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 Bdesham (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 29 July 2003 (rm taken care of). 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 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)

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)
I think this is a valid redirect, so no need to delete the page. Angela 22:35 27 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

July 22

  • Yoism, Yo
    • discussion to talk:yoism. No clear consensus: esp, mintguy, frecklfoot, ping. Favour deletion: mav, Eloquence, Ram-Man, Rdnlu, delerium, technopilgrim, and "over zealous fan" favour keeping. Independent proof of existence seems to have been provided so Eloquence and I have changed our votes. --mav 20:32 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 23

  • Belladonna lily
    • Not encyclopedic, just a plant care guide. -- Cordyph 18:46 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • delete --Jiang
    • Keep. This can be reworked. User:anthere
      • This doesn't look so bad now it has an intro. I think keep it. Angela 20:01 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Ivy the Terrible Confusing and poorly written: I doubt Ivy is worth even a well-written entry. Jwrosenzweig 21:07 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've deleted this once already, although the spelling's now better jimfbleak
  • 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 [1], 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)
  • Krautrock - copyvio. --Jiang
    • I added a completely new stub, written from scratch by me. So, please don't delete. --Lexor 10:10 27 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)
    • This is something that should be deleted before the one week waiting period. 172 03:23 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Not it isn't. It was rewritten by various Wikipedians and merged with fashion. Keep. Martin 12:24 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 26

  • 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.
    • It was created by Vera Cruz before that user was banned. The presence of redundant material has never been a reason for deletion. It is a reason for rewriting, redirecting, or the removal of the redundant material from the more general article (i.e. splitting). Keep. -- Tim Starling 03:24 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Ronald Regan - redirects to Ronald Reagan. Misspelling of last name. 172 06:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • keep; common misspellings are perfectly legitimate redirects according to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy --Jiang
    • keep; Might be a bit confusing against Donald Regan although I suppose that error is vastly less common (missing vowel vs. changed first letter). If it seems confusing, then someone could create a disambiguation page. Daniel Quinlan 22:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Bob Tisdall - copyvio. --Delirium 08:26 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The submitter claims on Talk:Bob Tisdall that he knows Mr. Tisdall personally and is basing the article on various material compiled over the years. It came up on google because it had several sentences taken verbatim from other biographies, but he has indicated that he'll rewrite those portions so it's wholly original (and at least two-thirds or so is already original). --Delirium 00:57 27 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)
    • I don't understand why you want to delete this. This is history, not news. These were things that did happen under Taliban rule. RickK 19:15 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • The name alone suggest that it doesn't meet encyclopedic standards. Valid content should be moved to the history of Afghanistan page. 172 03:23 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It was moved from the main Taliban article by User:Ed Poor. I would keep it. --Jiang 03:27 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems fine to me. Of recent interest, yes, but that doesn't make it less worthy of being an article. I think it is a long-term piece. Daniel Quinlan 05:37 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • I still think that the article could be easily replaced by a setence in Taliban. Lists of atrocities are not my idea of an encyclopedia. Next thing somebody is making an article like: List of experiments on jews during second WW. Muriel Gottrop 13:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Artist's book - seems like a dictionary def to me... Martin 19:18 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete. Daniel Quinlan 05:32 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I think this could definitely be expanded into an encyclopedia article, whatever its current failings may be. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:15 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • The Black Madonna of Czestochowa. Someone's very idiosyncratic view of Bible and human history. RickK 19:36 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, it could be an encyclopedia article if someone who knows something about it wrote it up. I've come across it several times in reading. If it is deleted, it should at least be put on the requested article list.Danny
      • The spelling and grammar are idiosyncratic. The ideas not even unorthodox, since the ideas generally are just not talked about, rather than actively refuted. The one criticism I would direct at the article, is that it isn't specifically about the history of that particular Black Madonna, which has genuine history separate from other Black Madonnas. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:48 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I think I've largely fixed the problems. I moved the article to Black Madonna, copyedited and pruned out the kookiest bits. I also put a stub at The Black Madonna of Czestochowa. Both articles still need much work, but should stay. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 02:29 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Albert Herter A joke, or a vanity page. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 22:52 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This seems to be a self-aggrandizing autobiography. I suggest that it be deleted before the one week waiting period. 172 03:07 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • 100% agreement, delete it. Daniel Quinlan 05:32 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Currently deletion looks best to me, but wait a week please. Martin 12:02 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Stubbed. Keep. Martin 12:19 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 27

