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 Angela (talk | contribs) at 21:57, 16 February 2004 (Cypherpunks anti-license deleted, Shnorrer kept, MUD trees deleted, Hidden Worlds, Online creation kept, Newlyweds kept as now a stub, Pages from cs moved to User talk:Vit Zvanovec, WilTel kept, Impor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:57, 16 February 2004 by Angela (talk | contribs) (Cypherpunks anti-license deleted, Shnorrer kept, MUD trees deleted, Hidden Worlds, Online creation kept, Newlyweds kept as now a stub, Pages from cs moved to User talk:Vit Zvanovec, WilTel kept, Impor)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


This page got fubar'd in an edit conflict left unresolved by Dandrake at 19:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC), which deleted a number of edits. This wasn't discovered for a while, and a number of other edits accumulated. I reverted at 20:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC), and then I (very laboriously) went through, revision by revision, to add back in the edits that my revert, and the initial conflict, deleted.
As far as I can tell, all are back in EXCEPT two entries that appeared in Dandrake's edit, but were not by him (his own edit comment has be incorporated). These two comments I think may have been deleted by their authors and inadvertently pulled in by Dandrake. They are:
and
They ARE NOT incorporated in the text of the page below. If this was a mistake on my part, please, Fuzheado and Zandperl, add them back in. Otherwise indicate here that they should not be incorporated, and the second of you to do so remove this explanation.
Thanks. orthogonal 21:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

Helpful Links

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

copyright violations -- images -- personal subpages -- redirects -- Misplaced Pages:Cleanup -- translations

Related

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

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions


February 7

  • Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I feel really bad about this one. She's not an encyclopedia subject, but she certainly deserves to be remembered somewhere. Wikimorial and delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This was already listed in VfD back in May, 2003 (see Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell). I supported deletion, but there were not enough votes to delete. Kingturtle 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not encyclopaedic - are we to have a page on every kid who's ever comitted suicide? What makes Sarah different? Delete. (Also support move to Wikimemorial) PMC 23:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Isomorphic 01:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Twelve year old shooting herself with a firearm. Kinda spectacular. Enough for the news, enough for WP. See the that page's talk page for more argumentation. BL 03:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikimemorial and delete.--Jiang
    • move to wikimemorial and delete. Davodd 09:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)


February 12

  • Fragarach. Can anyone find any record of this thing existing other than on gaming sites? RickK 03:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (Updated article). Non-gaming site references (2 of many) appended to article (cos I can't get them to work in here) Syntax 04:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 04:27, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Culture of Turkey - mostly some POV rambles, not much worthwhile info there. Dori | Talk 03:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete.Bmills 13:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. An article being bad isn't a reason to delete. There should clearly be an article at this name. Improve, don't delete. Isomorphic 01:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There is culture in turkey. Keep. BL 04:27, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Move to clean up list. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete if not improved by Feb 19. --Jiang
    • Merge back into Turkey -- not enough yet for a sep. article. Davodd 09:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Qibla al-Qudsiyya. Can anybody find any proof of the existence of these people other than a site that gets its information from Misplaced Pages? RickK 04:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can confirm the existence of some Jews of Medina who converted to Islam in 622, but not under this name or any variant Romanizations thereof -- and I find no evidence whatsoever that they formed a distinct sect of Islam. I don't know; it seems like an odd thing to make up, so defer for now. --No-One Jones (talk) 05:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How to make Biodiesel Not an encylopaedic subject. Wikibooks? Bmills 12:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic subject. Anthony DiPierro 14:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to appropriate location unless it is updated to be more than the mere recipe it is now. - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • m:transwiki this and all how-tos to wikibooks. Gentgeen 14:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikibooks and delete. --Jiang
    • Delete -keep, put under Biodiesel.or make sure to link to from biodiesel. This is an extemely relevant item for present day and historical existence. sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ars (no giggling at the back, please) Dictionary def of a Latin word. Bmills 13:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: a word with a lot of peculiar uses. Not many Latin words deserve WP articles; this is one of them. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tror, Seskef - patent nonsense, claiming that Thor was the son of Priam. Unless this needs context as fiction based on a work I am not familiar with, delete it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Ridiculous cryptohistory (I think it's serious --- this is probably the source). Delete with extreme prejudice. ---No-One Jones 14:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete nonsense.Bmills 15:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


