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 Mintguy (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 22 July 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 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. Note that obvious junk can be removed by admins at any time.

Please review our Wikipedia:Deletion policy before adding to this page, and before performing deletions as an administrator. To challenge a decision made over a deletion, see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

See also:

July 10

  • 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)
      • Isn't Weezer a name that was used by one of the banned users?

July 15

  • 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)
      • I've updated the article with additional information about the event. This is pretty much the best I could do. -- ESP 20:35 22 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)
    • Replaced with a short article. --Robert Merkel 04:26 22 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)
  • Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came just the poem, jimfbleak 19:07 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Stephen King apparently wrote 2 novels based on this. If we delete this lengthy poem, we need to de-Wikify those 2 Wikilink in the 2 King novels as well. Eerie! Booo... --Menchi 00:57 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The poem has been deleted; the article is now Wikified if somewhat stubby. -- ESP 17:03 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 17

  • denial -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:57 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • rather dictionary-ish list of definitions, and possibly copyrighted, as it's identical to the "Quick definitions" from http://www.onelook.com/?w=denial . I could not find anything about copyrights there, but in their FAQ is this: Can you send me the list of words in the index? May I extract it from your site? The answers are "Sorry, no", and "No way!", in that order. If you're thinking about writing a script to systematically copy OneLook.com's word list, please don't. It's not yours to copy, for one thing. (...) No clue whether this has any copyright implications. Kosebamse 11:35 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Aztlan verbatim copyright violation
  • Bearnes - in French. Can someone who speaks French check if it's junk or something worth moving to the fr wikipedia? --Delirium 16:39 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not French. Maybe Spanish or Italian. - Efghij 17:03 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure it's neither Spanish nor Italian. Not sure what it is really, if not French, since few other languages have constructs like l'article or d'Aran. Anyone recognize it?
        • It looks very much like a variant, or close relative, of French. Occitan, perhaps? Kosebamse 17:29 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Clicking on "What links here", we find that "Bearnes" is a dialect of Gascon, which is one of the Occitan languages. - Efghij 17:41 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The page is definitely in Occitan. From what I can make out, it discusses the B&eacutearnais dialect of the Gascon form of Occitan, how it differs from other dialects, and where Gascon is spoken. -- Cjmnyc 06:01 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)


    • I put this image on in good faith, but on reading the conditions again, I would not oppose deletion jimfbleak 17:21 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Suzanne Lieurance - has anybody ever heard of her? Reads rather like advertising. 274 Googles. Not sure what to make of this. Kosebamse 21:18 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Axis of Evil Wannabees - subjective list; highly POV. --Jiang 21:38 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, please. --Eloquence 23:01 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a joke book. This needs to go. -- ESP
    • Delete, already covered as a footnote on Axis of evil -- Popsracer
    • Delete. It's also a bloody copyright violation. --Daniel Quinlan 05:33 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Redirected. Don't list articles here when you can just redirect them. Thanks. Martin

July 18

  • Mars Bar party - documents a mythical sexual practice and restates an urban legend about Mick Jagger. I have more info on Talk:Mars Bar party. I don't think this is encyclopedic. -- ESP 00:06 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I object. Whether the original incident was genuine or not, it's picked up a sort of mythic status that can reasonably be treated in an NPOV fashion, given a little work, maybe. Evercat 22:50 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • There are many urban legends about mythical sex practices, some of them involving celebrities. They don't deserve their own pages. If the rumor is at all significant because of the people involved, it can be covered under Mick Jagger or Marianne Faithfull. If it's important as an urban legend, it can be covered under that topic. -- Cjmnyc 05:51 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • On further reflection, this doesn't belong at Mick Jagger or Marianne Faithfull. It's not the sort of info that someone would be looking for in a serious article about them, unless it was some sort of scandal that affected their careers (which it was not). It also doesn't deserve its own article. Delete, or include in a more general discussion of urban legends or mythical sex practices. -- Cjmnyc 16:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Oh well. If I'm the only objector then it should go. Evercat 17:23 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Gambling system. Perhaps an article on Gambling strategy in general would be useful, but this isn't it. --Delirium 00:16 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this is also just plain factually useless and somewhat incorrect information (speed of losing does not vary all that much with numerous similar strategies in Roulette). --Daniel Quinlan 05:30 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Usemod article histories -- looks like this is ancient, and I don't think we need this anymore. -- Timwi 02:06 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This is still valid and we still need it to document what happened during the conversion. --Eloquence 05:09 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Crags - Dictionary def. Bad name. --mav 04:15 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Limit -- this page redirects to Limit (mathematics). What's the point of the disambiguation then? I guess our naming convention dictates we delete Limit and then rename Limit (mathematics) to Limit. -- Timwi 05:34 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Fine by me. It looks like the only non-trivial thing in history is an attempt by Fred Bauer to write something more general [2]. But it looks like he was shouted down. -- Tim Starling 05:48 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I have turned it into a disambiguation page because there are more articles called limit than just Limit (mathematics). So it shouldn't be deleted. - Popsracer 12:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Charles Roth. It appears someone doesn't like him. Google turns up no Israel-related hits in searches for "Charles Roth" mastermind, "Charles Roth" Sabra, "Charles Roth" Shatila, or the other variants I've tried. Anon user's other contributions include things like blanking fisting for being "deviant". --Delirium 07:55 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Mad-sci.jpg I uploaded this picture to illustrate mad scientist. User:J.J. has made a better one. Unless someone thinks of a more worthy use for this, (maybe to illustrate Van de Graaff generator?) nothing links to it anymore and it is taking up space. -- IHCOYC 15:57 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a wonderful picture. I thin kthe page could live with both. Mintguy 16:45 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Seishin Teki Kyoko - a list of phrases that doesn't constitute a coherent article. --Delirium 17:00 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • primary source material; this guy only gets 7 pages on google (2 of them from wikipedia). He's insiginificant. --Jiang 21:10 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Aqaba Bay - this is not a valid alternative name for the Gulf of Aqaba (which is about as "non-bay" as a gulf could be). There are currently no links to this page. - uriber 19:06 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Tetrazene - zero information; maybe someone can make it a stub (at tetrazine instead?). -- Notheruser 22:09 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Created (separate) stubs for tetrazine and tetrazene. Someone with more knowledge of chemistry than I have should check these. -- Cjmnyc 05:17 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 19

