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 Angela (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 14 August 2003 (removed Crititical Legal Studies - untypical typo deleted). 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:


August 5

  • Dan Georgiakis - Search for "Dan Georgiakis" returns only 9 results. This will never be more than a stub. MB 23:09, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd probably put this on the borderline of encyclopedic -- a minor figure, but of some small historical interest perhaps. What does everyone else think? --Delirium 01:15, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
      • Not missed when deleted, but not in the way when kept either. Might as well keep. Andre Engels 10:18, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 6

  • Elizabeth Ford. The page itself said it was copied from http://www.ford.utexas.edu/grf/bbfbio.htm. RickK 03:29, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Which on the website of the Gerald R. Ford Library and Museum and is operated by the National Archives and Records Administration. Which is a US Federal agency so the material produced by them should be in the public domain. So it probably isn't a copyright violation. -- Popsracer 05:27, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I placed an article at Betty Ford which does not use any copied material, and redirected Elizabeth Ford to there. Amusingly, the "official" web-site version doesn't mention her first marriage..... -- Someone else 06:16, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • global - basically an overly long dictionary entry. This entry will always be about the word itself, rather than about something more worthy of an encyclopedia article like globalization. Chadloder 03:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I read the global article ... could the applicable parts be incorporated into the globalization article? I still need to read the globalization article. Also ... couldn't this article be rewritten for a computer science perspective (as global related to variables)? I'm not sure if there is other implication for global than for CS. It's be a more abstract meaning than the one that the author of the current global article wanted to convey, but could be applicable ... mabey ... mabey not ... reddi 20:02, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Obviously it's more than just CS that the term "Global" is used in. See Global Greens for instance, or lots of other entries with that adjective. One approach for these is to rewrite them for the Simple English Wikipedia for those who don't understand the implications of taggng something as "global". It might also go into globalization but that is already a quite long article. EofT
    • Two different issues. One is a noun, one an adjective. Would you combine the two with a whole section on "social" as a term meaning social interest has been considered, all in the article on society? That might be ok with a redirect. But the article is much more than one would see in a dictionary, even the Wiktionary. If I'm wrong about that, move it *there*. EofT
  • The Russian-American Company - copyright infringement. I have contacted the author of the website from which the text was lifted. In the meantime the page has been noted and the text moved to the talk page. Chadloder 03:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Padania - copyright infringement. I have contacted the author of the website from which the text was lifted. In the meantime the page has been noted and the text moved to the talk page. Chadloder 03:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • Wood mizer - dictionary entry. Chadloder 03:58, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually more of an ad. FWIW I have redirected it to a new article at portable sawmill. I think that may obviate the need for deletion. Kat 15:37, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • List of Commissioners of the British Antartic Territory - I moved it to the correct spelling of Antarctic, and changed the links to it. I don't think it's significant enough for a redirect. -- Jake 06:00, 2003 Aug 6 (UTC)
    • Well I don't think it's significant enough for a VFD entry. Every time someone edits this page it's another 50 KB of disk space used up. We have a policy to keep spelling error redirects. -- Tim Starling 06:05, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • I made a suggestion about this in the Talk Page Muriel Gottrop 06:29, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Anax Imperator (band) - article is written by a band member and is fairly self-promotional, and not encyclopedic in tone or content. It's written as an essay and appears to be taken mostly from their website. Could be written from a NPOV, but it would probably need to be written from scratch. -- Lexor 11:24, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I have moved the band page to Anax Imperator (band), and inserted a short dragonfly notice on Anax Imperator instead. I have also started rewriting the band page, to give it a more encyclopedic feel. Hba 12:40, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I've removed the rest of the dragonfly bit, proper, if short, article now. jimfbleak
    • Since the dragonfly has an English name -- the emperor dragonfly -- I've moved the page there, and made Anax imperator a disambiguation page. -- Cjmnyc 04:16, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • Yde Venema - University instructor. A vanitypage perhaps? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
    • Looks like to me. I'd say delete it. -- Schnee 14:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Moved from below, another request for deletion: bio of a university instructor. Angela 01:10, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I bypassed RTFMing. Saw a link on another page and just had at it. I've since been remediated and concur. jtvisona 01:49, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Jtvisona refers to the single reference added by the Anon 131.175.124.30. --Menchi 01:57, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Removed aforementioned link pending decision for deletion. [1] (12.x.x.x is me) jtvisona 04:11, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Acornford
    • Original text was "English translation of [[Eckernförde]]"; this is a literal translation only, that is (to the best of my knowledge) never used and apparently originated in the phantasy of the article's editor. -- Cordyph 16:46, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Google gives about 21 results for "Acornford", none of which seem to be related to the city of Eckernförde in any way. Unless there are objections, I would suggest deleting the current (redirect) page as well. -- Schnee 17:19, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • dsDNA -- content would be more appropriate in DNA, and so I moved it there -- only one page linked to it, until I orphaned it -- article doesn't appear to have any potential for growth

