyclopedia. Find a way to explain the content in a neutral way, showing various point of view, or it cannot stay. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make it absolutely clear that the fact that these areas now belong to Poland is no longer seriously disputed in Germany. If nico wants to invade Poland let's just not put him in charge of the German military. Gdansk - we're not saying they are German now. We're just giving post-war and pre-war definitions of the term. I think there is a reference somewhere to East Germany meaning "the new states" in everyday German, which is by far the term's most common meaning.
  • Keep. But unlock as soon as practical as it is not quite NPOV. (Close, but needs a bit of work.) Anjouli 15:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland. (Woody Allen) Max

Le Tene

empty, no links except a redirect, I would think it's a misspelling of La Tène. --Yak 18:36, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep as typo/mis-gender protection. Niteowlneils 19:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as above - Texture 19:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Joke article

  • Exactly what it calls itself. Not encyclopedic. -- Seth Ilys 19:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meelar 19:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely definitely surely positively undoubtedly unquestionably delete (come on brain! - my vocabulary is bigger than that!) Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DavidWBrooks 19:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DavidWBrooks 19:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep after NPOVing and removal of total nonsense. This is at least as important as an article on yet another Pokemon figure or yet another obscure Canadian politician. Denni 19:45, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Above all else, it's in the wrong namespace! BLASPHEMY! Delete. - Misplaced Pages 21:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maximus Rex 22:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Average Earthman 14:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with thanks. Great article, but it can't stay. Andrewa 03:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jacob1207 02:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 19:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A joke article that commits the cardinal sin of not even being funny. :) Jwrosenzweig 19:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tsán language

  • Delete an obscure and recently invented conlang. Language "courses" should go on Wikibooks anyhow. -- Seth Ilys 20:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: insignificant, vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Texture 19:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hans Jacobsen

  • Orphaned. Looks like a personal page.
  • Delete. Only 1 hit for "Hans Jacobsen" VM Labs (warning, page is huge "every company/person in this database"). Niteowlneils 04:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Texture 19:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heather Christensen

  • Pretty worthless:

'Heather Christensen was Playboy's 2001 Model of the Year. In 2002, she posed as a mermaid in the Wet and Wild 2002 edition.

Heather is also an avid skateboarder.

http://www.skateparkoftampa.com/spot/imageviewer.aspx?img=images/locals/heatherbowlcarve.jpg '

Its orphaned, not suprisingly.

  • Keep. Playboy Models of the Year are famous, among other things. Everyking 21:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:10, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe create a List of Playboy centerfolds? RickK | Talk 01:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd be inclined to stick with a list of Plamates of the Year, probably a list of celebrities that have posed in Playboy, and maybe a list of groups that have posed in Playboy, EG Women of Enron, Women of the Pac-10. Niteowlneils 04:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 8,090 google hits is good enough for me. Davodd 07:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Add pictures - Lots of pictures - mydogategodshat 02:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Texture 19:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Schnorrer

  • Delete, yiddish dicdef and disambig, which is unnecessary if the dicdef is removed. , See Talk:Schnorrer. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:05, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Przepla 22:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to the list of English words originated from Yiddish language. --Humus sapiens Talk 22:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If you want to delete the dicdef, then list shnorrer here. As long as that exists, Schnorrer is a perfectly valid redirect. --Wik 22:57, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • If Wik would quit reverting it, it would be a proper disambiguation page. RickK | Talk
  • As long as both the Karl Schnörrer article and the Shnorrer article exist, Schnorrer should be a disambiguation page, not a redirection. If the Snhorrer article gets moved/deleted, Schnorrer should redirect to the Karl Schnörrer. Niteowlneils 02:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop putting the same page up for deletion again and again and again? Only a month ago (!) it was decided that no consensus had been reached, and now here it is again, and again the same arguments. And yes, there seem to be two different spellings -- so what? This is the case with almost all Yiddish words. Where's the problem? Why can't you leave the text as it is? <KF> 08:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shnorrer

  • Merge/wicktionary then delete. I've never heard of this, have no idea how many non-Yiddish speakers know/use it, and I have no idea how strongly it is associated with Groucho. But, unless someone can build a case that it is a widely known enuf term, both the context and connection, the concepts of this article can be added to the list of Yiddish words and Wictionary, then deleted.
    • If we do decide it deserves it's own article, m-w.com only has the Schnorrer spelling, so the preferred solution would be to move the Shnorrer content to the Schnorrer page, still with the disamb to the German guy, and make the Shnorrer article redirect to the Schnorrer article. Niteowlneils 02:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, just "Shnorrer" only gets 292 hits, vs almost 50,000 with the 'c'. So it doesn't seem like there is any valid case for making Schnorrer just a redirct to Shnorrer. Niteowlneils 03:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop putting the same page up for deletion again and again and again? Only a month ago (!) it was decided that no consensus had been reached, and now here it is again, and again the same arguments. And yes, there seem to be two different spellings -- so what? This is the case with almost all Yiddish words. Where's the problem? Why can't you leave the text as it is? <KF> 08:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Add this to the other discussions already on the talk page, and think more about a relisting policy. Andrewa 20:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, which precludes the possibility of it being a Yiddish-English Dictionary - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; perhaps move to Wiktionary (I'm not up on policy w.r.t. arts like this). There's a glorious old cartoon illustrating the difference b/t a schlemiel, a schlemozzel, a schnorrer, a schloomp and a schlepper... <rings up Google> ahh, Al Capp (in his inimicable orthography): -- I love it! Maybe that can go with the related set of Yiddishisms wherever they end up; Capp Enterprises, Inc. would probably release the text at least, if someone can track them down. I added a clarifying ref to Azriel_Hildesheimer to the current article. +sj+ 13:06, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Pacific Alliance Advisors

  • Seems like an advert to me, or a vanity page. Mark Richards 23:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Have you made a mistake with the page name? There's no page there, and nothing to restore (no deleted history) -- Graham  :) | Talk 00:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Try it with the 's' I've added. Andrewa 20:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Added msg:vfd. --Hcheney 05:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero hits, no phone listing. Niteowlneils 21:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing but a vanity entry. Elde 20:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Texture 19:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 17

