Misplaced Pages

:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 Minesweeper (talk | contribs) at 10:56, 17 November 2003 (VfD subpages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:56, 17 November 2003 by Minesweeper (talk | contribs) (VfD subpages)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Please read and understand the Misplaced Pages deletion policy before editing this page

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright violations -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- Misplaced Pages:Cleanup


November 11

November 12

Please note that this issue should become moot once Tim has updated the automatic date-munging code to make links in ]-] format link to the standard pages, as is now done for ] ].

There will then be no need for redirects for people who may happen to write date links in that format, and these redirects can then be deleted with no harm done. Only full YYYY-MM-DD dates would be automatically linked to the date pages; a MM-DD or DD-MM link floating alone -- would would be ambiguous -- will not be linked. --Brion 10:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    • intended to be redirects to date pages, but are unclear titles and don't follow convention. Also orphans. 05-03 means Fifth of March in Europe, 3rd May in US. DJ Clayworth 15:20, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 15:29, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • 05-03 Could also be May 2003 or very poor eyesight - Marshman
      • Make it a disambiguation page? Just kidding. Delete. -- JeLuF 20:29, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Since the redirect are ambiguous, they are a problem and should be deleted. Maximus Rex 20:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, these ambiguous date formats only confuse more. Fuzheado 23:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Orphans no longer! - Arthur George Carrick They are now. DJ Clayworth 19:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Should be deleted. Making redirects of garbage cannot be valuable. WEho would look for a date that way? - Marshman 03:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move/merge if there is useful information and delete. Highly confusing and does not follow any Misplaced Pages format. Daniel Quinlan 08:08, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. More confusing than enlightening. Andre Engels 11:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete these because they aren't used yet. Keep those like 9-11, which are used and disambiguate them across date conventions if that ever becomes necessary. JamesDay 19:11, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. These are genuinely problematic. --Minesweeper 06:52, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The manual of style notes that this format is not advocated. They should be deleted in order to discourage the use of this format. Angela 08:13, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. They just encourage people to use less readable date formats, and many of them are ambiguous anyway. --Zundark 20:01, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Potentially useful. wikipedia:disambiguation handles ambiguous cases. The manual of style is advice, and notes that copyeditors will be changing pages to this format - but it's not something we should enforce. Martin 22:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I disagree. A standard for dates must be enforced, otherwise I could start making lots of pages saying "fred was born on 05-11", meaning of course 5th of November since I'm european. Delete. At18 10:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Excessive redirects are confusing and a waste of space and effort Archivist 03:10, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Make into disambiguation pages or delete. Wiwaxia 04:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, these fit with standard YYYY-MM-DD date format and don't hurt anything by existing. Variety is good, and removing redirects is bad.--Brion 07:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • These are ambiguous and cause trouble when being linked to. Links to this date format should be red, people misread 01-04 as April 1 in large parts of the world. -- JeLuF
    • Delete. They're ambiguous, and making them all into disambiguation pages would be rather ugly. People should just follow Misplaced Pages convention and spell out the month when linking to a date. Bryan
    • Delete. Ambiguity bad. why did we need them in the first place, I thought we had a standard for specific day&month? --snoyes 07:35, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. They are so ambiguous as to be worthless. Things like 3-12 could be either March 12 or December 3. Their existence will only encourage their use and inevitable mis-use. --mav 08:55, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Penceat - can never be anything more than a definition. Morwen 18:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, maybe move to Wiktionary (not involved in Wiktionary, so I don't know if it's actually welcome there). Andre Engels 11:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep as redirect. Now redirects to Penge, the town which got its name from this word. JamesDay 19:15, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The redirect doesn't make sense. Wiktionary. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Academy for Gifted Children - bizarre rant. Morwen 19:02, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It is now no longer a bizarre rant, but now is just indistinguishable from any of the other thousands of high schools people could write articles about. Morwen 19:07, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • And no longer worth its own article! I thought Canada was a big place. How would one even find this school on this marginal information. Move; but to where? Canada? - Marshman 02:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The top-ranked school in the province and region appears to merit an entry and it's easy to find now it links to the site for the school. JamesDay 19:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Very POV title given new content. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Same for any of the other thousands of high schools people could write articles about. :) -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Respect dignity. WP:WINAD. Angela
    • Delete, same reason. Maximus Rex 20:32, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, ditto. Fuzheado 23:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Give it a few weeks on Cleanup, delete if not improved. Andre Engels 11:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Listing new pages here is a waste of everyone's time. It's developing into an encyclopedia entry. JamesDay 20:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Concepts like respect or diginity are hard to write about but hardly needless for wikipedia.