February 13

  • Formula fiction — Substub, dictionary definition (and not a particularly good one). There could be a good article about formula fiction, but this one has shown no signs of becoming one; it has not changed since Jan. 2003. Dpbsmith 00:23, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub. Anthony DiPierro 00:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect and merge with Genre fiction, which already covers similar territory more thoroughly. Smerdis of Tlön 02:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why wouldn't it be good in the future? BL 04:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have tried to expand this, and distinguish it from genre fiction. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • "Formula fiction" and "genre fiction" are still not quite right. Might be heading in right direction. Elf 20:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's improving. Keep. Karada 23:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Won't this always be an essay? How could this become an encyclopedia reoprt? All genres have formulas. A good Misplaced Pages entry would identify formulas in genres, under each genre. Wetman 23:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Recent edits are going in the right direction. "Beatniks Wandering the Midwest" -- hey, wait a minute! I resemble that comment! Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Al Gore Platform. Misplaced Pages is not a website for political campaigns. RickK 03:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Also note the copy at Al Gore's opinions
    • Very useful content. Merge into Al Gore article. →Raul654 04:05, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Describing a political campaign is very encyclopedic. Keep. BL 04:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not a description of a political campaign. It's a collection of quotes. Read it.--Jiang
    • Keep. If you're not allowed to list a politician's policies, then you can't really write a very good article about them for an encyclopedia! ShaneKing 04:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Please read the article before voting. We did not "write" that article. Al Gore did. His views may be (and indeed are) mentioned as part of his biography at Al Gore. A collection of quotations is inappropriate.--Jiang
    • Delete, it is not even a platform. He never ran on issues like gay marriage or the Iraq war. Also wikipedia is not a collection of quotes, which this article is. - SimonP 07:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, see wikipedia:what wikipedia is not.--Jiang
    • Delete both. Ask yourself, "What is it we're trying to make here?" Bmills 09:38, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • What is wrong with having a page that shows Gore's platform? I would rather have quotes that describe his stands than someone else try to characterize them for him. Plus, if you look at the Howard Dean page, where they show his views, they are also quotes. So what is the big deal? Everytime I take time to do something about Al Gore, the same people throw a fit everytime. But what I do is not something out of the ordinary, it comes from other Wiki pages, but they have no problem with them. I think you are on the wrong side of the issue here and the people's voice has spoken. This page provides a first hand look at how Al Gore stands on the major issues, and again, it is him speaking for himself, which is better because of clarity. So please leave it. ChrisDJackson
        • The difference of course being that Dean's opinions are not given a page to themselves but are placed in a context (his life) as befits an encyclopaedia. Bmills 12:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • The Dean page has quotes under views, just as this page does. Now if you want to merge it with the main article, go ahead, but I don't see what the problem is. ChrisDJackson
    • m:Transwiki to Wikiquote:Transwiki:Al Gore. Gentgeen 12:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: useful material on an important person. A collection of quotes is a pretty crappy article, but the article needs to be there and it's better than nothing. Encourage someone to put some analysis into it. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't worry about it now, I have done more work on the Gore page and added a views section that does not have quotes, but statements on how he stands. But there is already one person bringing up a rip about that. I just don't see why you all are so intent on bugging me on everything I do with this page. It is redundant and I would like it to stop because I am only trying to help. ]]


