Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timwi (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 18 June 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Add links to unwanted page titles to the list below so one of the Wikipedia:Administrators can find them and check whether or not they should be deleted. Please review our policy on permanent deletion before adding to this page.

Please sign any suggestion for deletion (use four tildes, ~~~~, to sign with your user name and the current date).

  • If the page should be deleted, an admin will do so, and the link will be removed from this page (it will show up on the Wikipedia:Deletion log).
  • If the page should not be deleted, someone will remove the link from this page. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made.

Don't list here...

  • page titles of stubs that at least have a decent definition and might in the future become articles. There's no reason to delete those - see Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub
  • pages that need editing - see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
  • pages that can easily and sensibly be redirected to another page. E.g., a page called presidant (a misspelling) can be redirected to president; etc. Even misspellings can be caught by search engines and provide Wikipedia perfectly relevant traffic!
  • pages in the wrong namespace (for example, user pages in the main namespace), can be redirected and should not be deleted if there are still old links to them.
  • subpages in your own user space, use Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted

Note to admins

  • As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
  • Simply deleting a page does not automatically delete its talk page or any subpages. Please delete these pages first, and then the main page. Also, if you delete a page, remove it from this list as well.
  • If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item.

See also

Please put new items at the bottom of the page

  • Image:PatriotsLogotype.jpg, Image:AFLLogotype.jpg, Image:BroncosLogotype.jpg, Image:Buffalo_bills_logo.jpg - copyrighted sports logos. -- Zoe 22:21 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Copyrighted, or trademarked, or both? This may be a bit more of a grey area. :-\ -- John Owens 11:01 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Logos are annoying. [Warning: uninformed legal assertions follow] If this were a non-profit encyclopedia without a GFDL license, we'd probably be able to coerce the owners into giving us permission for free. But unfortunately trademarks are incompatible with GFDL. Once licensed to GFDL, another football team could start up using the same logo, citing GFDL's explicit lack of restrictions on reproduction. It's a similar situation with caption requirements on photos. Without more stringent restrictions on reproduction, we can't guarantee photographers will be properly credited. -- Tim Starling 07:16 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • List of notable eccentrics: What is the point in this? How can anyone objectively distinguish between when to name-call a person "eccentric" or a "non-eccentric"? This is prone to heavy and silly edit wars, and also violates the NPOV policy. -- Rotem Dan 17:03 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. LittleDan 20:00 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • If the article is non-NPOV, then convert it to NPOV. If the article one what we don't need, then use redirect. I don't see any reason to delete that permanentally. Redirect is good enough. Don't bother sysops. -- Taku
      • What would you suggest as a reasonable redirection target? I can't imagine any ... -- JeLuF
      • It's not one of our better articles, but I'd say leave it unless some better way of presenting the information can replace it. -- Infrogmation 22:06 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't like it. I'd happily be bothered to delete this page. I don't think it can be converted to NPOV, because labelling a short list of people as "eccentric" is essentially a subjective judgement. Any more than a statement to that effect would be POV, even if it were just to quote some other lists of eccentric people. -- Tim Starling 14:05 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Discussion about Chasey Lain moved to Talk:Chasey Lain
    • I've reviewed the discussion, and I don't think there's enough support for deletion. I will remove this entry soon if no-one complains. -- Tim Starling 09:10 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Unique - Badly named proof that there is only one identity in a group. If pretified, the proof could be added to the group theory article, but it doesn't deserve an article of its own. -- JeLuF
  • (BET), BET - possible copyright infringement -- JeLuF 17:27 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I redid BET, but nothing links to (or should link to) "(BET)". LittleDan 18:05 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Franz Joseph Gall - copyvio. Was blanked a long long time ago, I added the notice today. Evercat 02:27 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Cochonfucius - created by new User:Cochonfucius, a misunderstanding, probably. Even if the person is famous, the article contains only a link -- Rotem Dan 13:31 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • He's not famous, judging by his web page. Just some random french guy. -- Tim Starling 07:38 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Cochonfucius. "Cochonfucius" appears to be a pseudonym of Jean-Baptiste Berthelin, who is apparently a cognitive science researcher of some sort. Perhaps someone better at French than I am can work out what research he does, and whether we can get enough information on him for an article. -- Oliver P. 08:23 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Badad.bmp