    • Keep. There's much more than what you'd find in a dictionary now. Wiwaxia 04:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, ditto WINAD. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • I Think I Canada An entry for every episode of a minor animated series is too detailed. DJ Clayworth 20:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Nonsense! Wiki is not paper.- Arthur George Carrick
    • Delete or merge with parent. Or if it's decided not to delete or merge, at least havw the page link back to its parent. The entry as it stands gives no indication what series this is an episode of. Nor are the characters Wikified. What's Timon of Athens doing in canada, anyway? orthogonal 21:18, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Not encyclopedic, poorly written, including parent article The Timon And Pumbaa Episode Guide Archivist 22:06, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Unbelievable that this would even be put here. Essentially Misplaced Pages is being used as a web site for the Timion and Pumbaa Fan Club - Marshman 02:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Misplaced Pages already has vast amounts of information about Star Trek, Lord of the Rings and Ayn Rand, it would be nice to have something that doesn't so strongly reflect our libertarian/nerd biases. - SimonP 03:32, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Adding Timon and Pumbaa makes us seem less nerdy? DJ Clayworth 19:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No reason to go into this detail on Misplaced Pages. Andre Engels 11:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. As User:Calmypal said, we can afford to be as detailed as possible. It's not a problem of space (hd is cheap), confusion (it's properly buried), npov (just factual description). Maybe of clarity, but that can improve later. At18 22:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's informative, but there are perhaps better things to work on than individual episodes. -- Pakaran 21:21, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Misplaced Pages is a project to build an encyclopedia, not free webhosting for a "Timon and Pumbaa" fan-page. Maximus Rex 21:26, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, we also have detailed episode pages for The Simpsons. Gentgeen 11:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We must decide what level of segmentation is appropriate for articles on creative works. Then we should treat all types of media consistently : television serials, movies, books, ect. Do we want articles on parts of creative works, like chapters from books, scenes from movies, or Bible verses. I have no opinion on this, but I would consider an episode of a television serial to be a creative work in-and-of-itself and worthy of an article if a substantial article can be writen on it. mydogategodshat 19:07, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Before I have my say, look at the article now. I've made it a little more properly structured, a little more scholarly. I agree with the point that it doesn't interest "nerds", which can make a general consensous, but there is an audience. I think though this should be maybe merged in with the main article, until the The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa contains too many summaries. As a fan of the show, I honestly wonder why they chose that episode. It certainly wasn't one of the most creative, the most entertaining, anything. Most have just seen it in syndication, written about it. But I certainly don't think they were trying to turn Misplaced Pages into a fan site. Frankly, the only thing seperating a fan site from an encyclopedia article is POV. This article never displayed any of the kind. Anyway, that's all. - user:zanimum
    • Delete. These particular items are of no use. Kingturtle 18:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-encyclopedic and so detailed with trivia that it is nearing unverifiable. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Only nearing? So not quite there, then. :) Keep if it's verifiable. And it may not be of use, but hardly anything is. Interest is more important, and I can imagine a lot of people being interested in this. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 13

  • Battle_of_Baghdad_(1942) - Delete - event never happened/unverifiable - see also Battle of Baghdad --Pmineault 04:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is another of User:SmartBee's edits, many of which were deleted for being false/unverifiable. Maximus Rex 04:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • mv any relevant content to an appropriate gaming article; item is referenced to a game ; then delete. reddi
    • If it's deleted, then probably Battle of Baghdad should be deleted as well, being a disambiguation page with this page and a non-existing one as its disambiguators. Andre Engels 10:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete the Battle of Baghdad disambiguation link and this redirect. The article is now under Iraq coup (1941). The data in this article seemed largely misleading - wrong year, was regent/king restored, not just king. There was a British invasion which took Baghdad in 1941 and a pogrom in Baghdad then which killed 150 Jews but the Iraq history article seems better for that than this one. I've added some references to the talk page of that article if anyone feels moved to do some writing about it.JamesDay 21:22, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense. RickK 03:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but repair. If anyone has a "The Historical Atlas of World War II", they would note that on pages 72-73, there is clear information on the battles of Habbaniya, Baghdad, and Ramadi, which were fought between Iraqi and British forces. I am not responsible for the incorrect edit of Eclectiology. SmartBee
      • If it says that it happened in 1942, you're going to need to provide some cites which can be checked. There are 11 of them in the talk page showing these events as happening in 1941, not 1942 and I just moved the article to Iraq coup (1941) and linked it to the history of Iraq article. Many of those sources note that the alleged head plotter had fled to Iran and then Germany and that Iraq remained solidly in British hands following the coup. The "battle" at Baghdad consisted of "On the 30th British troops from Habbaniya reached the outskirts of Baghdad. Although the British forces were quite weak and Baghdad was held by an Iraqi division, Rashid Ali fled".JamesDay 18:59, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, questionable information and title. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Sensor Networks - no content/sub sub-stub --Pmineault
    • Keep. List on electronic topics. reddi
    • Delete. Having nothing is better than having this. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though it's very stubby, It's a pretty active research area, particularly for military networks which sense other nodes (like bluetooth systems) and reconfigure dynamically. JamesDay 21:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. While extremely stubbish, the subject is a legitimate research area. At18 19:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Okay stub. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Petting a dictionary definition WP:WINAD. Maximus Rex 05:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as dictionary definition. I will caution that according to Misplaced Pages precedent, any sexual slang term can be turned into a full-featured article about a small, but somehow significant, community of people who write, discuss, and engage in said behavior as a major part of their lives. It's only a matter of time before this article is linked to furry. Daniel Quinlan 07:44, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Come on, Daniel Quinlan! This is an extremely common, if not pervasive, term and practice, clearly of enough significance (if expanded), to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete - I've added it to Sexual slang Andy Mabbett 09:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Give it some time at Cleanup. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. slang is 2nd meaning (but valid; needs expansion). Animal-human relationship primary (but needs expansion). reddi
    • Keep, though I won't be expanding this rather stubby article. JamesDay 21:31, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, as disamb for Petting (animal) & Petting (sexuality). The animal part was recently moved, inappropriately, to become a dict def in Domestication where (as with, e.g., Dog) there should be instead a link to Petting (animal) that can e.g. discuss developmental effects of petting on animals normally and prematurely separated from mother, destructiveness of petting wild ungulates, and danger of petting wild carnivores. The sexuality part is valuable, and not properly redirected to Foreplay, which has, excuse me, a whole different thrust; it can e.g. link to Blue balls (and, IIRC, Testicular congestion; we can argue abt which is the redirect to the other) and Slippery slope and maybe Saving oneself. --Jerzy 18:58, 2003 Nov 14 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's great. Mommy, I found a page for the petting zoo... Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Pakistani literature - just a list of books about Pakistani literature. -- JeLuF 06:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep or move to cleanup for a month. As the anon creator noted today, one day after creation, this is just the start of the article. A day isn't long enough to see whether a new article is going to be developed further or not. JamesDay 21:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and move to cleanup. Interesting, non fantastic, subject. -- Finlay McWalter 00:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Michael Carroll redirect to main 9/11 article. --Jiang
    • Whoever made it probably knew him. They should make it a short biography.