August 7

  • Anti-Christian calendar theory -- seems to be more someone's personal opinion than anything else. Does not cite any actual references or examples for this "theory". While criticisms of the CE notation may exist, these should be covered in the article about Common Era and not under some idiosyncratic headline.—Eloquence 00:24, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree.. it should be combined with Common Era. Evil saltine 05:12, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • A search on google for this exact phrase yields only this page, but we're they're source! :) Nuke/transplant it. (Do I even get a say?) jtvisona 01:44, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC) The link from Conspiracy is the only link. jtvisona 01:44, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 07:03, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. M123 08:17, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)




  • carcism - Seems to be a bogus term coined by people using the listing to plug their website. Mw66 06:30, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • Open chain, Aliphatic hydrocarbon - dictionary entries. -- Schnee 15:20, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • These are chemistry definitions, so I would think they belong in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Or maybe a textbook would be even better? MB 17:41, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Group short chemistry definitions into one article. -- wshun 18:17, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a good idea to me. There's already pages like Glossary of ring theory, so why not something like "Glossary of chemical terms", "Glossary of organic chemistry" or something similar? -- Schnee 18:21, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Karass - in bad need of rewriting; I think the current article is not acceptable. -- Schnee 18:46, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Christian Boyer, John Boyer -- people who seem to have nothing encyclopedic about them beyond having lived in the 19th century. Added by User:Mbecker, presumably to prove some sort of a point as part of the ongoing Daniel C. Boyer dispute. --Delirium 20:31, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • They are relevant to my re-write of Daniel C. Boyer, and are no worse than the old Daniel C. Boyer entry. I find this Daniel C. Boyer much more interesting, and he has some historical significance as opposed to the user Daniel C. Boyer. MB 21:13, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
      • I fail to see the historical significance of "lived in the 19th century and bought some land." It is clear you're adding these solely because their last name is "Boyer" as part of a dispute over that article, not of their own merits. Please stop editing the Wikipedia in bad faith. --Delirium 21:27, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • The publicity stunts in this debate are getting a bit silly. Delete. -- Tim Starling 00:32, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks a bit like Kepple Disney II to me, and that article and all the other Disneys have survived. --KF 00:43, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I'll happily put those on VfD. Andre Engels 12:10, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • DELETE. This is silly. Daniel Quinlan 07:06, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

August 8

  • Sean Healy
    • Created recently by Ed Poor, containing only "Sean Healy thinks the US refuses to support the ICC because it wants to reserve the right to commit war crimes." -- Tim Starling 12:09, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Telpuilgoc This seems to describe an artificial language. The creator is anonymous, and Google returns no hits. The one external link is a very brief description with what seems to be an unnecessary number of Star Wars references. DJ Clayworth 15:39, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Christian Schmitz -- content: "not a patriotic american" -- till we *) 19:52, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Now been updated to claim he's a philosopher, yet "Christian Schmitz" philosopher brings up only 3 Google hits. Delete. Evercat 20:09, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 02:23, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Junk. Delete - Kosebamse 14:17, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Frank Damek -- article I created when I was a noobie, he is a real person and it really happened but not worth an aritlce on him. -fonzy
  • Olin Honor Code - I wonder if this is a copyright violation. It also isn't really in a form of an encyclopedia entry, so I'm not really excited about it. Thoughts? -- Dwheeler 22:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Does not belong here at all. Daniel Quinlan 07:07, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • Stephen Schneider -- Crank article. Exists only to disparage subject, who has apparently dissed somebody's guru. Contains almost no information about subject's life and work.
    • This appears to have undergone NPOV editing... it looks reasonable now.
      • No, it isn't. I actually know the guy. Still has almost no bio, link to kook site, and factual errors.