  • Michael Moore and US foreign policy - irredeemable POV. Secretlondon 09:22, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Put anything of value in Bowling for Columbine before deleting. theresa knott 11:02, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The current version of the page does not strike me as overly POV, but the content seems to belong more properly directly in Bowling for Columbine (which is not yet so large an article that the two can't be combined). This page title is wrong for the topic, though. Merge then delete. Rossami 14:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - POV - Texture 14:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. HectorRodriguez 23:59, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge back into state terrorism and redirect. The list is cited and attributed, which makes it NPOV. Anthony DiPierro 06:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into state terrorism and delete. Politics is (are?) important, the connection with Michael Moore is not. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) (new vote below)
    • Just for context: I created this article after pulling it out of state terrorism because Moore's random (fictitious) list had no place there, both because it does not on the whole pertain to terrorism at all, and his long list of opinions is not suitable encyclopedic material for a subject as broad as state terrorism, belonging instead under some "Michael Moore" head. Thus, this article was a compromise to keep it at all. I agree it is worthless and should be destroyed, but anyone else who favors this should also propose how to keep the peace after doing so. -- VV 10:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete See my case at Talk:Michael Moore and US foreign policy. 172 12:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into Bowling for Columbine and redirect. 172 has made a very convincing case. --No-One Jones 12:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge into a Michael Moore page and redirect. I agree with 172. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • OmniVoid while this looks sensible, even professional, it gets exactly zero google hits, which it not what you expect from a new network protocol that has any reasonable chance of being used. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - added VfD message on page - delete unless someone can provide a single link or reference to provie its existence. - Texture 18:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. You know, I'd say this article is a worthy candidate for Still more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Denelson83 19:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Either "original research" or a prank. Dpbsmith 20:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looked unlikely when I first mentioned it on cleanup. Elf 20:40, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There's no RFC for it or any other standards track, looks like original research. Jor
  • St Gregorys - fictional. The third largest channel island is either Sark or Alderney. There is no St Gregory's. Secretlondon 19:38, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless perhaps we're in an alternate universe? Sounds believable, dunnit! Elf 20:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • He does mention it is volcanic, so maybe it just rose up out of the depts… Get rid of it. Jor 21:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fictional. Googling "Svenby" turns up no tourist information. Dpbsmith 23:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I think I recognise the writing style of a previous troll. Karada 23:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Jonah Firestone - someone's teacher? not famous. Secretlondon 20:47, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. At least not fictional, see . But doesn't pass the Google test. Dpbsmith 23:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I am more famous than this former Tower records employee. Davodd 09:40, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

February 14

  • Bhookay_bhedhiye - looks like nonsense to me Brian Rock 03:37, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense. RickK 04:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - looks like a gaming group of friends trying to make themselves a page. - Texture 16:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ditto. Elf 22:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nothing links here, some private club's page. Jacob1207 22:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Happy Birthday, Cookie Monster--nonfamous children's book, can't grow past what's here. Meelar 06:55, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Add infomation either to Seaseme Street or create a new article about books based on Seaseme Street then redirect. Saul Taylor 13:53, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No content on page (just title & year of publication). Jacob1207 22:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: content free. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Check it out now, I've expanded it a fair bit. -- user:zanimum


  • Probability and statistics and ProbabilityAndStatistics and Probability and Statistics Fairly useless orphans. Davodd 09:05, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Hmm. I was in a "Probability and statistics" class at three different universities so in my mind the phrase always goes together. (As it says on the page.) Although at the moment nothing links to them, it seems probable that something will, and then the pages would reappear. But I'm not violently opposed to deletion. Elf 22:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If deleted it would be recreated. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Toz Looks like self-promotion Lee M 14:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - vanity/promotion/lame request for attention OR identity theft attack as a joke or malicious attempt to spam someone. - Texture 16:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. WTF is an "identity theft attack?" Anthony DiPierro 17:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Pretend to be someone you don't like... go on the web as them and post their real life phone number, email address, ICQ/Instant Messenger address, postal address, etc... then either request people to contact the person you pretend to be or make inflamatory posts to create a flood of resonses to the person you are pretending to be. It is a common way to attack spammers. - Texture 17:45, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • What crazy terms you kids have these days. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oxford Revelation Rock-Gospel Choir Looks like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. The group in question is hardly important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article anyway. G-Man 16:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 17:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It may be verifiable but that doesn't mean it warrants an encyclopedia article. Are we to have an article about every obscure gospel choir G-Man 18:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Checking their web site, looks like one of a zillion small casual choirs. Elf 22:57, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 05:29, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Novatianism - dictionary definition. should be moved to wiktionary - Mark 15:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, move to wiktionary - Texture 17:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep/rewrite to stub; looks like could be an interesting topic. Elf 22:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep/rewrite - An important and influential schism. Mkmcconn 22:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Changed from a dictionary entry, to a brief stub. Mkmcconn 23:04, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: informative. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC
    • Have another look. It's getting better. Wetman 06:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC))
  • Ashley marie - 15-year old's vanity page - Texture 17:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Predict Anthony's vote: "Verifiable and Famous. Keep" →Raul654 18:09, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not just move it to a user page? I've done that before (whether they wanted me to or not :)) Adam Bishop 18:14, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to user page and delete. Davodd 18:37, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Newbie mistake. Maximus Rex 22:29, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Jacob1207 22:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rampant Mouse - promotion of website - Texture 18:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting website, might buy a sword or two from them. But delete the article, it has no place here. -- Graham  :) 19:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Promotion of website. Elf 22:23, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Persection of Muslims - A misspelling that's a redirect to the correct spelling; nothing links to it. Elf 22:01, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Jacob1207 22:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why delete? It's not getting in the way, and it may be useful if someone misspells. Nothing should link to this kind of redirect. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 03:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tank top a little nonsensical, not very informative Dysprosia 23:42, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs work, but keep. RadicalBender 00:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Needs a picture... any idea where to find a copyright-free picture of a tank top?
      • Here?
    • Keep. Needs work, but is informative. Davodd 02:32, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Articles on types of garments are valid. Cedars 05:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - its much better now: originally I was talking about this version Dysprosia 05:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 15