    • Move to sep11 wiki and delete. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Tamil Literature
    • Not quite sure what to do with this one. WikiMuseum? It was created in March 2001 as a list of external links. Jimbo cleaned it up and wrote a comment about how "we prefer to have content _in_ the encyclopedia". It's only been edited twice since then. -- Tim Starling 06:46, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. Its quite a vast and important subject, will try and write a (very)short article within a couple of days. KRS 04:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Been on clean-up a long time with no result. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • A few selected articles created and edited mostly by User:Khranus, now banned for various problems. I don't trust a word of these articles or whether they should even exist. Daniel Quinlan 10:30, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Alex Grey
      • Alex Grey looks ok to me. Keep. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep, quite well known artist.JamesDay 16:53, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Bohemian Grove
      • Bohemian Grove is a valid subject, but one that easily will be handled wrong by a conspirologist like Khranus. Nothing lost in deleting. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Should be kept and would bear being expanded. Bmills 17:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I feel no confidence from the text or the link provided that this is anything more than a movie script description. Delete - Marshman 17:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. Seems accurate and Google finds more references than the pair I added to the article JamesDay 22:30, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • 8-Circuit Consciousness
      • 8-Circuit Consciousness gives little information, but what is there seems right, though too little to be useful. Seems rather idiosyncratic, though, so I'd say, merge it into the Timothy Leary article and redirect. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Certainly needs a lot more text to be of value. And some citation giving asssurance Leary had anything to do weith this (and was conscious at the time) - Marshman 17:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I think it may be usefully folded into Timothy Leary. It exists, but I would not vouchsafe his state of consciousness (altered or otherwise) while he scribbled it. But he did originate the schema. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 10:55, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Black Lodge
      • Black Lodge is much used on the web, but not (AFAICS) in this meaning. Delete. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Credo Mutwa
      • Delete. A quick google search makes me believe this person is well worth a Misplaced Pages article, but the current one definitely is not it. Credo Mutwa is in the first place a practicer and proponent of shamanic medicine, not a historian or mythologist. Andre Engels 10:18, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Nommo -- complete garbage, as far as I can make out... needs a rewrite from scratch, at the least -- The Anome 17:26, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Huh? What the hell is wrong with this paragraph? How is it any different from writing "Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology whose eyes were torn up and then put back together again" or "Yama is some green guy in the Hindu religion who became the first human to die and therefore was made into a god with four arms" or "Zeus is the bearded king of the Gods in Greek mythology who lives on Mt. Olympus and shoots lightning bolts and anyone who disobeys him"? I don't get it. Wiwaxia
    • Delete. These facts are so far out there along with the web sites that talk about this, that I regard this stuff as unverifiable without a trip to the library. Delete until someone tackles with verififiable information. Daniel Quinlan 20:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, done a rewrite - hope it's a bit better now. Dysprosia 07:53, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Unverifiable without a trip to the library"? Misplaced Pages wouldn't be useful if it didn't contain information that was tricky to verify. Onebyone 11:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Maybe we could all do with the odd trip to a library? Bmills 11:18, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. No problem confirming this via Google. JamesDay 15:33, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is common knowledge among anthropologists that Dogons have a divinity called Nommo and all sorts of strange stuff. At18 20:24, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Joe Ahmed - vanity entry Secretlondon 18:07, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Vanity page, no encyclopedic value, delete. Kosebamse 19:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This page wasn't even his idea! I would never think to describe him as vain. - Arthur George Carrick
      • It is of no encyclopedic interest whatsoever. Misplaced Pages is not everybody's playground, it is an encyclopedia. Kosebamse 19:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like this content could go on a user page if he ever registers. As an article, it should be deleted. —Frecklefoot 19:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Obviously this kid is exceptional if he "was even at one time played in the Garden State Pops Youth Orchestra". I think any 12 year old who is simultaneously a musical instrument is worth documenting. I would, however, like to see more detail about how he was played, and his characteristics as a musical instrument. orthogonal 19:50, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity entry with unverifiable information about unknown person. Daniel Quinlan 20:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK 03:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. vanity. Maximus Rex 04:02, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless it can be proven he was indeed "played" as an instrument in the performance. Fuzheado 05:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • "A 12-year old boy who was born on February 23, 1991"? Great occupation! Alas, some even greater occupations are only aspired to: going to be a great author, going to be a great saxophone player. Wiwaxia 02:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • lineage - I created this page as part of my work on Kinship and descent but I feel it will never be more than a definition. silsor 18:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • I merged the information into Kinship and descent, and made lineage a redirect. I think the redirect is useful and should be kept (someone might look up "lineage"). --Delirium 05:04, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, good redirect. Fuzheado 05:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • John Titor's postings - December 2000 - Zuh? Adam Bishop 20:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • John Titor's postings - March 2001, John Titor's postings - February 2001, John Titor's postings - January 2001, John Titor's postings - November 2000. Source texts. Kosebamse 20:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Not quite sure why "source texts" should be deleted - effectively this is an excerpt, as you'd find in any encyclopaedia, except that Misplaced Pages gives us the opportunity to reproduce it in its entirety. This is NOT copyright material for various reasons.