(March 16|18|^) | Y.Tsunetomo | nonabyte(again) | NESM Nostalgie Expresse | J.Paulo & 3-C Shenanigans | Looseys | /Charlie on the MTA/(!) | Badger-Badger-Badger | `TopCoder` | Eco-syndicalism | M.Forman | G.Brewer | J.Smith | People's Park | List:Canada postal codes | Arman | panel | Bellman | Vitamins:T & U | AFI's 100 yrs/heroes/villains | Spotsylvania County | M.Tam | D.Arnold |

Yamamoto Tsunetomo

  • Article only repeats the title of article. Probably someone's name. I know nothing else about it. Needs help if it's worth keeping. Bkonrad | Talk 01:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Famous name. Actually, at this moment IMO it is better to turn it into a redirect to Hagakure. Mikkalai 02:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Link above by Mikkalai is very usefull if someone wish to expand this article further. I with no effort just added born and died dates. Przepla 13:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Tsunetomo's quite a character. Removing from VfD in 1 day. +sj+ 14:02, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)


NESM Nostalgie Expresse

Reason: Badly written four lines on a company that went out of business last year. 2/3s of new companies collapse. We surely don't want a badly written page on each? Delete. --Tagishsimon 03:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral or maybe stub; keep if we can get more info of note. I assume it was something like or (possibly even more varied). If they're encylcopedic, think NESM may be, if it operated for a similar length of time. I don't see anything about it being a new business. Anyone have any friends at http://nl.wikipedia.org/ they could ask for background (years of operation, # passengers, historical connections, etc.), or can someone that speaks Dutch (I assume try to get the info from the hundreds of non-English hits? Many, if not most, of the people listed on Misplaced Pages are dead, as are many companies listed here--I don't think that's an automatic reason to be excluded. Niteowlneils 04:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • is the wayback machine entry for them, but I don't read dutch Rick Boatright 21:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong - http://www.nesm.nl/ - equally I cannot believe wikipedia has driven me to search out (to me) obscure netherlands railway companies at 5am. --Tagishsimon 05:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Paulo and 3-C Shenanigans

Jonathan Paulo and 3-C Shenanigans. Vanity pages for a non-notable individual and the college "prank club" he claims he founded. Paulo gets 2 google hits, his club gets 0. Maximus Rex 05:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looseys

A gem from Jonathan Paulo (see above). Dicdef at best, likely idiosyncratic. It was deleted by Maximus Rex, but Jonathan recreated it so let's vote it off the island properly this time. Isomorphic 05:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually this was speedily deleted, and your adding the vfd tag to it recreated it again. I would just delete it again, but I get told off for doing things like that... Graham  :) | Talk 09:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was this a (rare) sysop slip up? History seems to be lost. Safest to now go through the VfD hoops to delete IMO, but don't bother recreating the history, it was a valid speedy delete IMO. Andrewa 19:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is a deleted history, original text was "A Loosey is a single cigarette, offered for sale, usually by the Arabs." The reason the history doesn't show up normally is because the article was deleted while Isomorphic was in the process of adding the vfd tag. -- Graham  :) | Talk 00:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aha! Understood, thank you. Doesn't affect my vote. Andrewa 03:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef - Texture 19:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Charlie on the MTA

Copyright infringement; since I'm a bit out of touch and not clear on how to do the new copyright boilerplate, could someone put it in there? It's just the words of the song by (I believe) the Kingston Trio. If someone could convert it into an article on the song, that'd be much better than deletion, though. -- John Owens (talk) 06:09, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Done ⇒ whkoh ] 06:21, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
I have turned this into a real article - and now I can't get the tune out of my head. - DavidWBrooks 21:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep now. But maybe this article should redirect to The MTA Song? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. AaronSw 17:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Badger Badger Badger

Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. ⇒ whkoh ] 06:42, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Alexa rank is 31,000-odd; on the other hand, might be a valid piece of internet culture. No vote, just a comment. Meelar 06:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are you ready to put every dancing fat man and chicken that crosses the road into a separate article about internet culture? Mikkalai 07:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! I love that website... Agree that wikipedia is not a web directory, but it has become a very famous part of internet culture. Undecided, neutral -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It'll be forgotten in a year. DJ Clayworth 17:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Weebl and Bob - it's one of many one-offs by Weebl - David Gerard 17:07, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Weebl and Bob for the moment. Famous enough for that, no more for the moment unless someone can come up with biographical notes on the authors (and ones that they are happy to release). Andrewa 19:27, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly, yes, but it's a real thing and a documented phenomenon. I can easily see a future scholar researching web memes and finding this useful. Jgm 21:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Jgm. Lupin 01:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Me too. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it'll be forgotten in a year, all the more reason why it needs an article now. Everyking 22:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Badgers? Badgers? WE DONT'T NEED NO STINKIN' BADGERS!!!
    • Sorry, that was obligatory. :) seriously, I've seen it in dozens of IRC chat rooms. Keep. Fennec
  • Keep. Famous enough. Fredrik 16:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An old fart like me needs this sort of stuff. This is hilarious! Kd4ttc 04:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - famous meme - Texture 19:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eco-syndicalism

This term gets no google hits. Was written by banned user EntmootsOfTrolls/142 here. Maximus Rex 07:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

    • Title of the article changed. Gets hits now. Article not created by 142. Topic relevant. ant
  • Keep User:Anthere 07:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Sam Spade 08:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)Keep, bad reasons given for deletion
  • Looks believable but the amount of gobbledygook and loose associations are more likely indicative of a spoof Rjstott 07:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am wondering why it is not speedy-deleted? Mikkalai 08:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a tiger team type attempt to start discussion unrelated to the topic of the article. If someone with expertise in the relevant area wants to validate and/or clean it up, fine, keep it then, but otherwise, even if a valid topic (I don't know) it would probably be easier to start again. Agree that neither the lack of Google hits (lots of obscure topics aren't on the web yet) nor the authorship (Anthere is quite within his her rights to copy from a GFDL source) are reasons for deletion. The reason for deletion is that it was created in bad faith, and there's no reason to think it's anything other than trash. Andrewa 09:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • <snip>
    • Apologise for the mistake in the pronoun. I think the rest of the argument stands. But as you are now claiming to have expertise in the area, I'll take your word for it that the article is accurate, and amend my vote accordingly (as I said I would above). I'll watch your experiment with interest. Andrewa 19:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Tempted to reinstate my delete vote as the material on which it its removal was based has now all been removed, I guess by the author (authoress?) but it's too much trouble to check and I can't even guess why, she said (now snipped) that she wanted comments. But the material on which the delete vote was based has gone too, and I'm now quite convinced I don't understand the issues despite trying my best. So no vote, still, and still watching with interest. Andrewa 17:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael Forman