enormous bitmap image that doesn't seem to be intended for the encyclopedia. Theresa knott 10:42 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Likely just somebody having fun. --Menchi 13:55 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Bauska - copyright. Seems to be copied together from various sources, one I could find quickly. And article is not encyclopedaeic anyway. andy 10:43 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Guy Green - The current Administrator is called Sir Guy Green, but his article was wrongly titled Guy Green. When I sought to correct this by moving Guy Green to Sir Guy Green, everything seemed to work. But when I came back tonight, I found that any links to Sir Guy Green are being directed to Guy Green. Could this be reversed? Arno 11:17 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Goldtoken.com, little more than an advertisement. Also Turn-based gaming. -- goatasaur
    • Then you need to take down all things like Battle.net and stuff like that, or change it. -- Ilyanep
    • This belongs in the pages needing attention page
      • Battle.net is one of the largest gaming communities on the Internet. Wikipedia has no articles for game services such as Popcap, Playsite, Pogo and so forth. Goldtoken.com is no different. -- goatasaur
    • Some facts: 227,000 Googles for Battle.net. 4,900 for Goldtoken.com.
  • HowStuffWorks - blanked; stub anyone? -- Notheruser 12:47 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I am a big fan of HowStuffWorks. I am working on a full article, but have not gotten the whole thing finished/posted, on the history, etc. of the site. I created the stub as a way of getting started. I am fairly new at this, and am not clear on the principle I am violating here that would lead to deletion. There are pages for eBay, Yahoo!, etc. so it does not seem unusual to have articles on the history of major Web sites (HSW has 50 million page views per month, according to published reports). The stub I created was short, yes, but factual and unbiased.
    • But there was nothing to what you included but one sentence and a link. If you want to keep the article, which is not a problem to have here, please write a more encyclopedic article. -- Zoe
    • We have a minimum standard for articles, below which people get annoyed. If that's not on Wikipedia:Most common Wikipedia faux pas it should be. The anonymous fan should have written a proper article offline and then submitted the whole thing, but s/he is a newbie and wasn't to know that. The page should be deleted at the end of the 7 day period, if it isn't improved. -- Tim Starling 01:56 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Micheal Hale - looks fake (including the recently added entry at List of mathematicians: 1860-2003?) -- Notheruser 13:28 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Image:Hale.jpg should go with it, if it goes (which I support) and while we're at it, Image:Tux.jpg, now orphaned, from the same contributor, who only made a logon to be able to upload those two pictures. (And before you say "we could use a cute picture of Tux the Linux penguin", take a look at it.) Its only use was for random vandalism at nuclear pulse propulsion. -- John Owens 19:58 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Internet search reveals the photo is a priest from Berkley named Robert Hale -- 65.94.49.6
    • If Why Cows Moo is famous as the original contributor claimed, it should be in the catalogue of my local university library, one of the largest in Canada. And guess what? Nope, ain't there. Nor is there a "Hale, Micheal". So, it means he's an obscure celebrity and saved the world and was unrecognized. --Menchi 00:24 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Micheal is the Irish language spelling of Michael. How likely is someone supposedly born in Afghanistan in 1860 to have a gaelic first name. This is complete BS from someone who vandalised Tesco with the summary TESCO SUCKS. Delete. FearÉIREANN 00:22 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Why Cows Moo", a children's book published in Sydney in about 1936.
    • Note the page has moved to Michael Hale -- Evercat 12:36 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This article is, on the face of it, completely bogus. The picture page has the annotation "Father Robert Hale of Incarnation Monastery in Berkley, California", not Michael Hale. The bovine disease fails the Google test. "Why Cows Moo" is a children's book, (not written by a Michael Hale). I think the burden of proof now passes to those who wish to keep the text. Delete. -- Anon.
  • Ervings, New Hampshire
  • New Amsterdam, Indiana
  • Hibberts, Maine
  • Lost Springs, Wyoming
    • places with a population of one. Not encyclopedic.
      • How are these so much different from the places with a population of 0, 2, 3, etc.? Twombly, Maine could easily become a town with 1 person, if someone moves out. The above might become a town with 0 people. I think these are pretty interesting articles to have (though hard to keep accurate). -- Wapcaplet 01:54 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep 'em. Are the articles about places with no people (eg Gulf City, Florida) okay, and places with two acceptible, but not one? Why is it not "not encyclopedic"? They are harmless, and if anyone ever comes across some reference to one of those places and wants to find out something, possibly usefull to someone. -- Infrogmation 05:19 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • I see absolutely no reason to remove these places. Wikipedia is not paper, we don't have a problem with space, why not let them stay? -- Zoe
