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 Delirium (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 17 July 2003 (oops, indentation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please review our policy on permanent deletion before adding to this page.

Add links to unwanted page titles to the list below so that other Wikipedians can have a chance to argue for and against the removal of the 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.

"Listed for deletion" notice

When you list here a page that you think will be listed for the entire 7 days -- i.e., a page that won't be deleted immediately -- please place the following notice above the page's content:

''This page has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.''

Hopefully, this notice will prevent new users from becoming confused as to why their page was removed. Please note that this text should not be used in the case of a possible copyright violation. In that case, please use the "Copyright infringement notice" text from Wikipedia:Boilerplate text.

See also

Please put new items at the bottom of the page

July 7

  • 100 Worst Britons I am not going to argue the case. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:28 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I would also delete 100 Greatest Britons. There are thousands of polls like this and wikipedia should not be archiving them, they are primary source material. You may reference them, say mentioning that Winston Churchill was voted the Greatest Briton, but the lists should go. SimonP 01:15 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Discussion moved to Talk:100 Worst Britons. Summary: Jtdirl defended the lists as being "compiled in valid surveys by reputable media organisations that were the subject of major public debate", and KF agreed. SimonP pointed out that they were "basically primary sources". I brought up the matter that the lists might be copyrighted by their compilers, but Jtdirl dismissed this, saying, "There are no copyright issues with these polls." -- Oliver P. 07:09 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • List of interesting or unusual place names
    • There is absolutely no way in the world that this can ever be NPOV. -- Oliver P. 08:40 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm still right about this. No, I am! But the discussion was too long, so I've moved it to Talk:List of interesting or unusual place names. Summary: KF didn't see how NPOV was relevant; Andre Engels replied that the list was POV, because the terms "funny" and "interesting" are "fully subjective". Evercat, Pizza Puzzle, and Andy G said that there was no need to apply NPOV in this case. Timwi and Jtdirl said they didn't have a problem with the page, but gave no explanation. -- Oliver P. 07:09 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Image:Montgomery.png - used as a sample by me on my talk page; no longer needed. -- Wapcaplet 21:09 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It is linked to Montgomery County, New York. Keep, or is there a replacement? -- Infrogmation 03:42 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Well I'll be. Wasn't me who added it to the article, though. This image was not intended for actual use (should have said so in its comments :) Anyhow, it can be deleted, because a new one is on the way (and it won't have the same name). I'll remove the link from the article. -- Wapcaplet 01:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 9

  • Speech by Saddam Hussein regarding the United States
    • [I]t is in my opinion needless to have this article. If at all, the main statements of the speech can be included into other articles. After all this is not likely to become a historical speech. -- Cordyph 13:17 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Tannin 13:19 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • In its current form, it should be removed. After all, he has made many speeches pertaining to the United States. I suspect that it's being used as a forum for these quotations. [...] Perhaps someone should find the speech in question and refer to this quotations in an objective article. 172

July 10

  • sister (and talk page)
    • Just a dictionary entry. Wiktionary already has an entry for this word. -- Oliver P. 02:08 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • gendernym (and talk page)
    • Dictionary entry. And who even uses this word? I've never heard it before, it's not in the Oxford English Dictionary, and it only gets about 53 matches from Google. -- Oliver P. 02:08 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiki isn't a dictionary, but even if was, if that word doesn't feature in the OED then dump it. It sounds like some makey-up PC word that someone is trying to push into acceptance. This belongs in the bin. FearÉIREANN 04:14 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Only six of those Google matches are in English, and four of those refer to this article. Delete it. -- Tim Starling 05:14 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I went through and orphaned it, and also support deleting. --Delirium 16:35 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Must Phrases for NCEE
    • Very bizarre article about some Chinese phrases; no pages link there. -- Cordyph 19:46 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Strange and incomprehensible (even if I did know Chinese). Delete. -- Wapcaplet 21:10 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • pop punk archived content for July
    • I am a newbie and borrowed from some offline textual sources without permission before really getting into and understanding your copyright files. Another user helped revert the page back, but I would like the cached stuff for July permanently deleted. I read that I had to request this here, but I am not sure if I have to do this myself; I am not very tech savvy so I wouldn't have a clue how to anyway. My sincerest apologies. -- weezer76
      • I presume one of the developers could selectively remove all the July history for this article. The other option would be to delete and then replace the stub. But that would remove the record of edits by 68.100.238.156 and Ams80. Anyone got thoughts on this? -- sannse 20:30 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 11

  • Western Expansion Map. Whoever the eBay user "Gamer352" is, he or she might consider suing Wikipedia if they ever saw this. The rest of the article is hardly NPOV, either. RickK 03:19 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Total crap. Delete. Kosebamse 06:23 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Petty minor gaming fake prop. --Menchi 10:13 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Modo no content besides a long quote that is perhaps a copyright violation. - SimonP 23:02 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 12