  • No verifiable information about this non-famous person. Angela. 08:19, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparent autobiography by an anon user. No reasons given in the article for inclusion. Andrewa 08:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A google search on his name and some of his apparent professions didn't turn up anything notable. Probable vanity. Maximus Rex 08:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity posting - Texture 19:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gary Brewer

  • No information provided about this specific person, Google didn't turn up anything either. ⇒ whkoh ] 08:40, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An admitted nobody (by the same contributor as Gary Brewer). Vanity page, nothing notable. Maximus Rex 08:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
    • By the same contrib as who...? Andrewa 19:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not significant. Average Earthman 14:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Fails to list any colourable basis for inclusion, and elsewhere Misplaced Pages describes him as a "nobody". If this is correct, if nothing more can be dug up, delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable prank by anon contrib. Are you sure that's "him" described elsewhere (where?), Daniel? There are several people by that name in music and academia, don't know how notable any are. Andrewa 19:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Aha, I see where now, link given by Maximus above. Andrewa 19:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity, insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Texture 19:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jason Smith

  • Looks like a vanity page to me. Toby W 11:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Moncrief 13:17, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless and until more information can be provided colourably justifying inclusion, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. almost looks like something his mom would have done... - Texture 19:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

People's Park

Initially just a bad stub I turned it into an article believing it to be a common name, but there are in fact just two. I now wonder if it's a bit redundant? -- Graham  :) | Talk 13:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep as disambig. The one in Berkeley is certainly famous. -- Decumanus 19:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Added Limerick, Ireland - it's the main city park - old (victorian?) style. Zoney 23:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of postal codes in Canada

Including subpages List of A Postal Codes, List of B Postal Codes, List of C Postal Codes, List of E Postal Codes, List of G Postal Codes of Canada, List of K Postal Codes, List of L Postal Codes, List of N Postal Codes. Most have been listed on cleanup since January with no improvement and their value as encyclopedia articles has been questioned on Talk:Lists of postal and zip codes of the world/Delete. May I suggest they get deleted here and moved to wikisource? -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whoever works on these pages, once they finish, should then look at the page for each town linked, and create articles for those Canadian towns that don't already have articles. Robert Happelberg 19:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arman

Vanity page. Darkcore 16:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Please don't bite the newbies. This material should be on a user page, sure... as an anon user has now helpfully pointed out to the user in question. Andrewa 02:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I wasn't trying to "bite a newbie" - I didn't realize until after I'd added the VfD that he was just confused about user pages and such... Darkcore
  • Why is there a link to the Norwegian wiki? RickK | Talk 03:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. "Don't bite the newbie" isn't a reason to keep a vanity article. - Texture 19:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Panel

Dictionary definition Dori | Talk 17:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Added the GUI panel. Valid stub now. Jay 18:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • On hearing the word panel out of context, many people will associate with it a small group of people giving their opinion or making public statements or whatever while sitting more or less side by side, probably facing one or two television cameras. Let's add that meaning of the word as well rather than delete the word. There's more to it than a dictionary definition. <KF> 19:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bellman

Have no idea what this is, seems like nonsense to me Dori | Talk 17:46, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Or, just possibly, redirect to The Hunting of the Snark, though I'd advise against it. I won't say "merge with The Hunting of the Snark" since it contains nothing that would enhance that article. It's a perfectly valid reference to the Lewis Carroll poem, The Hunting of the Snark, and accurate as far as it goes, which is not far, but definitely not worthy of an article in itself. Although the poem is responsible for a few quotations/memes, I don't think "Bellman" is one of them. As for Dori's remark "it seems like nonsense to me," well, what can I say? Carroll himself is on record as saying:
if-and the thing is wildly possible-the charge of writing nonsense were ever brought against the author of this brief but instructive poem, it would be based , I feel convinced, on the line (in Fit the Second)
"Then the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes."
Dpbsmith 18:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vitamin T and Vitamin U

  • Being a former nutrition grad student, I'm almost certain that these don't exist. (Even if they do get Google hits). ike9898 20:39, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is some evidence that they exist, there are some web sites that mention them (I have put links in the article), that doesn't proove that they are real, of course... Mark Richards 20:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I go with Ike on this one. While Vitamin V (as in 'vodka')is sourced at www.seagram.ca and www.absolut.se, I'm not crediting it as such until I find it at a legitimate med site. 'Anyvitamin'? Can you say 'shillbot?' Denni 21:10, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • The only thing that the two cites you give link to is a page on anyvitamins.com that has a page, but no citation, no chemical information, no source, not even a foodstuff. The OTHER advertising page you link to calls it "sesame seed factor" and even a search for THAT turns up nothing useful. ALL other google links refer to things like "getting enough Touches" as vitamin T.... strongly vote for deleting. Rick Boatright 21:12, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This is just an observation: as I said on the article talk page: This isn't really my area, but Vitamin T has an entry in Benders' Dictionary of Nutrition and Food Technology (Woodhead, 1999). You can check this through www.xreferplus.com --Camembert
    • Fair enough, I know nothing about this, just wanted to make sure that someone who did took a look at them. Mark Richards 21:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • See discussion on talk page, Bender does not support existance, and I posted the real source. Rick Boatright 03:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And, expand articles. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't want Misplaced Pages to be Western formal medicine-centric, so if these terms have traction in other cultures or segments of society, keep. However, yesterday I spent close to an hour researching these terms, and almost all references were just from "herbal supplement" vendors--if those are the only uses, then strong delete. This is one of the few non-sales references from what I know of other vitamins it lists, it seems fairly NPOV/accurate. One possibilty is to move the content to the compound names. Anyway, the articles as is are mostly ads, and if we keep them should go to needing attention, as they are unacceptable as is. Niteowlneils 18:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:::Well, if these terms are only used by herbal medicine vendors, then surely a note to that effect on the page would be more useful than deletion? Mark Richards 18:24, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • These may have improved enough to be 'Keepers'. As long as vendors don't keep adding back propaganda ike9898
  • Delete: unsubstantiated, adverts. Articles have been fixed up, but WP isn't big enough to contain all the permutations of "So & so claims such & such" in the universe. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pseudo-science. If kept, we need a clear distinction between mainstream and "alternative" science. Anjouli 15:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not real. could cause people to believe it's real because "it's in an encyclopedia!" - Texture 19:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains

Whether copyright or not, I don't see this is important to have here. Jwrosenzweig 21:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. — Sverdrup 21:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 22:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my mind, it's as valid as any listing of Academy Award winners or Grammy Award winners. This is also, I feel, important enough to warrant inclusion. I quite enjoy the rankings and they (the American Film Institute) are an authority of the subject. Many actor/actress bios here mention their inclusions on these lists. I say clean the listing up, format it, and treat it as an awards listing (even though it's not technically an award). -- Matty j 23:02, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, someone better get cleaning. It's not even really a sub-stub as present. I've added a wikilink to the AFI, but I still have no idea what the lists mean, nor much interest personally. It looks like a valid article needing just a little work, but I did say needing. Andrewa 02:42, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I was going to question the title too, but it all makes sense now. Andrewa 18:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • There are several of these AFI lists, so if we keep this one somebody needs to work on creating all of them. :) this one needs serious work, though. Keep, move to Cleanup. RickK | Talk 03:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've wikified it a bit but it still need more work though. Saul Taylor 12:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages should not be reproducing stuff that is trivially accessible in other places on the net. DJ Clayworth 15:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, now that it's cleaned up and I've had time to think about it, this does look legitimate and I'm realizing I should have posted this to cleanup not vfd. Must have been grumpy yesterday or something -- I can't remember, though, is this comment of mine just a vote to keep, or do I withdraw the entire nomination? I assume it's just "keep". Jwrosenzweig 16:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Texture 20:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maurita Tam

Move to memorial? Not a famous person other than the 9-11 involvement; article is hardly an encyclopedic entry. -Ike 22:23, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Everyking 22:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I'm the contributor. I'm not aware what the criteria are for listings of individuals, but I added this and another 9/11 victim when I noticed that most lists of victims included wiki links for the names of the victims. If non-famous 9/11 victims shouldn't be listed, those wiki's should also be removed, for consistency.User:Ryanaxp
  • nonfamous. move to 9/11 wiki and delete.--Jiang
  • Wikimemorial. Rossami 02:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • We have a strong policy on this. Transwiki it. — Sverdrup 08:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimemorial. DJ Clayworth 15:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete/Wikimemorial, BUT, the author has a very good point: If we don't want articles for all 9/11 victims, we must remove Wiki links on all related articles. In this case, from Stuyvesant High School and Aon Corporation. Niteowlneils 17:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I've de-linked everyone at the high school--they all already had tribute links. I've also de-linked most of the Aon list, after verifying the list was already at Wikimemorial. Niteowlneils 19:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, discourage contributions, a wise step forward for Misplaced Pages. Please. This extreme deletionism spoils the one great advantage Misplaced Pages has. Everyking 20:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to memorial - Texture 20:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Derek Arnold

Vanity. Isomorphic 23:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • delete. Pedro 01:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. Lupin 01:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable autobiography and obvious prank by an anon user. I'm thinking of making up a boilerplate text for this. (;-> Andrewa 02:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Welcome to the official website for Lake Mills, Iowa...A couple of mexicans even live here!"?!? Gotta go. Niteowlneils 18:30, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to 9/11 wiki and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity and obvious garbage - Texture 20:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 18

(March 17|^) | Evar Saar | Numeracy | Darchei Torah | M. and R.M.Santilli | Al Gore's views | A.W.Effendi | M.Corris | The Breetles | Ishy Bilady | Inxire iO(?) | `Shorenstein Company` | "Ignorance of the law..." | kotoku | white heron |

Evar Saar

Vanity page. Besides, he doesn't entirely lack merit as he has collected over 50,000 local names. If the community think this is enough, I could write a short paragraph on him (but not more). But I would prefer deleting. Andres 09:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I'd say delete unless it's verifiable that a) he did collect these names and b) those names were put to some good use (linguistics research, regional history enhancement, something). Jwrosenzweig 18:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, he certainly did collect the names, and they certainly have been put to good use: a map of the historical Võrumaa county has been composed with at least 23 000 names, and an electronical database is being composed, so the data are available for various uses. Andres 22:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Darchei Torah

Orphan unclear stublet -- Infrogmation 03:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Magnecule and Ruggero Maria Santilli

Complete nonsense; there is no scientific basis for this "new theory of chemistry." Googling reveals nothing but unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories. Probably vanity. -- Friedo 03:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah but then how come there's an article on Archimedes Plutonium - a similar case IMO. This is what could make a totally new chapter of kibology. So I think it should stay as long as the Plutonium one stays without implying that Santilli is actually right.--134.121.71.23 04:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Since you created the article, how about at least NPOVing it? The reason I suspect vanity is because there is no criticism of the "theory" in the article itself, nor any acknowledgment that it is not accepted in the scientific community. I think descriptive articles about nonsense are OK, especially if such nonsense is culturally significant (like, say, astrology), but merely copying ludicrous claims is not encyclopedia kosher. -- Friedo 05:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually I was completely surprised to find that, unlike Archie Pu, Santilli has a few papers published in a peer-reviewed journal number of peer-reviewed journals. I've included what I found in the talk:Ruggero Maria Santilli page, while I keep searching. I was actually looking for authors dismissing his theory, and couldn't find any so far. About the descriptive character, the article does describe the guy's claims rather than endorsing them, doesn't it. And it's still marked as a stub, there's still room for improvement.--134.121.71.23 06:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aside from the fact I personally know the article contributor and his bitter dismissal of the magnecule theory, there is no scientific paper rebutting Santilli's theory. Gut feeling is not good enough an argument to dismiss a theory, especially in the view of the NPOV guidelines. The article should probably include language indicating there is no independent confirmation nor disproof of the theory. According to NPOV, it is not a contributor's decision to criticize or to qualify a theory as nonsense.--Unconcerned 20:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Al Gore's views