      • Well, it's just a policy not to include source texts, I think. And also, it's about a time traveller from 2036... Adam Bishop 20:45, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • These postings are referenced from John Titor. Seems Adam above is making a POV judgement. I can't find policy mention of not reproducing source text anywhere.
          • Yes, I suppose it is POV of me to think someone claiming to be from the future is probably a joke. Nevertheless, we don't need transcripts of his internet chats, even if he is for real. Adam Bishop 16:08, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Please see Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources - SimonP 22:16, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
        • Please see the discussion there to find that most who expressed a view opposed this to a significant degree, with support mainly limited to large quantities of text, not small. JamesDay 07:13, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete source text. RickK 03:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, as RickK said. Fuzheado 05:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, source text. Maximus Rex 05:56, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Probably copyvio, if the copyright was filed in 2036. DJ Clayworth 05:57, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, source text. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a place to dump source texts. --mav 05:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Would someone care to explain why this is so much more significant than lots of others? Did it make the newspapers or TV coverage or was it something other than a very niche interest item which amused the participants in a small number of newsgroups? JamesDay 07:13, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is #14 of What Misplaced Pages is not. --Minesweeper 11:16, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Restrict to one article on Titor. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree that we should delete (I originally posted them). I agree because it breaks the rules of Misplaced Pages, so fair enough. What worries me is that several people above are making value judgements, such as Daniel C. Keir 20:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)~
    • Delete for so many reasons... :-) Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Post-colonialism in literature, list of literature. -- JeLuF 20:39, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep this day old start of an article. Would be nice for it to sit in cleanup for a month so we know whether it will or won't be anything useful. JamesDay 22:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Give it a chance. DJ Clayworth 23:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Defer, agree -- give it time to grow. Fuzheado 05:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep and move to cleanup. As with Pakistani literature (VfD above) it's potentially an interesting subject by a new user, so we need to give it a chance to bloom. Better this than tree people. -- Finlay McWalter 00:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Put on cleanup so it can be ignored with the rest. Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • The Avengers United: This page is little more than a duplicate of the content at The Avengers (comic), most content having been copied from the latter page in the 06:10, 14 Sep 2003 revision by an unregistered user. There was a short-lived comic book The Avengers: United We Stand - based on the Avengers cartoon series - but renaming this page to cover that series doesn't seem useful. I suspect this page was created in error. There isn't any significant content in the "United" page which doesn't already exist in the (comic) page, so I think it can be safely deleted. -mhr 21:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • mv non-dup info to main article and make redirect; otherwise delete. reddi
  • all of the pages listed at User:Cyan/chain, and any others in the sequence that I missed. -- Cyan 22:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge history with User talk:BuddhaInside as explained on that page. Angela 22:47, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to be a total bother here, but I have to oppose deletion. Part of what made this user so annoying was his creation of these 'Deletexxxx' pages. Seeing these pages in the way he had them shows their stupidity, as well as showing the precedent for why he moved the Main Page to the place he did. -- Mattworld 22:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • But that can be explained without needing to keep the pages. Angela 22:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I know, I just feel that showing rather than telling is better. -- Mattworld 23:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 14

  • List of Refernce Tables just noticed this as having an edit but its an unneeded redirect? Archivist 01:12, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think Misplaced Pages contains various spellings. See Queer as Folk (US) vs Queer As Folk (US). --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:50, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • your example could be dealt with by the software whereas plain bad speeling does not need to be kept :) Archivist 02:56, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • It is generally Misplaced Pages policy to keep all redirects. If someone has linked to them once, someone might link to it again. Deleting things like this also seems quite silly as over at User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects a bunch of us a busily making hundreds of redirects just like this one. - SimonP 03:05, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • If nothing links to this, I'm okay with deleting it. Daniel Quinlan 03:18, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it, even the redirect. I don't subscribe to the "keep all redirects" theory. We shuld nut prolifterate bad speeling. Fuzheado
    • Delete, agreed. Only common misspellings should be kept, imo. --Minesweeper 05:53, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • Agree. Only common mispellings. Otherwise we need redirects for Lst of Reference Tables, List of Reference Tbles, List of Reference Tabls, and numerous other permutations. That kind of clutter cannot have bvalue here - Marshman 03:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep redirect unless it's doing any harm. Martin 19:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The harm is that an edit to the page shows up as an edit to the redirect in recent changes (and it trains bad typists!) Archivist 01:08, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
        • Really? If so, that's a software bug - take a screenshot and report it to wikipedia:bug reports. Certainly, I've never seen that behaviour. Martin 01:51, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • I could be wrong, but I tried it and took this screenshot: , and nothing out of the ordinary happened. Again, I could be wrong. -- Mattworld 17:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Student Clubs - Unencyclopedic, improperly titled. --Minesweeper 09:14, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Yes, I really typed that.:)JamesDay 15:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Andy Mabbett 23:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It should be moved.
