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 217.85.215.144 (talk) at 18:08, 26 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 administrator 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 19


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)
    • I vote for deleting all related to Daniel C. Boyer. Case is similar to that of Charles W. Swan, an apparent attempt to use the Internet to create the identity of a "famous person" out of nothing. Web is full of evidently self-submitted references to Boyer, but absent of any evidence of artistic recognition by others which should be there for any artist worth to be included in an encyclopaedia (otherwise everyone could make an article about himself). As a rule of thumb, to justify an article for any living person there should be at least one mention of that person in the editorial part of a serious news source.
      • Would you accept Brill's Content as a "serious news source"? It is defunct now but I was mentioned in it. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:22 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • 217.85.213.254 02:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • 217.85.213.254 is grossly exaggerating, to say the least. For instance, I have no part in the running of New York Arts Magazine, an internationally-distrubuted arts magazine, and it was not because of some submission of mine that I was asked to respond to an inquiry on "new surrealism." I have no part in the running of Cultural Observator, a Romanian magazine; no part in the running of The Improper Bostonian, &c., &c. Surrealist Subversions, in which two of my articles and a drawing appear, was edited, introduced and published by others, &c., &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:18 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • keep Daniel Boyer and Daniel C. Boyer and delete the 15th other ones. This is utterly ridiculous. User:anthere (my ! did not I just said this just above ? Why is this discussion taking place two times ?)
  • 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)
    • There has got to be another image of Cassavetes we can go with. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52 26 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

  • 32- Dale Hunter, 5 - Rod Langway - copyvio; both by the same anon user. --Jiang 02:03 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Articles have since been rewritten and renamed to better names. The orignally article names exist as redirects and the redirects should be deleted. -- Popsracer 21:19 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Alien Technology - not sure what the article is about and whether this deserves mention. --Jiang 03:00 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Appears to be a tolerable stub. Google seems to show the company as real, and the products it makes (RFID tags) are looking like becoming a genuine consumer issue soon. I vote for keeping it. Evercat 19:04 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • King & Spalding - looks like advertising. --Jiang 03:27 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Has been substantially improved by Oliver Pereira now. Can be kept, I think. Evercat 19:01 25 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)
    • I've moved this to Shlomo Kleit and rewritten as a stub. - Efghij 22:57 23 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)
      • He's told me why it should be removed, but not why it offended him. Anyway, I can see some validity in the argument about why it should be removed, but I don't see any reason to get offended. And while I can understand the arguments for removal, and I'm considering them, I'm not sure. Does it add value to an encyclopedia to remove small topics? It seems to me nothing is lost by including them, as long as their existence doesn't effect negatively the clarity and organization of other topics, which, it seems to me, it doesn't have to. Anyway, I've long marvelled at the beauty of the opensource process, and the speed with which this issue seems to have been addressed is just amazing. Within minutes people where objecting and removing links and deleting the topic I had added. I think that is great. Shows the power of this whole idea. -- The origional contributor.
    • 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. [1] 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)
    • Whether yoism is "beyond silly" is an irrelevance. We have an entry on Discordianism and similar nonsense religions, as we should. The important question is whether it is sufficiently important to warrant an article in Wikipedia. This has not been demonstrated. Martin 09:57 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmmm...what is the metric for inclusion here? There are a lot of important ideas that only a few people know about. Infact that is the reason for the existance of an encylopedia, to organize and provide knowledge, knowledge that a layperson would consider esoteric. There are many very important physics theories that only a handfull of physicists have ever heard of, or understand. Does that mean they are unimportant? That they shouldn't be included in wikipedia. I would argue that honest and objective articles improve the value of wikipedia, *except* when they reduce the value of other articles. So little known theories ought to be included, as long as they don't obscure the more important articles. From a user's point of view this is the logical approach. If someone has a particular interest and they can research that line of interest more deeply because there are detailed articles, this improves the value of the wikipedia, as long as it doesn't make it more difficult for people with a more general interest to find the information that they are looking for.
        • You are not convincing anybody. Most votes are for deletion so I suggest you try to satisfy at least one of Martin's criteria expressed on the talk page. Otherwise this page will be deleted. --mav

July 23

  • Kleit family : like the writer recognizes, just the biography of his family Muriel Gottrop 12:17 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Kleit also listed above, with a reply or two. כסיף Cyp 12:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Reiter's Syndrome - possible copyvio. -- Wapcaplet 22:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • User:Whyang's user page says he "pilfered" it from Merk.com. I checked the page, but it appears he just paraphrased it and didn't lift it directly. So I don't think it's a copyvio. Nevertheless, if it is, the text should just be blanked since I think Reiter's Syndrome deserves an entry. &mdash;Frecklefoot 18:58 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 24