  • Predestination (Calvinism). This page is essentially a polemic against the doctrine rather than an imformative definition of it. Regardless of my opinion of the doctrine, i would expect as a researcher, to find a posiotive definition of the doctrine with links to arguments against it. notsnhoj
    • Should probably be listed on Misplaced Pages:Cleanup, not here. RickK 04:56, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The article was created with a practical purpose in mind, which has since been satisfied. Its essay form probably qualifies it for deletion. However, it was written more than a year ago, and has been linked from several other articles. Rewriting may be a less messy route. Mkmcconn 07:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, this should not be here. Sam Spade 15:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but truncate to a near-stub. The article topic is highly appropriate. The two opening quotations from Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith are a good start for such an article. But even the sentences introducing quotations need to be rewritten to remove the POV stuff about "bluntness." The rest is very non-neutral, and is "original research." I am strongly tempted to rewrite the opening "The doctrine of predestination, as formulated by Calvin, is: 'Predestination ' It appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith in this form: "By the decree ." and move ALL the rest of it to the Talk page. The above would then constitute the entire article (until the time that someone more knowledgable about Calvinism than I should choose to add to it). Dpbsmith 00:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Sounds good, do it. Andrewa 02:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)



  • Bakta -- prank article by some students probably. See its talk page for more. Jay 11:10, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, Complete nonsense. None of the 'philosophers' can be found with google nor in the 'Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy'.Andries 17:31, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree with Andries -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Gag-O-Rama - a not very famous web-comic. - SimonP 15:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, not important enough. -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not verifiable. No original research. Anthony DiPierro 20:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Diego Marani - hopelessly POV. Each sentence portrays Marani and Europanto as an attack on Esperanto and Esperantists. I really can't see anything in there to salvage except "Diego Marani...is the inventor of...Europanto". At least part of the article looks like it was created by one of the parties involved in the edit war at Europanto. --cprompt 17:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Billy Dee Williams - Vanity page. --cprompt 17:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, certainly not famous -- Ams80 18:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Famous enough to have 8 odd pages linking to him , assuming it's the same person. Mintguy (T) 18:25, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is the same person. --cprompt 19:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Billy Dee Williams played Lando in Star Wars. The birth dates are the same. silsor 19:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I rewrote this into a page on the Star Wars actor; I think the previous version was about someone entirely different. Should be fine now, keep. Meelar 20:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Because of Meelar's edit, I withdraw my request to delete. Keep. --cprompt 00:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. If for no other reason, the famous Colt 45 Malt Liquor commercials. Fuzheado 07:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the bio of this star of Brian's Song, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Batman (1989 movie). Davodd 18:53, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Zarraffa's Coffee - little more than an advert. Is this actually well known in Australia? -- Ams80 18:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More than an advert. Anthony DiPierro 20:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. I removed what I thought made it, "like an advert," so now it's less like an advert but more like a stub. (I considered removing the silly sentence explaining that it sells coffee). I see no compelling reason to keep it but no harm in keeping it. Dpbsmith 01:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Odd, the corporate website is strangely silent on matters such as annual revenue, number of stores, etc. It was founded by someone from Seattle, by the way. The article was created by an anon who has contributed two substantial articles on Education in Australia and HECS. Dpbsmith 01:11, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know if Zarraffa's is famous, but I know of it. I think many people living in Brisbane would be aware of it. So I think it's fine to keep. ShaneKing 02:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of Sony products - are we going to have a (incomplete, and never likely to be complete) product catalogue for every manufacturer? -- Ams80 18:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not? We are building an incomplete, and never likely to be complete encyclopaedia. Mintguy (T) 18:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to another namespace or keep. Useful for creating an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 18:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I created this article for the purpose of being able to write an article about the printer listed there, without having to make it an orphan. I suppose I could have looked for/created a list of computer printer models. But if the list is deleted, the article would become an orphan. —Vespristiano 19:47, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