  • The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation - a monstrously long title; a disgrace to the name stub. -Smack 04:33 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless there's a better or more commonly used name for this particular consitutional phrase, it seems fine to me. Even if there was a more commonly used name, I think a redirect using that long title would still be useful. It could use a few more links from the specific amendment articles, though. -Daniel Quinlan
    • Deleting an article "just" because its title is long ??? How strange. User:Anthere
    • It also contains nothing that is particularly worthy of being called "information". I support its deletion. -- Oliver P. 09:57 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • How about moving it to Congressional power of enforcement? --Dante Alighieri 09:59 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Someone should add some material on what the congressional power of enforcement is, and what its significance is. At the moment, all it says is, "Here is a phrase. It appears in some articles." That doesn't tell anybody anything. -- Oliver P. 10:04 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This article should be incorporated into the main United States Constitution article. I don't see a need to start a whole new article for each semi-important phrase. --Jiang 19:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm with Jiang. I also object on principle to articles that assume there is only one Congress in the world. jimfbleak
      • It does no such thing. The article explicitly states that it refers to the US Constitution. -- Oliver P. 11:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Maybe, but I don't see US in the title jimfbleak
          • Well, not for nothing, but my suggestion for the title change above leaves the possibility for an article that deals with the enforcement powers of Congresses from many countries. --Dante Alighieri 09:11 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • It's not likely to be an issue under the constitutions of other countries. This really is a very narrow subtopic of federalism in U.S. constitutional law, probably too narrow even to deserve treatment in the United States Constitution article. If you are reluctant to delete it, maybe the text can be inserted in Talk:United States Constitution. If any of the people watching that article feel like integrating it into the text of United States Constitution, they can do so. -- Cjmnyc 09:26 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • There's no need to delete an entry because the title is long or because the topic is limited. Wikipedia is not paper. Moreover, unless there is actual ambiguity, Wikipedia convention is to have the article title be as brief as possible (e.g. London refers to London, England). And as the linchpin of federalism, it is one of the more important phrases of the United States governmental structure. --The Cunctator 22:49 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • OK, I'm persuaded, and I've written substantive content so the article now says something meaningful. I haven't moved the page yet, but it definitely needs to be moved to "Congressional power of enforcement" or whatever the consensus is as to an appropriate title. Is everyone OK with "Congressional power of enforcement", or can someone suggest another alternative? Once that's done, I'll also add a link from the United States Constitution and Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution pages. By the way, it appears that the reason for the odd page title is that the page is linked directly from the text of the relevant Constitutional amendments. Cjmnyc 05:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know about you folks, but I think this question has been adequately resolved. Can we remove this entry now? -Smack 00:43 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Science in China just contains the title of two organizations IN CHINESE (the first one says "Chinese Chemistry Institute" and I'm not literate enough to read the second one) and a link to the System Software Magazine stub. --Jiang 19:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 13

  • Ocean City: Poems and Artwork. Can somebody make heads or tails out of this? RickK 00:55 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Despite its professional cover with an ugly drawing, it has less than a dozen Google mentionings [2] + [3]. --Menchi 09:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • "Elk"? Oh, they're just redirects. They don't do any harm, do they? -- Oliver P. 11:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Oups, I forgot to restore my nick. Done. They don't do harm, except that when you search gaia ([4]), this is messy, slightly ridiculous, and non professional imho to see all these redirects. Anthère
    • Search result very ugly. Delete. Wikilinks people will not use anyway. --Menchi 12:06 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Finance Capital. Entire contents are "The capital to be used to gain money from money, again instead of production." I'm a bit baffled. --Delirium 07:24 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't it be decapitalized? --Menchi 09:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary (and edit) or delete. --Cjmnyc 21:14 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Blazing Arrow - track list only, of what I don't know jimfbleak 12:36 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Blanked. Reads like an advert from someone in a band. Wiki is not a place to advertise. Unless someone can find some hard evidence this exists and can turn the advert into a real NPOV article it should be deleted. FearÉIREANN 23:36 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)~
  • Hennes - about a pet goat of a German football team - Skysmith 17:32 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless the goat has a particularly interesting story, I think the info could be incorporated in an article about the football team-- but the team seems to have no article. Unless some football fan thinks this is worth fixing (perhaps making the goat article a redirect to a team article), I'd say sacrifice the goat. -- Infrogmation 03:42 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Having looked at it, it doesn't warrant an article. Delete.