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Terrorist organisations in Asia - This page is just as ill-advised as List of terrorist groups, but is even less useful in that it's descriptive rather than merely listing the groups. Explanatory text is unnecessary; these groups have their own articles, and there's no reason why one should read choppy blurbs about them here. Furthermore it's unclear to me WHY we should group these organizations by landmass. They're only marginally connected, often, and List of terrorist groups does a much better job of listing organizations by relevant associations. Graft 19:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Cock - Until we someone wanting to write about the signifcance of male chickens, this is just immature. - user:zanimum
    • Maybe Wiktionary would be a better home? -- Pakaran 21:19, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are more uses just need editing. Archivist 21:36, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reasonable, if incomplete, disambiguation. Andy Mabbett 23:26, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep - disambiguation is a good solution. Some day we will have an article on cockerel. Martin 00:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Slang terms go to Wiktionary or an article about slang, or both. - Arthur George Carrick 01:31, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, what else can we write about? Water pipes? Cocked dice? Weathervanes? They're gotta be something we can do with that word. Wiwaxia 02:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I thought I was being good I left out stop cock ! :) Archivist 03:05, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary, please. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. The edits have wikified it completely. - Arthur George Carrick 03:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, " JamesDay 19:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Illuminati Order Illuminati Order of the United States (relisted with new location 21:28, 14 Nov 2003)
    • Delete - not encyclopedic as it stands. --Minesweeper 09:12, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Appears to be a very minor internet-only organization dedicated to promoting some sort of vague philosophy and associated mp3.com band, as far as I can tell. --Delirium 11:59, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE. Totally POV! Besides, we already have an entry on Illuminati. —Frecklefoot 15:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Previously listed as a copyvio from but the talk page claims the submitter of this article also owns that. Angela 22:07, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bizarre. Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • This article is about the Illuminati Order, and not specifically about the definition of an Illuminati. All information is verifiable. How can this entry be brought up to Misplaced Pages standard? 01:42, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It should be written like something you'd find in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It should be in third person form and shouldn't read like an advertisement. It should be written under the assumption that the reader knows almost nothing about the article topic. See also: Misplaced Pages:News style. --Minesweeper 10:08, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • mv any applicable content to applicable Illuminati order article; make a redirect; otherwise delete. reddi
    • Keep. Edit as necessary to conform to Misplaced Pages's editorial standards. -- NetEsq 19:52, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 15

  • Yugu is a set of 3 articles which themselves only redirect (incorrectly) to yet another page. -- Pakaran 04:22, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like it's been fixed... -- Pakaran 04:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It looks like 61.186.115.162 has been creating a lot of pages which all redirect to the same nonexistent article. I don't have a boilerplate on hand to talk with this user, or I would... articles probably need deleting for fixup? -- Pakaran 04:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Perle - is currently about Peruru. Am I missing something? Shouldn't the article be called Peruru? Kingturtle 05:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • From 'what links here' I was able to determine it is a character from Sailor Moon, "Perle (a.k.a. "Peruru") ? the good fairy from the SuperS movie". Merge into the main article if content is made coherent. Delete otherwise. Maximus Rex 06:40, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There are other pages for fictional characters, so I say keep, but move to cleanup. This one might get touchie, as the common name for this charactor is probibly Perle in English, but many die hard anime fans insist on only using the Japanese names for characters. Gentgeen 12:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Just how important a character is this? I mean, a separate page for Lady Macbeth is one thing, a separate page for Banquo is another thing, a separate page for the walk-on character Caithness is quite another. Unless Perle is an integral character to anime, merge and delete it. orthogonal 15:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Sailor Moon. Martin 20:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I created some disambiguous links. Kingturtle 21:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians by Favorite Ice Cream Flavor Another bogus page that was suggested in order to feed Calmypal, and he gladly accepted. Delete or move to meta, but get rid of it. Kosebamse 06:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I linked to the article originally as a poster child of the kind of list of users that belongs on meta, not[REDACTED] namespace. Of course, Calmypal had to create it in the[REDACTED] namespace (though to be fair, I'm one of several users, including 2 admins, who listed ourselves under the article). Given that it was created to illustrate that some kinds of lists belong on meta, move it there. The problem with these kinds of lists is that everyone wants on the bandwagon, and that takes energy away from working on the 'pedia. Move to meta.-- Pakaran 06:54, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's an interesting list, but as Pakaran said, it belongs on meta. Move to meta. -- Mattworld 17:42, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Whatever is going on here: You may be able to delete this list but not my predilection for vanilla. --KF 01:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is a brilliant page. Don't delete... but do move to meta! Stewartadcock 01:40, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Calmypal has now linked this page to things like vanilla sex. I'm debating whether to mention my concerns about this on his talk page... -- Pakaran 04:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Please do. Calmypal is rapidly becoming a problem user. RickK 06:05, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Actually, the vanilla sex links were mine. Martin 14:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Democratic_Evolution - orphan. dull. self-promotional vanity page.