      • And that article deserves to be deleted as well.
    • There's a List of IBM products too. If IBM's ok, then Sony's ok. Agree with Mintguy that incompleteness is not a criteria for deletion. Jay 08:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment - Could this could be altered to a list of important/notable Sony products, such as the Walkman, Playstation, Betamax, Aibo? Linking to only products worthy of further discussion. Average Earthman 20:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rheta Grimsley Johnson - orphan, non article, short story -- Infrogmation 20:57, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - either original work, copvio, or vanity page - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a press release. Press on and release it from Wiki. Delete orthogonal 10:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 16

  • all subpages of Aozora Bunko (e.g.Aozora Bunko: A) -- index of another site. they don't make sense. TY 08:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete these index pages. A maintenance nightmare anyway. Users are better off visiting the Aozora Bunko website directly. Lupo 13:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, this is a useful index for stimulating articles in English on classic works of Japanese literature. Keep. -- The Anome 13:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Enemy Within from the article: '"The Enemy Within" is the named used, in leiu of a better alternative, for the unnamed pilot episode for the American continuation of "Doctor Who"' (and the series wasn't picked up). A page for every failed pilot? I know that Dr. Who is a cult favorite, but really. orthogonal 09:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm not a huge Dr Who fan, but this sort of info is interesting and useful. It's not just a failed pilot, it's a failed attempt to take a popular British show to America. That to me makes it a worthy entry, as it's not like it's just some obscure show that didn't make it, but something people would want to find out about. That said, the article itself needs work. ShaneKing 12:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Has a bunch of good info it'd be a shame to waste. zandperl 19:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • William Kelly, Sr. (politician). Just a one-liner duplicating the info given in the extlink. Seems to be not noteworthy at all. (I had thought the creator of that article wanted to flesh it out, but apparently not...) Delete. Lupo 12:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This seems to be a cleanup request, rather than a deletion request. Anthony DiPierro 15:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • It's My Body - Misplaced Pages is not pornopedia! Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Pleas note that this is NOT User:Angela, and this listing is this sock puppet's first posting. RickK 20:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless anyone can flesh these out, delete them. However, if someone can provide some actual info, they should stay. Articles about porn movies are fine, if they have content, and unfortunately these don't. Keep the porn articles. They are being fleshed out, so it's fine now. ShaneKing 12:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No useful content, and I cannot see this developing into something useful. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. useful content. 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's been expanded three times so far in just a few hours and is likely to be further expanded by those who do not agree that the Misplaced Pages should contain content intended only for children. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Won't somebody think of the children! *hem* Where's the line? Does the average skin flick (a few famous exceptions aside, of course) fall above the fuzzy threshold of noteworthiness? I would say that it does not, any more than does the average local garage band, so delete any that have no demonstrable claim to fame. (This applies to all the others, too, but I don't think copying it half a dozen times is really necessary.) --No-One Jones 14:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Doesn't the rule say it only has to be well known in its subject area, not generally well known? In which case, you'd have to ask an expert on porn whether this one is notable, because I have no idea. ShaneKing 14:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, if some porn expert can indicate whether any of these films are noteworthy among the terminally hairy-palmed (with the necessary references of course), then I would say keep. Otherwise delete. --No-One Jones 14:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I was going to suggest a suitable candidate for performing such verification, but didn't think it polite. ;) ShaneKing 14:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This particular article looks like it's getting fleshed out (no pun intended). Also, I'd like to say that "inappropriate for children" is NOT a reason to delete something, else we'd get rid of fuck, female circumcision, etc. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Nothing wrong with listing porn movies. I vote to keep on all of the porn movies listed below. RickK 20:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep all the porn flicks. Take this is as my vote to keep all of them listed on this page. There is no reason to delete them, any more than there would be a reason to delete a non-porn flic. RickK 20:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • (note by orthogonal 21:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC): there are two apparently redundant RickK entires because teh first was deleted by an edit conflict caused by Dandrake. In the interest of fidelity to what was actually written here, I am leaving both entries; RicKK is not trying to stuff the ballot box, as it were.)