July 14

  • Image:Sidnnancy.jpg. Appears to be a digitized copy of the poster for the movie "Sid & Nancy", linked from Sid and Nancy. I'm pretty sure that there's no permission to use the image, and the poster's explanation ("this is a public poster") suggests pretty shaky understanding of copyright and fair use. --ESP 00:12 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Vulva external.gif and Image:Vulva external open.gif. Potential copyright violation. I feel like a tattletale, what with two VFDs in like 30 minutes, but these images also seems poorly sourced. -- ESP 00:53 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Same goes for the images on Penis. --Eloquence 18:05 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd think that with rare exception any Wikipedian with a digital camera should be able to come up with an original photo for one or the other of these topics. -- ESP 03:20 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Water lilies.jpg and Image:Clip image001.jpg
    • The only contributions of User:Mashdaley. Water lilies is too big to use in an article, and Clip image001 doesn't look like it belongs in an encyclopedia. Neither is used by an article. -phma 04:28 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Sources unspecified, and user long gone (in April), therefore, contact unlikely. Delete. (Waterlily looks way too suspicious anyway) --Menchi 04:46 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed is not really an article, and on Google, there are 10 hits, 3 of which are from Wikipedia, while the others seem to be about different people with that name. Adam Bishop 05:09 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Climbing any serious mountain with a skirt seems a bit... --Menchi 05:12 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I bet Bill Brasky did it. Adam Bishop 05:19 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • She was a mountaineering pioneer, and wrote several books. It's true that there aren't many Google hits, but there should be! (There are a couple more under her married names.) I'm sure more information will turn up about her later... -- Oliver P. 14:40 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Malbonulo possible copyright violation -- JeLuF 19:22 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Word puzzle - less than a stub; virtual orphan; I just merged its content into puzzle. We have two courses of action here: making it a redirect or deleting it entirely. -Smack 21:05 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • We can also make it a gateway to word puzzles in languages other then English. Wshun
    • If puzzle discusses word puzzles, then it seems sensible to make word puzzle a redirect to puzzle. -- Oliver P. 22:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Controversial issues involving Jehovah's Witnesses and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. I propose that these two articles be deleted because (1) Both are currently empty, their contents having been transferred to other articles on Jehovah's Witnesses, (2) Why should there be an article on criticism or controversy in general? Any controversial issues can be included in at least five other articles referring to specific aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines and practices. (3) All religious, political and philosophical groupings are in any case controversial by virtue of the fact that they all have radically different worldviews. (4) With the exception of Scientology (just a few days ago), no other religious group has a 'Controversial Issues' page. Jpb1968 22:37 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Given that they're blank, I'd support deleting them. In the general case though, I don't think it's always inappropriate to have such articles: if there's a huge controversy that requires lengthy explanation, it may sometimes be clearer to separate it out from the main article -- sort of how we break all the country articles down into 10 sub-articles for history/politics/etc., have a separate page for Global protests against war on Iraq, and so on. --Delirium 01:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • If I recall correctly, the multiple articles were a strategy of compromise for the sake of those who wanted the descriptions of the JWs to be clean of the criticisms and controversies, which are better known than their positive statements of belief. I'd be glad to see a merger of all pro/con JW articles, but during the major edit war, it just seemed impossible to do; and the articles seem doomed to be unique, on Wikipedia - a real flytrap for controversy, and the only occasion since I've been here that really made me angry. Mkmcconn 20:12 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 15