Inherently POV, not encyclopedic. I really don't think that this article could be fixed. Politicians views change all the time, and sometimes they're not even acknowledged by them. What about what the opposition thinks are the politician's views? I think it's a very bad idea to get started down this path. I guess I'll see if anyone agrees with me. Dori | Talk 04:34, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. Most politicians' views -- especially at this level -- are shaped by polls and change with the winds. Mdchachi 04:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no fundamental problem here. In this context, what the article says is simply what his official positions are, or were during his campaign. Perhaps the title and intro should be changed to reflect that, but deletion would be ridiculous. The page has a long edit history. Everyking 04:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. we write in paragraphs, not bullet points. should be only a paragraph or 2 on his bio page like all the other politicians have it. --Jiang
  • Keep, but it should be phrased as past tense, not present tense, and should be clearly documented. I'm afraid if this gets deleted it will surely return on the Al Gore page. As for the format (bullet points), this is poor, but this page is less than one day old. That's not a reasonn nto delete. Anthony DiPierro 04:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is keeping track of public statements POV? This information is of great public interest. It's quite useful to easily learn a politician's viewpoint, especially now when the politician is retired and his campaign pages have ben swept away. As for the "changing all the time" complaint, the page could easily track those changes. --AaronSw 17:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for once Anthony and I agree on something. I don't see how a person's views on issues are POV. That is just ludacis. Encylcopedias are used for information. What better way to give information about public servants than to give people their views/platform. So keep. ChrisDJackson 21:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Jiang why should the Gore page only have 1 or 2 paragraphs? He is just as famous as Bush, Kerry, or anyone else of that nature. You have always been for cutting out info on Gore. Plus, these are still Gore's views. I run a Gore website and know personally what he is for and against. ChrisDJackson 21:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Moved to cleanup. It is a prime example of an article *not* written to encyclopedic style (not past tense, article title, etc.) Davodd 05:41, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • A tentative keep. I agree with the idea in principle, but I foresee this type of thing becoming a source for endless editing wars. MK 19:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Abdul Wahab Effendi

(Listed on Cleanup for some time) We don't know this guy. The article is not even a stub and the sole link provided is broken. --Jiang 04:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. 4 hits, two of which are Misplaced Pages List of ethicists. If the article is deleted, should also be removed from list. Niteowlneils 17:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jacob1207 01:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Breetles

Advert. subject is nonfamous. --Jiang 05:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Gets 246 Google hits, including links at entertainment.msn.com, rawmusic.com, inmusicwetrust.com, and rockband.com. RickK | Talk 05:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eight albums isn't bad (esp. pre-Internet ones). Cleanup, if anything. Niteowlneils 17:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does need some work by a disinterested party. Andrewa 18:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ishy Bilady

Listed on cleanup since 24 Jan. delete is not turned into article in 5 days. --Jiang 05:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone at least explains what it is. DJ Clayworth 14:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe it is the national anthem for the United Arab Emirates. The current contents, though, are merely the lyrics - no discussion about the anthem. Wikisource? Rossami 15:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rossami. Jacob1207 01:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Inxire iO

Ad. listed on cleanup for a few weeks. --Jiang 05:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably also Inxire--Top hit (of ~260/60) for both is Misplaced Pages, the next are in German. Niteowlneils 17:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Inxire is now tagged for deletion. --Jiang 21:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete ike9898 21:41, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jacob1207 01:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shorenstein Company

Ad. fabiform | talk 05:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Notable company, I guess. Edited out POV. Niteowlneils 17:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it

Patent nonsense. I went to a university law class and never heard of this 'legal principle'.

  • Keep, but only if it turns into something more than 1-liner and provided it's true. Perhaps move to a more general article? --Humus sapiens Talk 05:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • ignorantia legis neminem excusat in the original Latin . . . but is this a real legal principle, or just a popular fiction of one? I can't say one way or another. Keep, but fix; if real, explain the real legal principle (under a more concise title); if false, rewrite it to make that clear. --67.71.79.45 05:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep something. The usual phrase (in British English, at least) is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". The existing content is certainly rubbish, though. Markalexander100 08:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Although the phrase is well-known in Britain, content is rubbish. Delete unless improved. DJ Clayworth 14:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is the recognized phrase in the US as well. It is a recognized legal principle. However, it is completely self-evident from the phrase itself. Unless someone can document specific attempts to repudiate this principle (I don't know of any) or find some other way to substantially improve the article, I vote to delete. Rossami 15:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • My vote exactly replicates Rossami's. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. AaronSw 17:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting subject matter, article has been improved by AaronSw.--Patrick 00:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. jengod 01:20, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It needs to be confirmed that this is a legitimate principle, however. (Even if it is not, note that fact and still keep the article) Jacob1207 01:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not because it's untrue (ignorance of some laws is an excuse), but because it's not encyclopedic. Or merge somewhere (after cleaning up) and redirect, but I can't really think of where. Maybe mens rea?Anthony DiPierro 02:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Presumed knowledge of the law. Anthony DiPierro 02:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, redirect to Presumed knowledge of the law -- it's a better article and subsumes Ignorance of the law. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice find, Anthony. Agree with redirect.
    • Change my vote to this redirect. Rossami
  • Agreed also, redirect to Presumed knowledge of the law. Markalexander100 08:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kotuku

Misplaced Pages is not a link farm. Denelson83 06:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Expanded to a one sentence stub. Hope it will grow more. Meelar 07:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have mede it into a redirect to a new page White Heron since the bird is apparently found in other countries, presumably by different names. However the species Egretta alba does not appear in the extensive list of Heron species; but there is an Ardea alba = Great Egret = Great White Egret, with similar description. Perhaps it is the same bird, which some put in Egretta, some in Ardea?Jorge Stolfi 07:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with Jorge Stolfi improvements. Niteowlneils 18:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kotuku has been the name of this endangered heron for many centuries, and is a logical direct to White Heron. Moriori 19:41, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've made this a redirect to Great Egret - not endangered on a world scale. jimfbleak 07:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It is a subspecies that is endangered. That makes it a valid subject. The relative status of a species is seperate from the status of a species. GerardM 12:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