  • Tracy Lords - for Gods sake, please! Misplaced Pages is read by children! Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Who reads WP is irrelevant, but this has no useful content and I think it is unlikely to ever acquire any. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • useful for porn research. Keep. 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Adding more detail is the best way to get these kept - please do.:) Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Anjela, the Misplaced Pages does not have children as it's sole audience, though we do not (yet) have a system for filtering ccontent suitable for the varying views of what children of various ages in various countries and of various religious and social beliefs may see. If you'd like to try to work out how to implement such a system, please feel free to do so, since we clearly will need it eventually. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Such a system already exists. It's generally marketed under the brand names parent and/or guardian (in other words, it's a human problem, not a technological one). ShaneKing 14:46, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Porn stubs can grow (see It's My Body, etc.) Keep. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The question is not whether it can grow, but should it. Copyright violations can grow... original works can grow... all sorts of things we don't want here could grow but are deleted because they are inappropriate. It isn't like you can't get the "blow by blow" at another porno review site. - Texture 17:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, this is nonsense, she wasn't in a movie called "Tracy Lords," she was just credited at that time under that spelling of her name. I suspect the rest of the articles 141 has created are also nonsense. Adam Bishop 20:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, when this article was first created, I went to imdb to look to see if this movie actually existed, and it is listed there, so unless the listing at imdb is wrong, this is a real movie. RickK 20:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • You're right...sorry, I looked there too but I didn't see it the first time. Adam Bishop 20:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Future Voyeur - do we need info on every single porn flick out there?? Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we don't. Delete. No useful content. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • yes we do. Keep. 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Electric Blue 28 - unmoral article, contains reference to unnatural love. Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Morality is not an issue. Nevertheless, delete: no useful content. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. you keep stupid lists and you want delete movie articles? 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Boogie Boy - please no more porn spam. Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. surely it will expand 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This would appear to be utterly spurious, as according to the appropriate article, Traci Lords stopped "acting" in porn in 1985. --No-One Jones 14:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Despite the original poster's claim, this is NOT a porn flick. Keep. RickK 21:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Blade (pornographic movie) - porn spam. Anjela 12:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lupo 13:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. let the stubs grow 141 13:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was created hours before being listed here and is clearly going to be expanded. Jamesday 13:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is with all the pron articles lately? And is user: 141 a reincarnation of user:Anticapitalist3?. Delete. Exploding Boy 13:47, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are plenty of porn movie review sites - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not a pornopedia. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This would appear to be utterly spurious, as according to the appropriate article, Traci Lords stopped "acting" in porn in 1985. --No-One Jones 14:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Insignificant. Sufficient to be listed in a List of porn films or like. Mikkalai 18:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh. Oh. Yeah. OH! YEAH! Yes! OH! Omigod! YEAH! DELETE! DELETE! DELETE! Ohhhhh, yeah. Wow. You were great. Delete. orthogonal 18:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, possibly with every other article this guy has created. This one, at least, is complete nonsense. Traci Lords is in the (non-porn) movie Blade (the Wesley Snipes one). Adam Bishop 20:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • In this case, I agree. This is not a porn movie. It's been redirected, but I've listed it on the redirects for deletion as it's incorrect to call it a porn movie. RickK 21:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cum spitting - another contribution by user:141. Delete.