August 9

  • September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/External news sites - no longer helpful; do we really need to donate money at this point in time? This article was originally made on Sept 14, 2001. Some links may be obsolete. --Jiang 05:41, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • no longer helpful? donate money? hmm mabey i missed something but i didn't see any donation things ... and the links aren't obsolete. Most goto sites that still have info on them (atleast the first few categories did) -- reddi 20:24, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
originally from http://kongming.net/novel/sgz/zhoutai.php, http://www.kongming.net/novel/kma/zhouyu.php, http://www.kongming.net/novel/kma/pangtong.php
have put notice on pages Dysprosia 07:13, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Viktor Klimenko, rv to NPOV version gets blanked regularly by User:65.19.129.213, author of first highly POV version. -- till we *) 21:00, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Much as it pains me to type this, he really does deserve a NPOV article about himself on Wikipedia. He is such an integral part of Finnish cultural Kitsch. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  • Charlie Wilson, someone telling that he once met Wilson, not encyclopedic. -- JeLuF 21:30, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 10

  • Chronicles of Berth - what is this? jimfbleak 06:02, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • very strange and certainly not encyclopedia material in its present formPing 08:18, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Dessicant - was just a link. Kingturtle 06:15, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I've redirected to the proper spelling and made it into a stub. Dysprosia 06:20, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Finland facts - doesn't look at all encyclopedic, and some of the content is dubious at best (notably when it starts talking about Belgians) Vicki Rosenzweig 14:14, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • All of the info AFAICT is at best subtly off-base. Loads of the info is at least ten years old and out of date. Frankly it would be less trouble to start from scratch than to edit this to be remotely correct. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:53, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 08:36, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Note: There is also a Belgium facts which is probably where the anon user copied it from in the first place. Delete that too? -- Jniemenmaa 15:44, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! The idea of separate "fact"-pages with trivia is bad. --Ruhrjung 11:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • List of Finnish postal codes - looks like a direct data dump from the Finnish postal service, not remotely encyclopedic. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:38, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not even comprehensive. Lacks frex. 00011 the code for the postal service itself. Hasta la vista, baby! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:53, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or beautify it. The only reason it's not an orphan is because the Anon starter stuck a Wikilink of it at Finland. Why would a general article on a nation be concerned with a link to a ugly list of ###########? --Menchi 20:01, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! --Ruhrjung 11:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Piero - This was a redirect left behind when the content was moved to Piero de' Medici. However, now that I've reworked a lot of the Medici pages, no page refers to this any more. Given that it's simply a common Italian given name, it should go. Noel 16:45, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Gangrene - copyvio ([2]); violation confirmed by copyright policy; you should consider recreating the article from the stub text that existed before Daear's edit -Smack 19:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Converted to pre-copyrightvio form. Deletion unnecessary unless to remove the copyright vio from the article history. That would delete some valid history too, though. Andre Engels 12:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Sonoluminescense - an orphan article, written in French. Kingturtle 20:21, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 08:36, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
      • Made it a redirect so it can be kept. Kosebamse 14:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Nationalism of India, possible copyright violation and a research article --wshun 22:14, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't notice that it is already listed two days ago. wshun 01:08, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 11

  • Kaze no Kizu I nearly deleted on sight, but it might be intelligible to someone. jimfbleak 06:13, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a dictionary definition from Inuyasha, an anime television series, specifically, the Japanese/undubbed version. I watch the show (dubbed, *gasp*), no way does this need an entire article in either English or Japanese. Daniel Quinlan 06:46, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 08:36, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • Neen art - more surrealist art stuff of indeterminate (but probably small) significance, article initiator seems to be a gallery owner exhibiting this stuff. Note: I already deleted NEEN MANIFESTO on the basis that it's a primary source. What is it with all these damn self-promoting surrealist artists? --Robert Merkel 09:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm confused about what Robert Merkel is talking about because there is no question that neen art is not surrealist in any way. At least, the eccentric way in which this is written, which makes it very difficult to figure out what this is all about, could stand substantial revision, but perhaps deletion is a better option. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:06, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Surrealist, not surrealist. I can't figure it out. What I can figure out is this is blatant self-promotion for an art movement of little verifiable significance. --Robert Merkel 23:00, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Judging by some googling, it seems very insignificant and it sure is self-promotional. Delete. Kosebamse 11:23, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Dedicated lines - not sure what this article is about - makes no sense.
    • replaced with a meaningful stub. --Robert Merkel 12:25, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Salou POV tourist brochure. It would take a braver man than me to NPOV that; and I wonder if there were much left if someone did. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  • The following were added to VfD later, on the same page:
    • Salou - page appears to be some marketing yuckspeak from the tourist board, with no balance or much actual data about the place. It is the only contribution from the (anon) user who created it. The page should probably exist, but not in this form. GRAHAMUK 01:57, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Just delete the ad unless someone bothers to fix it first. Daniel Quinlan 07:01, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
        • Would love to, but the page appears to be protected!! Not sure how that can happen, but there it is. GRAHAMUK
          • Could have been an accident. Unprotected. Kosebamse 07:33, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)s
  • Two wrongs make a right - Not really NPOV, and doesn't seem as though anyone would intentionally go to this article. Paullusmagnus 13:05, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • delete: not even a real expression, looks mostly like advocacy rather than an article. Daniel Quinlan 20:11, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)