White Heron

See Kotuku above, Jorge Stolfi 07:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Valid topic. Davodd 22:21, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. GerardM 22:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. jengod 01:23, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've made this a redirect to Great Egret - jimfbleak 07:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Are the Ardea alba and the Egretta alba synonimes ??? GerardM 12:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Refreshing brilliant prose

And the sub-pages, which i created for a poll which is now a few months old. Muriel 09:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Might be worth archiving somewhere, Wiki is not paper and our content management processes have already been the subject of one academic paper... think it would be nice to leave any future researchers the same behind the scenes glimpses. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Points (game points)

Linked by Kumite which is a subpage of Karate. Too short, has no context, and could be folded into Kumite. Unless there is more to be said...Jorge Stolfi 11:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Basically all it says is "The media covers the Israeli-Palestinian. Some people say its biased in some way or another." But in far more words than that. Alledged media bias of the conflict is an important subject but this article is completely useless. I would suggest moving it to media bias of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but there really isn't any worthwhile content to be moved. Saul Taylor 13:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Don't do that move. Calling an article 'Media bias in...' is just asking for lots of POV comments instead of good, solid facts. (no vote on deletion) DJ Clayworth 15:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC
  • Keep. AaronSw 17:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a topic that a good encyclopedia should have an article on. Unfortunately, what is there so far is pure junk. I have to vote keep but can we reduce it to a stub until someone wants to write it properly? --Zero 22:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep article. Needs work, however. Jacob1207 01:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Scripophilia.com

In italian, probably nonsense

  • Delete. Advertising. Not nonsense, but vanity/commercial page. Babelfish translation is "Situated for collectors, It certifys to you share, old bonds, olds stocks, cartacei documents, direct selling on the situated payment through, Paypal, discount, shipment cash, immense assortment also on the situated one eBay, in this way you can control, through the Feedbacks, my seriousness." The site is just a front-end to (the Italian version of) eBay and uses frames to display the seller's eBay items. It's the Italian eBay, of course. The fact that he's willing to put Italian ads on English Misplaced Pages suggests aggressive and indiscriminate self-promotion. Dpbsmith 17:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Except for adding the VfD notice, only 2 anon edits, the first created it with the Italian text, the second (different address) attempted (unsuccessfully) to add a logo from an external server, and the directory is called "ebay". Another I'd be happy to see deleted without further discussion. Andrewa 18:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jorge Cano

  • Vanity babble. Niteowlneils 17:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Possibly not vanity, but may be a copyvio, see . All edits other than adding the VfD notice are by anons. Andrewa 18:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If you click his name, note in footer "This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Misplaced Pages.org..." Niteowlneils 18:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Good point! Andrewa 18:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pedro Dahdah

  • Most likely vanity. No relevant Google hits. Most information is probably fictitious. —Frecklefoot 19:47, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I found some google hits. Admittedly there were only 3.... Ludraman | Talk 19:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, no. Frecklefoot is right. Even my 3 google hits are entirely irrelevant. Badly written anyway. Ludraman | Talk 19:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Claims of 'immense success' not substantiated. Average Earthman 16:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Newcomb´s Problem

  • Who is Newcomb? There is no problem here there is only one option (take the opaque box). Bensaccount 20:08, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Newcomb's paradox (which also solves the copyvio problem). Rossami 20:49, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. Now to clean up Newcomb's Paradox because there really are two competing points of view. Rossami

Logomachy and Cacopygian

  • Wikpedia is not a dictionary. Also, it looks like its been copied from another website, probably dictionary.com. Both are correct but not encyclopedia. -- Graham  :) | Talk 20:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdefs, not likely to ever become useful articles. But I had a good laugh trying to imagine what we might put in either to expand them. Andrewa 17:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Diplomatic representation of Trinidad and Tobago in the United States

  • This is not an article. This info is usually included in the politics of (country) articles, but I've been removing them because they are US-centric and add no encyclopedic value. Someone has decided for some reason to split it off, so I'll need this page to have it deleted.--Jiang

Mat

  • I don't think this can expand beyond the dicdef it is now. moink 01:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not an encyclopedia article, just a few bits of information easily available elsewhere. Jacob1207 01:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. allow it to remain a perpetual stub; take out the notice. --Jiang
  • delete. barely even worth a dic def
  • keep. -- Decumanus 03:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep a perfectly valid yet short article, which ay very well be expanded in the future. I'd like to know - who first used doormats, what are they normally made of and why, what are the common patterns and designs. there's lots that could go on the page. (Also would the person who voted to delete two entries above this onle please sign their comment) theresa knott 15:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • As one of the contributors to this article, I would like to state my intention of researching more history of this common article. In addition to the questions raised by theresa above, I am curious as to trends in mat design and how they mirror design trends in other areas of society, how mat designs vary in different parts of the country and the world, and other uses of mats in general. The intention of this page is not to define what a mat is, but to show how mats came to be, and what they are going to be. --SmileyDude 16:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Especially when you include place mat, wrestling mat, gymnastics mat, and include any historical data that can be found, it seems to fit in well. Niteowlneils 16:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great topic, good article. Andrewa 17:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Rebellion