    • Idiosyncratic. Delete. Andre Engels 15:07, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even sure he has his terms right. Seems more like a description of a republic than a democracy - Marshman 04:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Polyconomics - advertisement -- JeLuF 14:59, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete as fast as possible advert Archivist 15:02, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Clear advert; nothing left when removing POV. Delete. Andre Engels 15:07, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Advert. Delete. orthogonal 15:45, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. All POV has been removed. What's left is a valid stub. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Dolphin brain -- unverfied speculation, pseudo-scientific nonsense. An embarassment to Misplaced Pages. orthogonal 15:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Speaking as a non-expert on neurophysiology, it seems to me totally legitimate, mostly composed of neuroanatomy facts and maybe a little speculation at the end. History shows some edit wars that have since settled on an evidently acceptable form. And as a wannabe scientist, it doesn't seem in the least "pseudo-scientific nonsense". At18 19:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can you show me in what scientifically reputable publication there is evidence for
      • Dolphin brains appear to be composed of two similar sub-brains, each of which has two hemispheres, so dolphins might be said to have 4-lobed brains....each of the two dolphin sub-brains has an independent blood supply. orthogonal 22:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmm.. it appears that I was too quick. A Google search turned out many peculiar sites but nothing legit. I retire my vote. At18 23:00, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Dolphin brain" is a legitimate topic for an article. Correct any factual errors, but don't delete. The article already contains a notice that the factual accuracy is dispute. -- Miguel
    • Seems like we have to keep the article. Probably just needs work to remove any non-factual material - Marshman 04:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It has a LOT of Khranal influence, though. I'll try and work on it tonight... the problem is knowing what is and isn't true... -- Pakaran 04:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ile2 - on a finnish usenet troll. Secretlondon 16:09, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove. This is personal info, which is in no way related to the purpose of Misplaced Pages.
    • Remove, borders on abuse. Morwen 22:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - Marshman 04:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Protologism - to quote "a newly created word which has not yet gained any wide acceptance". Morwen 16:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • just an old fashione delete req Archivist 16:51, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • delete. See for the possible reason why it is here. JamesDay 19:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - doesn't appear to be a real word (if it was, would redirect to sniglet or somesuch. Martin 20:40, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Someones website, nothing more - Marshman 04:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • ] - an advert Morwen 16:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Alexa ranking is 60,647. Angela 16:48, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, advert Archivist 16:49, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. RickK 19:15, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del, advertising. (I can't help but noticing though that Angela justifies deletion by the site's low Alexa ranking, although she voted against deletion of EncycloZine, which has an even lower ranking. Well, maybe that was just supposed to be additional information here, not a justification in itself.) --Wik 20:23, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no real content, no reason why it might be notable. Martin 20:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Automatic mathematics - this article was blanked. I reverted it. Its merits should be discussed here. Kingturtle 22:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no such thing. Morwen 22:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Andy Mabbett 22:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pure fiction - Marshman 04:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Regardless of what Marshman says, there is such a thing. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:51, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Boyerism. --Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • Would you stop using the term "Boyerism," Wik? I have already established that,
        • the term has a meaning, actually more than one meaning, having nothing to do with me, for which I provided references
        • the term was used with reference to me about ten years before you claim to have "coined" it
        • the term is vague and you use it inaccurately.