  • Image:Image8.jpg -- image of Chasey Lain getting (still clothing-on) friendy with another pneumatic blonde lady, not linked from the Lain article. --Robert Merkel 05:03 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • In any case I think an image of Chasey Lain should contain only her, not someone else too. This creates confusion as to which of these ladies is Lain. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:24 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Royal and Noble - seems to be saying royals and nobles are registered like pedigree animals. Doesn't seem to contribute anything of value that's not far better said in related links (at bottom). Gritchka 10:23 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It should cleaned up by someone or merged with a similar article and made into a redirect to an article. But it shouldn't be deleted outright. -- Popsracer 00:17 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Small business - doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic entry at all, just advice. I'm a little hesitant to post it here because I can't decide if a good article on small businesses can (or should) be written for Wikipedia. If I'm off-base, please let me know. Jwrosenzweig 18:14 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've now added an introduction, because I think an entry for this subject might well be useful, but it was no good as it was. It now needs to be amended to reflect different national patterns. Deb 21:40 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Daniel C. Boyer - It seems quite clear to me (as it would most other users) that this article does not belong on the wikipedia. Daniel C. Boyer is not important enough (based on the tests we have used that resulted in the removal of many other articles) to have an article in an encyclopedia about him. It seems to me, that this page may have originally been his userpage, and then when the new user namespace was made, it wasn't totally removed? This page should be deleted, or made into a redirect. See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for more details. MB 18:16 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Celestialism - the formatting makes it seem like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere, but it doesn't come up on google, so not sure if it's a copyvio or not. --Delirium 19:32 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I doubt it is a relevant movement -- a search for celestialism turns up almost nothing. I vote for deletion. --Eloquence 10:16 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 25

  • S'Mores - This is a receipe and not an article -- Popsracer 00:31 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • We have lots of recipes. See List of recipes. Evercat 00:36 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Whoops. Anyway it appears to be a copyvio as well. -- Popsracer 00:46 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • ILGA Purges seems to be significantly POV (it's the work of this anonymous user [3], most (all?) of whose edits have been reverted), but I don't really know anything about the subject... I would have thought the title is argubly POV in and of itself, too. James F. 03:27 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Can be edited; against deletion. --Eloquence 10:16 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Jacques Kinnaer - this person does not seem to be a major figure ... yet. olivier 08:37 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • A student in his Masters degree? Doesn't sound very ...professional, yet. Nice site, though. --Menchi 18:24 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I was going to agree with deleting, but that is quite a major and professionally done site, and the counter indicates it's gotten over 2m visitors. If accurate that's probably on the borderline of encyclopedic, though the article should be slightly changed to note that his 'claim to fame' is the website, not his academic work in egyptology. --Delirium 21:45 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with Delirium--the site would be his best argument for inclusion. A simple article seems like a fitting thing to me (if it became five paragraphs on his contributions to Egyptology, that would be another matter of course). Jwrosenzweig
  • Provenance. Content is "history of ownership, origin, source". Angela 19:40 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Fuckwit -- dictionary entry. -- Tarquin 20:15 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Damn, you caught me in an edit conflict as I was adding the same article! -- Oliver P. 20:20 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Fashion sense - inaccurate (seemingly intentionally so for humor's sake), and I can't envision this topic needs an entry. Jwrosenzweig 23:50 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 26

  • atoll - page appears to be plagerized from an old science report contemporary with Darwin! Subject definitely needs an article, but this old material too inaccurate (and much of it not even about atolls) to be of value. Marshman 02:43 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • theories of imperialism - an article started by the banned user Vera Cruz. Contains nothing more than redundant material borrowed from another page, on which this same material is posted.
  • Dr Crippen. Copyright violation. RickK 03:21 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • You are correct. I made the error. I missed the copywrite info @ the bottom of the page. Sorry. I will write a new article, as I do have material on Dr. Crippen.
    • Immigration Act of 1924. Another copyright violation from the same user as above. RickK 03:42 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This is NOT a violation as the material came from a copywrite free government source. I went to tha page in question and it would seem that they used the same US.GOV site that I did. Public laws and commentary on them are specificly copywrite free.
    • http://member.nifty.ne.jp/Tomochika/Japanese-Americans_E/Index.htm specifically says "Copyright (C) Tomochika OKAMOTO. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission.". It is incumbent upon us, when in doubt, not to copy from other sites. RickK 03:52 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • All well and fine, but (and I really don't want to beat a dead horse), by that logic, anyone could put the US Penal Code on their website, mark it a copywritten site, and then have the whole darn thing stricken from here. It will be literally impossible to write an article on the subject without quoting the Act. Also, I have seen several articles on here, which quote US law (The Patriat Act" article is getting quite the beating. Why is it still there? It quotes US and UN law. BTW, I'd prefer to hash this out over email.
  • Aerodina Lenticulara - copyvio, admitted by the anonymous submitter (who put "from: (url)" at the top of the article, without any indication that he/she was the original author). --Delirium 08:20 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Angela Atwood - actress that does not appear either in IMDB or in the theater company mencioned in the article - Muriel Gottrop 11:08 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Life under Taliban rule - i don't see anything enciclopedic on this one. It was a piece of news during the Afgan war. It's a very dated article: will it be interesting in 10 years? Muriel Gottrop 11:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1197928"