So many problems I don't even know where to begin. jengod 01:16, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not only would this takes tons of work to fix, it's under copyright: "Copyrighted Material. Privately published in the USA. All rights reserved. Registration number TX U 910 222 Not for publication without the permission of the author." Jacob1207 01:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Even if Joseph Atwill posted [the text (PDF) himself, it's still self-published original research. Note that a real article on this subject already exists, so once the copyright questions have been resolved, this page should be redirected there. --67.69.188.80 02:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • "As a result of this revolt Roman Emperors crieted an Anti-Semitic Theory to destroy Jews using a Government sponsored religion called Christianity". Do enough people believe this to make it worth an entry in List of alleged conspiracy theories or Bible conspiracy theories? -- Khym Chanur 05:23, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Similar theories -- that Christianity as we know it is the invention of the Roman Empire -- are known outside the tinfoil-hat crew; The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail promoted one such theory, and it was a major best-seller. This variant -- that the invention of Christianity was an anti-Semitic conspiracy by Titus Flavius -- is, as far as I can tell, unique. --67.69.188.80 17:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or move to Textbook case of what Misplaced Pages is not. A copyvio that's a massively POV presentation of a conspiracy theory, duplicating the subject matter of an existing article--What more could one ask for? Certainly not redeemable by editing, even with copyvio taken care of. Dandrake 09:11, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for most of the reasons above. Too many problems, subject already covered, solution simple. Andrewa 18:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Solar eclipses as seen from Beijing

as well as Solar eclipses as seen from Shanghai and Solar eclipses as seen from Tianjin. Needed here? already have a copy on Wikisource.--Yacht 01:25, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think we already decided some time ago that Wikisource material should not be duplicated here. Anjouli 14:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Duchy of Pinica

  • A sub-province of a fictional micronation! RickK | Talk 02:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote, but I think you should clarify -- what are you saying? The very fact that something is a micronation specifies that it does not have recognition by accepted states! And Pinica is not a "sub-province" (whatever that means). --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) * Delete - just nonsense
    • (No vote). We have lots of other articles about micronations here, I'm not sure whats different about this one. Saul Taylor 13:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saul, what's different is that this one seems to have no following. To be encyclopedic a micro-nation must have a degree of fame or a significant following. Anjouli 14:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No hits, no relevant hits, or only Misplaced Pages hits for [[Duchy of Pinica, The Empire of Upper and Lower, "Duchy of Natatoria", "Lori Taucher", or "Imperial Post" -china -chinese -rome -roman (OK, so I didn't look at all 500 for Imperial Post, but doesn't seem promising). Also, from Duchy of Pinica Talk: "This is just a local "Micro-nation" game, not for Misplaced Pages.". not from a contributor to the article. I'd vote the whole series off the island. Niteowlneils 15:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • You can't say that you'd vote The Empire of Upper and Lower off the island as there is no there (at least not yet). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Should one person's opinion stated in a comment on the talk page be used as evidence? This is highly questionable. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cyndi Seidler

  • Vanity, created by the person in question. RickK | Talk 03:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Delete. Anjouli 09:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Probable newbie--gently refer to User page. Niteowlneils 15:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moon colonization

  • Delete - original work - one person's musings- Texture 04:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like some kid's homework. (I give a C+) Anjouli 09:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or radically re-work. Dhodges 13:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. But not in the state it is now. Something of encyclopedic value would be references to books, films or people who have dealt on moon colonization. Jay 18:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Infoganda

  • Made up term, 14 Google hits. RickK | Talk 04:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term was invented and/or popularized by Rob Corddry on The Daily Show With John Stewart on March 17th, 2004. -- Decumanus 04:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Term has history, proved by 14 google hits, dating back to 2001. Page should be updated to include this history but not deleted. --Justanyone | Talk
  • Comment: Uncertain. Inaccurate and highly POV article about a particular incident of infoganda, and likely to stay that way. Probably not going to be a useful stub if stubified. No useful history so far. But possibly a valid topic, and created by a valued contributor. Tend towards keep but not a vote at this stage. Andrewa 14:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Prisoner's Dilemma From Hell

Just a restatement of the classic Prisoner's Dilemma, but with greatly increased rewards and penalties. -- Khym Chanur 04:35, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't preserve the strictly dominant solution of the classic Prisoner's dilemma, so I'm not even sure I accept the result given. Isomorphic 05:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. No merit whatsoever. Adam Conover 07:00, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Khym Chanur said. Markalexander100 07:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's actually subtly different than the normal prisoners dilemma. Could be mergen into it and redirected. theresa knott 10:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, it is different Theresa, but I can't find any non-WP reference. Seems to be "original research" of undoubted interest, but not encyclopediac. (Love mergen by the way. Good word.) Anjouli 14:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Zak Koenig

  • Vanity page. RickK | Talk 04:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. He was on "Bill O'Reilly Band" before they broke up. I remember watching them on TV. With a sports record like he has, he must be at least locally famous.MPerks89 | Talk
    • Please note that the above post is from a sock puppet. RickK | Talk 05:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC
  • No, he's right. I remember the "Bill O'Reilly Band". Saturday nights at 10. They were pretty good. I say keep it. Zzfly123
    • The above is also a sock puppet, created poorly by MPerks. RickK | Talk 05:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity; delete. -- Seth Ilys 05:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity; delete. Anjouli 09:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maudlyn A. White

  • Is there a place to list 9/11 victims that need to be transwikied (besides here)? Tuf-Kat 06:51, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • no content, should be a speedy delete. --Jiang 07:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • move to 9/11 wiki and del. --Jiang 19:19, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jiang. Anjouli 09:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • speedy delete, after the talk page is transwikied, I hope. Anthony DiPierro 10:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, please. I added content. There is no valid reason for deletion. Everyking 14:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Still delete. Whilst we appreciate these heros and the need to remember them, this is an encyclopedia. Listing 911 victims individually in their own articles in an encyclopedia is not practical or appropriate unless they are individually of historic interest. Sorry. --Anjouli 14:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • They are of historic interest. This sabotage needs to stop. Everyking 16:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not sabotage, it's a difference of opinion. What's the difference between listing all the 9/11 victims and listing everyone who participated in the D-Day landings?Average Earthman 16:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • There isn't one. However, basic info about 9/11 victims is more easily verifiable for most of us, so deleting these articles is particularly unjustifiable. Everyking 16:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Fredrik 14:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimemorial and delete. Note that Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: Pentagon links to three other articles that probably fall in the same category: Stephen V. "Steve" Long, Jonas Martin Panik, and Khang Nguyen. Niteowlneils 15:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, these should go too - although Stephen V. Long forwards to sep11 wiki.Anjouli 15:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah, missed that. Should probably keep direct links to 9/11 memorial--if for no other reason than to prevent new articles being re-created at en.wikipedia. Niteowlneils 16:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Attack on Chen

Already covered in more detail by ROC_presidential_election,_2004.