  • 18th Street gang - Sorry, don't know much about this, but it looks rather irrelevant. Kosebamse 13:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 20:23, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. M123 21:53, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lexis-Nexis gives a long list of articles about this group's activities, and I've turned the article into a slightly better stub. A wider article on crime in Los Angeles would be good... --Robert Merkel 23:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Taja Kramberger - non-famous person, no indication on *why* this person might be important - Guest 23:09, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • I see no reason not to keep it. The last thing we need is a policy that requires debates about something as subjective as how important the subject of each new article is. Mkweise 22:37, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Wrong. See Wikipedia:Auto-biography, Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not, and related links as to the varying reasons most of us think there is a need for this.
      • I disagree with your principle, but I agree with keeping the page. In my opinion, having written some books of poetry which have been translated in various languages is more than enough for an indication as to why someone is important. Andre Engels 12:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. She's published books of poetry in Slovenian. Do we have any Slovenians who can verify the existence and circulation of these books. Is she well known in Slovenia? --Robert Merkel 23:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • 183 hits on google, including Italian, Hungarian, Romanian language sites. Most of the sites refer to Taja as a poet, not scientist. One lists Taja Kramberger as one of the ten notable Slovene poets of the 90's. I would say that without contrary evidence that should suffice to keep the article. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 02:43, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • Stuart Todd - a supposed rock 'legend' having success in Japan till he was killed by a fan, however a google search for '"stuart todd" japan shot fan' produces zero results. Mintguy 22:34, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 12

  • Malolan - apparently some sort of an essay in favor of building a temple (of what religion?) in the Washington, D.C. area. The page doesn't even use the term Malolan either, which is rather confusing. --Delirium 00:55, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 04:13, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • 1957 incumbents. Do we really want an article containing every officholder in every country for every position for every year in history, or are we planning on just having this one page? And why 1957 in particular? RickK 01:44, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This article was just an idea I had and I picked a random date for it. I think they might eventually be quite useful.
      I think this sort of information is quite relevant to how we link to year articles. For instance someone reading about the Great Smog of 1952 would quite likely be interested to see who was British PM in that year, more so than what was published that year, for instance.
      This is just the sort of obscure, but useful, information that wikipedia will want to gather as it heads for the million article mark, information that would be hard to find anywhere else.
      It can usefully illustrate trends, for instance the 1980's cabal of conservatives leaders such as Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl, Mulroney etc., who were all in office at the same time.
      Lists like US Senators in 1957 can certainly be regarded to be as important, or even more important, than such things as hit songs or the winner of that year's horse races. - SimonP 02:48, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
      • Given the experimental nature, perhaps this should be off in your sandbox until it's a bit more fully developed... Daniel Quinlan 07:01, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • Billy Strayhorn. NOt an encyclopedia article. RickK 02:12, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • If he wrote "Take the A-Train" this guy certainly deserves a Wikipedia article. Certainly needs a rewrite, though. --Robert Merkel 02:54, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with that, but I certainly don't feel qualified to rewrite it. RickK 04:03, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Thursday (band). Is empty and protected. In other words, just about anything possible has been done to make this page useless. Andre Engels 09:53, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected and restored pre-Michael content. Don't know whether it should be kept. Kosebamse 11:11, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 11:19, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
      • Looks like our misguided friend Michael is back and trying to vandalise this page again. I'm not re-protecting it now as his activity seems rather low, and anyway it might be better to delete. Kosebamse 08:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • British Monetary Crisis -- Needs to be deleted or subject to a massive rewrite. The text was borrowed from a POV rant posted on the Great Depression article and later removed. But if you do not take my word for it, let me quote another user:
"Having read the article I do not think the rewrite done is salvageable. Its analysis is so biased even Margaret Thatcher would have blanched reading it. It is so inaccurate and POV it is mindblowing; it is the equivalent of the IRA writing an Irish history article or Saddam Hussein (or rather his ludicrous war spokesman) writing an account of the war in Iraq. The version 172 reverted to is deeply flawed, by far less so than the rubbish which there now. IMHO we should use the version 172 reverted to as the starting point and work on it, incorporating from it the less loopy elements of the current article (I'm sure there is something in somewhere that qualifies, though a first and second glance didn't show up much). I would suggest using the 172 revert as a temp into which salvageable bits of the current article can be moved. Using the current version as the starting point would, as Mr. Spock would say, illogical. It is sooooo POV and simplistic as to be comical. Trying to add to a workable but flawed basic article is preferable to trying to take apart a much longer monumentally flawed bit of POV nonsense, most of which is beyond salvation.
I won't claim to be an expert on that area but from the knowledge I do possess, I have rarely read an article that drew more "you can't be serious", "that is BS" and "for f¨*** sake, that is crap" responses from me as this article. This is to history what the X-files is to science. And keeping what is there now as a template would make wiki a laughing stock among historians of the period. Wiki has many many good points but its weakness is that some people, if no-one notices, can totally agendise an article to the point where it becomes a totally biased loopy polemic, whether extreme right or extreme left. This is one article that had been so agendised, so such an extent that it would be a nightmare trying to salvage it. Which is why I believe the revertion, though an extreme act, in this case is the best, or at least the least worst, route. FearÉIREANN 02:40 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)" 172 14:22, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree with deletion. JT's above comments (placed on Talk:Great Depression) directly apply to British Monetary Crisis because that article is based on text 172 removed. All reference to this article should also be removed, esp with any summary of this article. --mav
I am not so sure. If I understand the criticism, it is that the article is to monitorist in focus. That would seem to call for some upstanding wikizen to fix it, not to delete it. After all there was a british monitary crisis and it did have a signifcant effect on the british economy of the time. I have not checked, but the facts correspond to my recolection. What facts, not interpretations, are clearly wrong? Jfeckstein 19:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This is absolutely not the focus of the criticism. Even if it claimed to be an analysis of the period from a monetarist framework it would be extremely flawed and simplistic. I totally concur with the critical statements. This topic seems to receive far more objective treatment in another article, Great Depression (United Kingdom), something that could actually be considered a work of economic history rather than a layperson's polemic. I vote for deletion. Wenteng 19:25, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I highly respect the opinion of Jtdirl and defer to his judgment in matters of historical accuracy. JT mentioned that the text is not salvageable. I can't speak to the accuracy of the text because even the title is not confirmable; a Google search brings up 8 hits. Most of these refer to Wikipedia articles the author worked on and the author's user page. One hit deals with an event that happened in 1810 and another is part of the name of a book. Sorry, but "British Monetary Crisis" simply does not pass our confirmability test and Wikipedia is /not/ a place to publish new ideas. That is what highly respected historical journals are for. If you can't get published there you most certainly will not get published here. --mav 19:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Bond Girl I accidentally created this with the wrong capitalisation. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Leave it as a redirect — people are just as likely to link to "Bond Girl" as they are to "Bond girl". —Paul A 01:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • 2062 - about fictional events in the year. No reason why the content shouldn't just be at the relevant article about the fiction. Evercat 19:45, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • No opinion on where the text should be, but I did take the trouble of fixing the page to the standard format with century and decade links. So I vote to keep it, and wait for legitimate content. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:59, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)