  • GmbH - This is a dictionary entry, and a German one at that. No real content anyway.
    • Perhaps it should redirect to corporation? That page already discusses several types of corporate entities, such as LLCs, so a brief mention of GmbH could be added. --Delirium 22:32 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • We can't have a redirect from every foreign word. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a translation tool. CGS 23:04 19 Jul 2003 (UTC).
        • Yes, but in this case it's a word used in English, as quite a few companies with the designation "GmbH" do business in the United States, the UK, and other English-speaking countries. It wouldn't hurt to just put a note in corporation along the lines of "corporations registered in Germany typically use the suffix GmbH, while corporations registered in the United States typically use the suffix 'Co.' or 'Inc.'" --Delirium 00:59 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • I agree that this should be kept. A GmbH is a specific form of business organization under German law, as is (for example) an LLC under US law or a plc under English law. The German abbreviation is used in English because it's a specifically German thing. This should be fixed, not deleted. -- Cjmnyc 06:54 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • William Casnodyn Rhys - 10 results on google (webpages on him not in english). --Jiang 01:39 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Add Rhys; link to above. --Jiang
    • Del this genealogical worship. One of the no-no of WPing is genealogizing. --Menchi 19:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Shaheen Lakhan - unsure whether he meets the "famous enough" threshold. - Hephaestos 01:57 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to User:Slakhan if they are the same person and s/he created his own page. --Jiang 02:08 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Definitely not famous enough. Appears to just be a student who has one article forthcoming; we certainly don't need an entry for every graduate student in the world. Tell them good luck on their research, and we'll add an article in a few years if it goes anywhere. =) --Delirium 02:41 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 20

  • Image:Mess.me262.250pix.jpg and Image:Mess.me262.550pix.jpg
    • I think the copyright doesn't allow us to use them, but it's so vague and self-contradictory I'm not sure. Anybody else got any idea? --Robert Merkel 11:52 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • If it's public domain (as they claim it is), then they have no right to restrict it to non-commercial use only. I say keep it. -- Tim Starling 12:36 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I believe it's entirely possible and within their rights to take public domain content from upstream and put restrictions on its use to the downstream. The Disney Corporation made a mint on doing just that. If we can, we should try to find the sources this Web site used, and use those instead. Otherwise, I say either ask permission for the content, or err on the safe side and take it out. -- ESP 22:55 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • They can put restrictions on it if they own the copyright to it. Disney can claim the copyright to their version of a fairy tale if it is original, and has a significant amount of their own creative expression. They can't claim the copyright to The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, nor can this site put restrictions on public domain work where their only input has been copying and scaling the images. However, it would be nice to find their original sources, since I wouldn't be surprised if this site is infringing the copyright the actual owner. See my user page for an IANAL statement. -- Tim Starling 23:57 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Charles C. Boyer - currently redirects to Daniel C. Boyer for some mysterious reason. This is misleading, as there is a rather famous Charles Boyer (redirecting it to him instead, however, probably isn't much good, since he doesn't seem to have a middle name at all). (I don't mind the other Boyer redirects, btw, just this one.) --Camembert 13:11 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • see title of http://forum.psrabel.com/biografien/boyer.html. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:58 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Email them and tell them to change it. Here you go, here's a contact form. I vote for deletion. -- Tim Starling 00:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • It's been changed; the redirect should be deleted. --Jiang 05:59 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Daniel C. Boyer's self-aggrandizement is out of control. Any possible permutation, misspelling, misrendering, permutation of a misspelling, or vaguely related reference to one of his works inevitably has a link, redirect, or reference added by him to his non-user page or one of his self-entered advertizements for his works. In other words, I agree that it should be deleted. --Daniel Quinlan 05:33 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Babri Masjid garbled and intensely POV SimonP 15:54 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • needs revision, but is a legitimate topic
      • Yes, it seems to have become a legitimate article SimonP 04:18 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Gatchina -- possible copyvio. Anon user cited the source, but gave no indication that there was permission to copy it. --Delirium 18:26 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 21