      • Moreover, by your definition Automatic mathematics can have nothing to do with Boyerism ("someone's personal term for an art technique which is being promoted by Daniel C. Boyer, although apparently no one else uses it" as automatic mathematics is pretty clearly not an art technique. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, idiosyncratic/made-up. Maximus Rex 18:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Doesn't exist--Robert Merkel 22:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Marcus McCallion, and Reflexive typography. Probably an autobiography (the person described lives in Brighton and that IP is in brighton and has edited Brighton) of someone who is non-famous. The latter is a movement they seem to have created. I've not listed several other articles because they seem to be of genuine interest. Morwen 23:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree that the entries are probably not up to the usual standards, but I really want to avoid biting this new user. Let us be gentle. -- Cyan 00:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hi - I am the user who added the new entries. Yes I am from Brighton and am documenting things that I find interesting in Brighton (and around) but I suppose that maybe McCallion isn't important enough to have an entry. Sorry if it seems trivial to you but just really like using this system and adding stuff. Will stick to the bigger fish if that's what you prefer.. ;-) -- FT 02:24, 16 Nov 2003 (GMT)
    • Seems like there should at least be an explanation of significance. As these articles stand now, they seem like ramblings. If this is just POV, then that generally would not be acceptable here. The impression I get is: you became graphic artists; the only work available is in advertising; life should offer more. Get real. Everyone in every profession has to decide: should I do work that is worth paying me for or should I just have fun and do what I like. The choice is yours, but don't make it sound like society is to blame - Marshman 04:18, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • First things first 1964 Manifesto consists only of the text of the manifesto. -- Khym Chanur 02:36, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, source text. -- Mattworld 03:26, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Part of the same entries as above. Just straight POV. - Marshman 04:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • You are a bit quick to be so judgemental. Can you not give me time to add the explanatory text. This manifesto has been very influencial in graphic design and the repecussions are still being felt. It takes a while to get this down... You might think it just a point of view but unless you are in G.D I doubt you would have heard of it - I thought that that was the point of an encycleapedia to be explanatory!!?! - FT 18:31, 16 Nov 2003 (GMT)
    • It looks like this one should be kept, although obviously the source text should not be there. I guess it's just being seen by others as guilty-by-associatoin. Morwen 18:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Give FT time to shace it up. orthogonal 19:13, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 16

  • KiAi - this is a dictionary definition. Kingturtle 04:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • - Move to Wiktionary - Marshman 04:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • mv to appropriate martial arts article; Copy to Wiktionary; then delete JDR
    • With some fleshing out, this could make a good article. Do most martial artists in fact say kiai? Why that particular yell? How does yelling help them "focus?" Some references to kiai in motion pictures, cartoons? (Why the odd capitalization in the title? Is this an old CamelCase article?) -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If the content is moved to another article, keep as redirect to that article to preserve the history. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • My instructor always used "Kai" in writing... is there one correct transliteration? -- Pakaran 01:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Arnold.jpg (warning: nudity). I don't think this is very appropriate (dare I say unencylopedic?). It's also probably copyvio, but even if it's not it doesn't belong. -- VV 05:45, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't see how we could use it even if it wasn't a copyvio. --mav 10:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Shocking... but probably unneccessary as well. Delete.Kosebamse 11:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • not PD; delete JDR
  • Internet child pornography
    • An article with a troubled history, this has previously been listed on Vfd for seven days with no consensus to delete, but the fact that it had been outside the article space during the discussion period may well have prevented people from realising that its status as an article was being seriously debated. Now that I've moved it back into the article space, perhaps we should start all over again. (Please could people not, in future, move articles out of the article space before their status has been decided. It does nothing but cause confusion. Thanks.) -- Oliver P. 08:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Get rid of it. It reads like a 'how-to' to an audience of pedophiles. --mav 10:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but remove "how to " material (including removal from history). Andy Mabbett 11:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The question of "delete versus disinfect" has been extensively debated before, but attempts at removing the "how-to" character of the whole thing have not gone very far. It it is not radically rewritten it can not stay. Kosebamse 11:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If the comments and questions in bold inside the articles were followed, it wouldn't be a bad article. At18 12:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I would propose keeping this article. It still needs editing, but there's much valid content here, and we don't delete articles just because they need work. Martin 13:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have a whole page of How-tos. If we have them in principle, we might as well have this; making an exception on the basis of the subject would be POV. --Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • copyedit and keep; otherwise delete JDR
    • It needs editing to make it no longer a "how-to", as do all the other "how-to" articles. (No exceptions!) But that means it is a page needing attention, not deletion. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move any salvageable content to child pornography, and redirect from this article to there - may be a way to remove the how-to nature. A problem with this article is that few people seem to want to edit it as they don't want their name associated with the topic.
    • Remove the how-to stuff: currently reads like a POV article encouraging illegal activities. Bmills 10:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • First things first 2000 Manifesto - contains mostly primary text --Minesweeper 13:18, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • I jumped on this too (in Talk), but the poster is new, let's give him a bit of time to make it an article before jumping in with both feet, maybe? orthogonal 13:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looking at the edit history of this IP, there's lots of interesting material. Some newbie issues but this looks as though it'll be fine after the lerning hurdles have been dealt with. JamesDay 14:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • The following are talk pages archiving discussions of the AKFD article: Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/redirect, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/existence, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge. Also related, but discussing seperate content, is Talk:Anti-gay slogan.