  • Quantum flux The definition is absolutely wrong. "Quantum flux" is not a term used in any branch of physics I'm aware of. -- CYD
    • The term is used in at least one journal article I found on google (abstract: [2]), but I can't glean enough information from that usage to figure out what it means. Some searching through the physics SPIN journal database indicates that it's been used in 41 indexed articles in prominent peer-reviewed journals over the past decade, so it appears to be a legitimate but not very common term. --Delirium 05:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I've got full text access to those SPIN hits, here's what I found. The SQUID people (like what Delirium found) seem to be talking about a magnetic flux -- some kind of magnetic effect which is inherent to the device rather than externally applied. There's a paper in Phys Rev D called "Quantum flux from a moving spherical mirror". They use it to mean particle (or probability) flux. It's closer to what Reddi's talking about. I'll quote some of it at Talk:Quantum flux. -- Tim Starling 05:44 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • The SQUID term refers to the magnetic flux quantum, which is a magnetic flux that is quantized due to the presence of a supercurrent. Using "quantum flux" to refer to it is okay, but it's not a precise technical term. The mirror stuff is obviously referring to a flux of photons. I'm putting up a temporary page, but I still think the page should be deleted -- there's really nothing to say except that the term "quantum flux" is confused. -- CYD
  • Jovan, Slavitza item listed as surname, first name; also provides very little information.
  • Chef - dictionary entry, and wrong, I think. Evercat 11:02 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Quite off the mark, to say the least. Delete. Kosebamse 17:24 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Look, Bucko, I don't know who went and made you think you are God, but I did not delete this, I have not deleted this, and I don't plan on deleting this. So CHECK THE LOGS before you send me a message accusing me of it! At least I can recieve messages, unlike some of us in this discussion. AND, if you'd go and look, the article in question has been changed to only the text of the US Law and no longer reflects the site in question. Fuzzywolfenburger
      • I don't know who's deleting it without discussion, nor do I particularly care. All I know is that it's being done repeatedly, and I'll continue to re-include it here until it's discussed and agreed by others than you and I that this article needs to either be kept or deleted. It is worthy of note, however, that Wikipedia is also not a repository of original source text. RickK 22:31 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • As it stands, the page seems to be a source text. We don't, as far as I'm aware, have pages that simply state, word for word, what a law is. How about writing an explanation of the law? Evercat 22:44 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I dug these out of the overwriteten and deleted versions in the page log...
    • (PASTE)
      • This is why we discuss things, rather than automatically removing them. If you show--as would be easy if it's a US government-created document, or something from the 1800s--that the copyright claim is false, we can use it. The problem with hashing it out over email is that there are more than two people involved: please discuss here or on the talk page for the article in question.Vicki Rosenzweig 18:03 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Copyright claims on that text are just silly; public laws aren't copyrighted. However, I do support its deletion, not because of copyright, but because plain source text with no commentary doesn't belong on the 'pedia. That's a Sourceberg thing. - Hephaestos 18:08 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • (END PASTE)
  • Vote swapping - copyvio. Anon submitter cited the page he copied it verbatim from. That page has no copyright notice, but it has no explicit placement into the public domain either, so is copyrighted by default. --Delirium 20:53 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • DanKeshet stubbed it. Thanks Dan! :)
  • Ray Anderson. Contenst "Ray Anderson is a creative artist and should be seen live -- I'm going back to see his group of musicians that love to play with him. He is a throwback to the travelling jazz bands that played for the audience. Trained by the Chicago Symphony trombonists (the best symphonic brass section), he has the chops plus the courage to push the limits of the instrument. He answers to no big record companies and his playing shows it." RickK 23:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Mike Stock. Contains "main writing force by the worlds most successful pop songwriters in history Stock/Aitken/Waterman Now writing with pop genius Sandy Rass". If it doesn't deserve to be deleted, it needs extreme NPOVing, and since I have no idea who this person is, I can't do it. RickK 23:51 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Stock/Aitken/Waterman. Contains "Most successful songwriting partnership of all time, scoring over 200 top 40 UK hits in the mid 80s to early 90s. Mike Stock was the main songwriter, with the assistance of Matt Aitken. Pete Waterman is now accepted as having had no musical or lyrical contribution whatsoever to any of the songs, but for many many years tried to take credit for writing the hits for Kylie Minogue etc". RickK 23:59 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Why? Instead of quoting the page verbatim it would be better to provide an explanation of why you think it should be deleted. It may be a bit POV. But I can see no reason under the Wikipedia:deletion policy why it should be deleted. -- Popsracer 00:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • "Most successful songwriting partnership of all time"? RickK 00:42 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Article is POV...what about Lennon/McCartney or Rogers/Hammerstein?
        • An article being POV alone is not enough to be listed on this page. To quote the Wikipedia:deletion policy about POV articles: Take it to pages needing attention or NPOV dispute. You don't need the VfD page for that. -- Popsracer 01:22 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 28

  • sea salt - This page is somewhat redundant with salinity. I suggest deletion after material under sea salt (which has value) is moved to salinity. Marshman 01:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and moved material out of sea salt into salinity. Now I see there is also a page sea water. This too seems a redundant topic that could be blended into salinity. I'm open to suggestions as sea water is a common term -- but I note if one types seawater (also correct), one is transported to Oyster culture. Marshman 01:38, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm just talking to myself here ~ But went ahead and created a redirect from seawater to sea water. I'm now inclined to think we want to keep sea water and persue slightly different thoughts under salinity and ocean-only sea water Marshman 02:15, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1211958"