  • A query rather than a vote: is Ken Mondschein simply a self-promoting 'ziner, or is he of encyclopedic import? Or both? And if so, does he really merit a mention in motherfucker? And if not, shouldn't he really get a dynamic IP address? -- Someone else 05:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Turns out that he's also written a lot about fencing, and more Google matches come up for that connection than for his webzine. (Either they're the same person, or he shares his e-mail address with a namesake...) -- Oliver P. 05:41 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • I did not look toooooo carefully, but I believe it is a rather metaphorical form of fencing... -- Someone else 07:03 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • Nooo... He's responsible for HistoricalFencing.org! He's written some good articles on the subject. (Well, as far as I can tell. I know nothing about fencing...) Now if we can get him to release them under the GFDL... :) -- Oliver P. 09:07 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Honcho
    • Dictionary def copied from 1955 Websters. --mav 07:00 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Sexophobic
    • Badly titled, and removing the dictionary definition and POV statement leaves absolutely no information. (I'm assuming the phenomenon actually exists) Tuf-Kat
    • Yeah, it would be a challenge to actually leave some information and rename the page sexophobia or something. We could at least try. --KF 07:17 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The word sexophobia isn't in the Oxford English Dictionary or at dictionary.com, but Google finds "about 493" webpages. However, they give it different definitions: "fear of the opposite sex"[1], "fear of genitals"[2], and possibly others. To be NPOV, we could discuss all the different uses of the word. Or we could delete the page on the grounds that the term is not widely used. I don't really have an opinion, to be honest... -- Oliver P. 09:07 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Expresso.jpg, misspelling, copied to Image:Espresso.jpg. -- Wapcaplet 15:53 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected. Of course, history remains as with all redirects, images or article. Not a bad thing I suppose, so one can confirm the original authorship, or photographership, I suppose. --Menchi 10:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Pavo - an ancient stub, with unresponsive reference website, rather non-article that hardly can be made into shape. Kpjas 16:37 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Whoever deletes it should feed it to a peacock. -phma
      • Why? -- John Owens 09:13 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • It's a pun. Pavo is Latin for peacock. --Menchi 10:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Knowledge frame. I don't know what to make of this. It looks like an out-of-place polemic, but I've been wrong before of course. - Hephaestos 21:15 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Impeccability -- belongs in the dictionary, not here. MB 22:26 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Richard Kostelanetz - copyright (it's a resume too :) -- Notheruser 00:02 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It doesn't matter if it's copyrighted or not, it's blatant self-advertisement. --Menchi 09:58 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Marcel Petiot strikes me as just a little bit bogus, so far. -- John Owens 10:19 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I've replaced it with a stub -- sannse 10:45 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • It's a namesake though. The previous one from the 14th century "served ale and indulged in great frivolity." [emphasis added] Anyway, what a horrific doctor! And you're speedy, Sannse. Speedy. ---Menchi 10:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedians' favorites -- Martin
    • It seems to be a more liberal and therefore possibly will-be more active form of Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. But the screaming Header1 is horrible. --Menchi 10:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Nope, it's a list of Wikipedians' favorite (for eg) music, NOT a list of Wikipedians' favorite articles on music. Martin 11:22 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Avraham Stern - an interesting case. The original poster says the text is "about" to become copyrighted. I've asked for clarification. A number of other users have edited the page, so I think it would be a shame if it had to be deleted. Evercat 21:18 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Shi Fu - "Shi Fu" is just the Chinese translation for "master." And could mean the master of any art, not specifically Wushu. It's just a general Chinese term, nothing special to be noted about it. Jiang 01:56 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Kaiô Michiru, Benburb - Both of these were created and subsequently blanked by anon. contributors. They both have info in their histories, but I don't know enough to determine whether they're newbie experiments or accidental blankings. -- Minesweeper 00:51 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • All the phobia articles created by this anonymous user
    • Most of these are probably non-existent. Outside of the top half-dozen most common, there are a few rare phobias and the rest that persist on Internet lists of phobias are linguistic exercises with no real world correlant. In any case, these are all dictionary definitions. Tuf-Kat
agree, most are clearly fictional, I've deleted one already. jimfbleak 06:50 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Interstate 91, Interstate 95, Interstate 15, Interstate 5, Interstate 10, etc. -- Copyright. Anon, 18 Jun 2003
    • They are just lists of information. All that has to be done to remove any "creative expression" from the original writer is to rearrange the sections. Information, by itself, cannot be copyrighted but the unique and creative presentation of that information can. --mav 08:15 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1054022"