  • Bee propolis Redirected to Propolis. Search engines will find it with the simpler name. Rossami 01:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with keeping the redirect. Someone might be searching for the phrase "Bee propolis" in quotations. --Jiang 23:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Brow piercing "A brow piercing is a piercing in the area aboive the eye (roughly 2-4 cm) they are usually a piercing" -- Infrogmation 05:06 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Green Turtle. Probable copyvio, from a WWF page [5]. WWF says "Unless otherwise stated, all text featured on this website is copyright of WWF-- WWF Guianas, (also known as World Wide Fund For Nature and World Wildlife Fund)." --Delirium 06:10 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Randy Sash Has "released" two demos. Has signed to publish an Album. If he becomes the next Bruce Springsteen, we can still write an article for him later. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 06:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • MineSweeper3D (game) (wikipedia is not an advertising medium). Tristanb 06:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Exact same content is mirrored at MineSweeper3D. --Delirium 08:09 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Duplicate redirected. I see nothing wrong with the article. I wrote articles about games myself, such as Cuyo. --Eloquence 23:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • From his other contributions, it obvious this guy's just using wikipedia to sell his game. Less than 700 visitors had been to his site when i first visited. It's not an established game, and it's not a free game so people can learn more about the subject. There are other places for people to hawk their creations.
  • It is only one game, but there are thousands of programmers who write software, and others have written minesweeper 3d games. They don't all deserve a place in an encyclopedia. If a section is listed about 3d versions of minesweeper, then this site could be a link, along with Cyp's Java version (see Talk:Minesweeper_(game)). But it doesn't deserve it's own page, (or, i'd argue, a listing anywhere).
  • Sure the guy has a right to create the page, it's an open encyclopedia, but it doesn't mean it has to stay. He's treating wikipedia like a FFA site. Tristanb 01:14 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • I still don't see which specific Wikipedia policy is violated by that page. The description is probably accurate, the game obviously exists, looks fairly neat to me, so why not have an article about it? We have much more obscure subjects than that covered. --Eloquence
  • Well, maybe not, i'm not completely read in the policy :-) But i remember something about being encyclopedia-worthy (i've got to go soon so i can't find it). It's obscure. Haven't people written about their obscure band and had that deleted? What about the club that seemed to have only 4 members, but explained their customs/etc. I could write a fairly complete article about myself or our dog, but i don't think it should feature in an encyclopedia. What about the thousands of non-nude sites (although there's not many nowadays), do they all deserve a page? what about the thousands [of programs] on www.download.com? i don't think they do. Especially when i believe that all the guy is doing is trying to sell his silly game! Tristanb 01:46 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Okay, i've said enough state my point, i'm not gonna be convinced otherwise, but that's my vote for deletion! :-) Tristanb 05:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Pacman (song). Claims to be listed on VfD for copyvio, but doesn't appear to be actually listed on this page, so adding here. --Delirium 06:45 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Lucy Parsons - copyright (see page). --Delirium 16:50 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The user who initially submitted the copyvio has since replaced it with an original article, so retract the nomination for deletion. "We still welcome original contributions" succeeded, happily enough. --Delirium 23:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Rob Fenwick not clear that he was even elected. Is every local councillor going to get an entry (I was a parish councillor once, so think about this!) jimfbleak 17:10 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree, dump it. A quick google search turns up dozens of Rob Fenwicks across the world, none of whom are that particular one (of the pages I've clicked through to anyway). --Delirium 18:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • There's probably only a sentence or two of verifiable information about him at this stage. They could go in Don Foster's article, maybe, but the connection is a little tenuous. Hmm. I'll think about it... -- Oliver P. 22:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Burning Flipside -- Advertisement? Not encyclopedia article.
    • "Regional event" that is apparently very regional, with about only 100 Googles (the rest 400 are repeats). --Menchi 18:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I reformatted and gave this a slightly more encyclopedic tone. I'm doing more research on the event, but I've heard about it before -- it's important for Burning Man types. --ESP 19:07 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Trays apparently some sort of a math problem. Not encyclopedic -- this isn't any sort of famous/classic problem, and Wikipedia isn't a textbook. I believe User:Cimon_avaro deleted this once already. User:Cehjohnson also keeps re-adding the answer to the problem at a separate page, ANSWER (which is bad as a subpage, and should be reserved for the anti-war group of that name in any case). I keep deleting that one, but he keeps recreating, so I nominate that for deletion too if he recreates it again. I've commented on his talk page asking him to stop, but no luck so far. --Delirium 19:57 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Not encyclopedic enough, and the titles are misleading at best. Delete. Kosebamse 20:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Trays should be about trays, clearly. So I've rewritten it. And moved it to tray. Will that do? :) -- Oliver P. 22:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • ANSWER: Some kind of programming something or other. Koyaanis Qatsi 20:12 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Infrogmation has rewritten this as a stub, so I think it's all right now. -- Oliver P. 22:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Since that's all resolved, should we get rid of the image he uploaded for that page? Image:Pizza.jpg. It's named "Pizza.jpg," but is not, as far as I can tell, an image of a pizza. Now orphaned. --Delirium 22:51 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 16

  • Disapproval voting, Formal disapproval, possibly others. - These pages, written by 142 nee 24, represent what I believe to be idiosyncratic concepts. I have never run across references in voting literature or on the internet to either of these concepts. In addition, they were coupled with false information on other pages (like many pages saying that approval voting was a form of instant-runoff voting). DanKeshet 00:32 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Jane Kennedy. Copyright violation -- the author admitted as much, even putting a (c) symbol at the bottom. Not to mention it doesn't make much sense, since it's a blurb about a character she plays in a show, not about her. --Delirium 02:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Donny Hathaway. I can't find the page on Google, but I probably didn't look hard enough. Reasons I think this is copy-and-pasted: 1) the article states that Hathaway was born 54 years ago "today" (June 15 or 16 2003, according to the edit log) Hathaway was born October 1, 1945. 2) There's a parenthetical "RealAudio excerpt" statement -- looks just like a copy-and-pasted link. 3) Attribution at the end of the article. I guess I'm just over suspicious, but this looks c&p'd from an outdated news article. -- ESP 04:52 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 17

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1158621"