Anarchism and democracy

POV; see Talk:Anarchism and democracy. If there is any valid contents, it should be merged into anarchism or elsewhere.Jorge Stolfi 11:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IntelliVIEW, IntelliVIEW headerdetail

Wiki namespace used for personal use. Dysprosia 08:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Fast track delete. Anjouli 14:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete but after 5 days. theresa knott 15:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting example. The creator is quoting our rules at us to demand the right to abuse our site for the 5 day deletion period, and inviting the 104 members (103 before I joined) of their Yahoo group to join in, see the note at the bottom of this old version. I'm guessing the creator is making money out of their involvement in the project of which this is part, but I have no hard evidence. I can forward the message from the Yahoo group if you'd rather not join it (and think carefully before joining). Andrewa 16:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. RickK | Talk 17:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a resource for conducting business. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, point #20. Seems like there ought to be a way to deal with vandals who are playing on our generosity in order to make use of the sight for 5 days. -Rholton 18:45, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Recommend for fast-track deletion. If we don't have a policy to zap pages like this ASAP, we should make one. -- The Anome 18:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Not a vote, my vote is above. Andrewa 20:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 19

JAJC

Self-promotion

  • Agree. Delete. --Anjouli 14:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness NPOV

Not a vote. Just putting it up for consideration for deletion. This seems the wrong way to resolve an edit dispute. Should not the original article be edited to NPOV, disputes resolved via the Talk page and the normal edit war procedure followed if there is no resolution? A novel and no doubt well-intentioned approach, but it could lead to multiple layers of "NPOV" on "NPOV" of the same subject. Anjouli 13:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do agree that this is not the way to rewrite an article. Perhaps it could come under Artificial conciousness/NPOV Version, then draw attention to it on the Talk page with votes for changes. Followers of John Searle, Roger Penrose, Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, draw your swords! Jfdwolff 14:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that could work. But perhaps as a sub-page under the Talk page to show good faith? Anjouli 15:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree, I think this is a correct way to organise such artice. Even voting on parts of the article would be much easier when article is organised in such way with different views clearly separated. Also for followers of John Searle, Roger Penrose etc would be much easier to add their views.(I'm sure they are smart people and don't "draw swords"). Tkorrovi 18 Mar 2004
  • Keep for the moment. What a mess. But there's a lot of evidence of progress and goodwill too. I don't think deletion of this attempt at a solution will help at this stage, just the opposite. Eventually, yes, it will need to be done, this isn't a good name for anything we want in the main article namespace. Andrewa 15:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bronze Working

Already well covered in Bronze Age etc. except the obscure reference to "spearman unit advance", presumably an unidentified game.--Anjouli 14:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Unsure. I've made it into a disambig, linking to the article on the game (which is Civilization III) and the articles that already cover real bronze working. Andrewa 15:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • That's fine now. Keep if nobody objects. Anjouli 15:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That sounds like consensus to keep. This entry can be removed in 24 hours if no further comments. Andrewa 15:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. (Not unless we intend that the 'pedia start including game guides as well as the fan site material already here.) Elde 18:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dissemination

Dictionary definition Dori | Talk 16:31, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Pornstar Lists

  • Is pornstar an actual word? Pakaran. 19:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of pornstars who appeared in non-porn films
  • Delete. Jwrosenzweig 19:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep 141 19:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. of cinematic interest. Davodd 19:19, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but add some serious content. It is very interesting to track some carriers. Cautious 19:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: You do mean careers, don't you? Andrewa 20:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just expanded it and there are several more people that qualify. MK 19:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is all going too far. RickK | Talk 20:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Write articles about porn stars if you want, but don't make these endless, pointless lists. Everyking 20:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of pornstars who are computer junkies
  • Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. 141 18:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. Davodd 18:58, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK | Talk 20:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 20:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of pornstars who advocate gay rights
  • Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. 141 18:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Davodd 19:00, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 20:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK | Talk 20:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of pornstars who innovated in arts
  • Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. 141 18:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Davodd 19:01, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK | Talk 20:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 20:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of pornstars who were or are married
  • Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. 141 18:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if it is it fleshed out before the delete nomination period ends. (One name does not make a list.) Also needs renamed for spelling ("pornstar"), etc. Davodd 19:09, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK | Talk 20:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 20:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
List of pornstars and sex symbols who innovated in science
  • Delete. Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. 141 18:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. rubbish. Davodd 18:59, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- The Anome 19:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK | Talk 20:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. How did they, exactly? Everyking 20:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Human eye

Poor formatting and not wikified and much the content is covered by other articles. But the main issue is a quote from the bottom of the page -

'This is MY work and is copyrighted.Copyright 2004 Human Eye Website LLC'. Deus Ex

  • Well, the copyrights of submissions do remain with the contributor. It's just now available under the GFDL. But the tone of the notice (especially the emphasis on "my") suggest that the submitter does not agree to the GFDL. Therefore, unless that changes, it must be deleted. Eric119 19:39, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe the contributor was the the same person who created this work, and the emphasis on my is to just show that the work is original, and not posted here against his/her will? Anyway, only the author would know the truth. --Ezhiki 20:15, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Polycarbonate

Just nonsense. I suggest deletion. Deus Ex

  • Delete. Unless someone wants to blank it and replace with a real article on Polycarbonate, which would be a good idea. Dandrake 19:43, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ilcomment

I don't understand the point in putting this HTML comment into all pages. — Timwi 18:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SMS sex

Delete - Deus Ex

Please indicate who you are and why you think it should be deleted. RickK | Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep 141 19:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nude chat

Delete - Deus Ex

Please indicate who you are and why you think it should be deleted. RickK | Talk 20:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep 141 19:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of clinically depressed oceanographers who have made contributions to the field of aeronautics

  • Rubbish. Davodd 19:15, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Lukwam 19:47, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Seems to be gone. Was it decided that this was patent nonsense? If so, could a sysop send me a copy please? Andrewa 20:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The "list" consisted of Jacques Cousteau, and the poster's edit comment was "April 1st is coming soon". RickK | Talk 20:17, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It wasn't intended as a serious list. Scroll up this page to the discussion of "Pornstar Lists". MK 20:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)