    • Delete (see below) -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A long-running discussion that is important as a precedent and as an example of the issues involved. Since this whole dreary debate keeps recurring, it is important to keep a record of what we decided. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree the discussion should be kept. One solution might be to change the titles of the talk pages to remove the actual slogan from them, such as Talk:Slogan AKFD/title rather than Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title. That does cause problems with broken links though. Angela
      • That would do much to solve the problem. One page stuck in meta on "Offensive slogans" could replace the vast network of pages and talk pages and subpages that we've built up by constantly fragmenting the discussion. -- Someone else 19:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela's solution would be fine by me, provided someone was willing to get fix all the links. However, merging all the pages together (on meta or elsewhere) would be a mistake - the discussion is fragmented because it is discussing seperate things. Martin 19:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To remove the slogan from the titles would obscure what the discussion is actually about. Why anyone should consider this a good thing is beyond me. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It would be good because it would produce a better encyclopedia. It's not all about process, some consideration should be given to the result. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's only removing the title from the talk pages, not the article itself. The point is to have fewer pages with this in the title to prevent it showing up so many times in the search. There is no reason at all that it should obscure what the discussion is about. If necessary, a line could be added to each to talk page stating the page is discussing the article with the title "Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" if it isn't already clear. Angela 02:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
    • Delete. Such of it as is informative, should reside at homophobic hate speech. Also, see below. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • what do you want to do with the article information itself? Delete it, or factor it into another article? orthogonal 17:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. If you want to merge and redirect it, you don't need VfD for that, though please read past discussion at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge before doing anything drastic. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You certainly need VfD if you want to delete the redirect, don't you? 10 pages with AKFD in their titles pointing somewhere is still gonna rack up the google hits. -- Someone else 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Sure, but first see if you can get agreement for merging the content, at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge, then merge the content, and then see about deleting the resultant redirect, if you still feel that's necessary. IMO. Martin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Is this junk still on? This POV rubbish has had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. Please delete it and all its unnecessary redirect pages. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Martin. Discussing whether or not the article should be deleted as a redirect is academic, because it isn't a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Discussing why we need (exact count hard to determine...15?) pages of discussion seems not so academic.--Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~
    • Delete. I don't think it is encyclopedic. The term is not all that common and it originated here as trolling, article has taken on a life of its own, deleting it will improve Misplaced Pages. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • General comments on AKFD articles above:
    • Searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" on the web now gets wikipedia-derived hits in 8 of the first 11 spots. We're not simply reporting anymore: we're actively promoting this lovely sentiment. Time to shove this toothpaste back into the tube. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Promoting the sentiment? Does having an article on Nazism promote Nazism? Having lots of hits for Misplaced Pages articles does promote Misplaced Pages, I suppose, but I think that's a good thing. :) -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Having redirects from every marginal variation does suggest that we want to call special attention to it, yes. An encyclopedia with more entries in its index pointing to AKFD than it does to, oh, say, Nazi, does suggest that the encyclopedia is especially fond of the former, and has little rational planning or forethought about emphasizing important rather than unimportant concepts. The fact that you have to scroll down the bage to get to non-Misplaced Pages-related hits also suggests we might be inflating the importance of this particular phrase. And not all publicity is good publicity. -- Someone else 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • And that's exactly what we deserve. If we had left that informative and harmless article alone after it had been written and posted by, I think, Axel Boldt, there wouldn't be anything to complain about now. (Due to all those redirects it's now also difficult to find the original text.) Reading the above comments shows me that right now people aren't even sure what they want deleted -- the article itself or just the numerous redirects. Two more things (again): (1) Writing about a particular subject does not imply advocating it, just as it does not imply opposing it. Please see the use-mention distinction. (2) Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached and the matter is dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Misplaced Pages? (I can hear voices telling me this doesn't belong here, so I may post my second question again at a more appropriate place.) --KF 09:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Boyerism. Unnecessary redirect. (now the article has moved to Patrick Boyer). Angela 19:25, 16 Nov 2003 (23:05, 16 Nov 2003)
    • Delete, dictionary definition anyway. Morwen 19:28, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I am fleshing out. Already listed on Cleanup. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete - only nine google hits, #1 of which is us. Thanks for listing, though. Martin 19:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Google's #1 vote is "Delete"... ] Other sites seem to give a different definition... Κσυπ Cyp 21:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Since the article was mostly about Patrick Boyer, I have moved it to Patrick Boyer in the hope that it will turn into a nice biographical article. Boyerism is now a redirect with no history. I don't see any harm in keeping it as a redirect to Patrick Boyer. -- Oliver P. 23:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • See below. Andy Mabbett 07:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Term is not used in this context. POV title of redirect also. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
      • No, no... Below is for discussion of the article. This is for discussion of the redirect. Actually, no-one seems to want the article deleted, so I'll remove the entry. -- Oliver P. 08:41, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Um, I was talking about the redirect, it is both used in the wrong context and POV. Note that I voted to keep the article. Daniel Quinlan 09:14, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
          • Oops, I put that in the wrong place. It was meant as a reply to Andy Mabbett, who just said "See below", presumably referring to the discussion of the article. -- Oliver P. 09:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The article now contains no mention of the word Boyerism so such a redirect would be confusing nd should, therefore, be deleted. Angela 08:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • As one of the resident Canadian politics dudes, and the guy who removed the Boyerism reference from the redirected Patrick Boyer article, my reasoning was as follows: Patrick Boyer is a real figure in Canadian politics, and is worth keeping. As for "Boyerism", from the context I have it would appear that Daniel C. Boyer latched onto a single, isolated coinage of the word in reference to Patrick Boyer to buttress his side of the "Boyerism" debate. Trust me, I know my Canadian politics -- the word is close to meaningless in that context. There is no such phenomenon large enough to be worth an encyclopedia entry. Bearcat 08:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Okay, okay... Kill the redirect! -- Oliver P. 09:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 17

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004 Add topic