  • Image:John_cassavetes.jpg -- My too-clever copyright knowledge -- "It's a postage stamp, made by the Federal Government! It must be in the public domain!" -- caught me up. Postage stamps after 1970 are indeed copyrighted by the private US postal service. So, this is a copyvio, and it needs to go. It's a shame, too -- It's such a nice picture. -- ESP 02:46 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Capitals of the Netherlands - hardly worth an article, should be explained on Netherlands
    • It probably won't live up to Capital of China, even if historical capitals are included. But how and why and when the two capital appeared could be encyclopedically interesting. --Menchi 19:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • MorroWindHelp. Looks like something that'd fit better in a single-page "quick help" insert in the game box than in an encyclopedia. --Delirium 07:03 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Flatworks - content is "not sculpture. something that is made by cheesey painters and printmakers and, sometimes, even a puter user". Does this have any chance of being made into a real article? Angela 21:02 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or move to wiktionary. --Jiang
  • Chris Bailey - I'm not sure if this could be made into a real article, but right now the article itself says it's just a joke. Adam Bishop 23:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 22

  • Alien Technology - not sure what the article is about and whether this deserves mention. --Jiang 03:00 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Legio II Augusta - possible copyvio -- mav 11:57 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I replaced with the article that I should have wrote weeks ago. :-) Stan 16:55 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Kleit - Huh??? כסיף Cyp 12:58 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Same user created Shlomo, an article on a given name. - Efghij 17:20 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've already deleted the same article two times, and sent a message to the user saying wikipedia is not a personal blog. This is the email I got in response: "Actually, you're wrong. This isn't the begining of a personal blog. It's the introduction to a history of the Bundist/Yiddishist movement in Eastern Europe. Shlomo Kleit was a leader of that movement. Please don't misidentify something because it is written well." (from User:Lazarkl). I have asked the user to write in a form that is acceptable and title the article more accurately. If this is not done, I say delete. --Jiang 20:28 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Yoism, Yo
    • Idiosyncratic "faith". Just because a person has a website an a weird idea for a new religion doesn't mean we should have an article on that. There are no independent sources of information on this "faith" and it doesn't pass the 5,000 person rule of thumb. This is beyond silly and is in fact an attempt at proselytizing and giving far more credibility to a "new faith" than it deserves. --mav 19:23 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)~
    • Hmmm...seems like this article about a new religion offended mav for some reason. I wonder why? -- The original contributor
    • He's told you why, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Evercat 19:43 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Me too. Perhaps the contributor can come back in a few years when Yoism is famous and successful and write a big article about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. -- ESP 20:02 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I've got to remember that slogan. --mav
    • This is an interesting act of censorship! "Beyond silly" is the most interesting part of the syndrome! Idiosyncratic deserves at least a footnote to a dictionary. [3] Hence, in the interests of improving the Wikipedia NPOV process, I vote for retention. Rednblu 20:09 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Censorship! Ha! So I can create a website on my cat and then because that website exists I can create a Wikipedia article about my cat? Give me a break. This is the micronation thing again but even more ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to advance idiosyncratic faiths - the burden is on the author to prove that their "faith" merits inclusion in the cannon of human knowledge. --mav
      • Yes, indeed. Me thinkst thou dost protest too much, dear mav, and showest us sinners all the bias in thine own cannon. Rednblu 20:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind keeping these articles (though one with a redirect might be better), but I do object to the original contributor sprinkling links to them all over Wikipedia; that strikes me as more like advertising. See also the discussion at the Village Pump on this topic. --Delirium 20:20 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote for deletion. Mintguy 20:45 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1181758"