    • Keep. The content is salvagable, and can potentially be worthwhile. Probably needs to be moved to a more appropriate name though. ShaneKing 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - we don't need a separate article for each variation - Texture 14:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This cannot be called a sexual practice. If anything it should be integrated into the below, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. Exploding Boy 14:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I see little academic merit in this. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This might be a section in oral sex, but it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Delete. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. it doesn't matter who wrote it. You should judge by the content, not by the contributor. Please don't bite the newcomers. 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. At the utmost, might deserve a minor mention if the "swallowing" stuff gets merged into oral sex. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with oral sex and redirect, or keep. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge. Mikkalai 18:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the we change all titles with the slang word "cum" in them to "semen". Note: this is not a content vote, but a format vote. Davodd 19:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Cum swallowing -- and yet another contribution by user:141.
    • Keep. The content is salvagable, and can potentially be worthwhile. Probably needs to be moved to a more appropriate name though. ShaneKing 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - we don't need a separate article for each variation - Texture 14:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely needs a better name if it's going to stay, as well as some major NPOV and accuracy work. Exploding Boy 14:11, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I see little academic merit in this. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This might be a section in oral sex, but it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Delete. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's actually mentioned in the fellatio section of that article Exploding Boy 14:30, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. it doesn't matter who wrote it. You should judge by the content, not by the contributor. Please don't bite the newcomers. 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Some newcomers bring a mistake or two. Some newcomers bring boatloads of unwanted and inappropriate baggage. - Texture 14:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, move whatever is deemed salvageable to oral sex. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to oral sex, or keep. Meelar 16:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge. Mikkalai 18:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless the we change all titles with the slang word "cum" in them to "semen". Note: this is not a content vote, but a format vote. Davodd 19:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pact with the devil - dictionary definition - and arguably inaccurate - example given: "cum swallowing in 1700s" - Are we really to believe there is any documented proof of this claim? - Texture 14:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is not a pornopedia. Davidcannon 14:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs serious help, but is article-worthy -- something examining the various legends regarding pacts with the devil could certainly be written. Keep. --No-One Jones 14:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • keep 141 14:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • old school gangster - do we really need this?
    • I don't think so—for me, it's close to being nonsense. Delete. Lupo 15:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --cprompt 15:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition. Anthony DiPierro 17:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Institutionalism - I'm not sure if this is an original work or a copyright violation but there are clear cut-and-paste errors. - Texture 17:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Creating user has blanked page, so this is probably ready for deletion - Texture 17:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Also appears to be a copyvio. - snoyes 17:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Resort. This belongs in Wiktionary. Denelson83 17:49, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wait. 8:42 minutes after creation it's on VfD?! Give it time, most great novels weren't written overnight. zandperl 19:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • What Would Brian Boitano Do? - Anthony irrelevance. --Wik 17:52, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Somewhat well-known and of marginal significance, but enough to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this but put the info back in WWJD where it was originally. The song doesn't deserve its own article, but then this article wouldn't have been created if someone (bet you can't guess who) hadn't been reverting the WWJD article. Isomorphic 18:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Agree with Daniel, plus this is a stub which can be improved. Anthony DiPierro 18:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • My vote was deleted. Please don't delete votes that aren't yours. RadicalBender 20:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Old vote:
    • Merge with the Music heading of South Park. RadicalBender 18:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose , until some reason is given for its deletion. Dandrake 19:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wik only listed it here because Anthony created it, and Wik is on a war against Anthony. RickK 19:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • But then we should probably question why Anthony created it...the content should probably be moved to the South Park movie article, and then WWBBD redirected there. Adam Bishop 20:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Scotchtoberfest - doesn't merit its own article IMO. Dori | Talk 18:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but needs cleaning up. Apparently this has become a real event since invention by the makers of the Simpsons... -- Graham  :) 18:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)