  • 802701 - Same as 2062. Vancouverguy 20:02, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • also 2156 & 2199 - Efghij 20:07, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • These are not the "same" as 2062, the difference is that there are decade links up to [[2090s], the later dates at this stardate still lack them. Hence I wouldn't delete 2062 but the later years should definitely be disposed of, and the data moved where relevant, if there is such a place. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:59, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)


  • Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - A wikipedia entry about an obscure (self-published) article for one position in the climate change discussion. -- till we *) 21:01, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • I would strongly support this. There is a well established consensus amongst qualified scientists regarding the adverse effect of increased atmospheric CO2. See for example the Intergovermental Panel on Global Climate Change [3], which is a formal international scientific committions. Professor water 09:54, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Guts - appears to be some vile fictional character, with no context. User:NuclearWinner
    • is a character in Berserk anime, whatever that is. (The WhatLinksHere page is invaluable in situations such as this.) My vote: merge Guts into its parent article. And then work out what to do with the parent article. :/ —Paul A 06:38, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • If you can have Goku seperate from Dragonball Z then you can keep Guts seperate from Berserk anime.ZeWrestler
        • A topic qualifies for a separate article on its own merits, not just because some other superficially similar topic has a separate article. Guts is a one-paragraph stub that nobody will link to, and there's no reason it can't just be a section in Berserk anime; what Goku may or may not be doing to qualify for its own separate existence is entirely irrelevant. —Paul A 14:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 13

  • Technigenic a made-up definition. Google gives 5 hits, all misspellings of technogenic. M123 05:40, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete non-senses. --Menchi 05:45, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Crappy, non-article, delete. Kosebamse 10:11, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Rosalia - looks like total crap to me. If it is not, it needs much rewriting. - Kosebamse 13:57, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I disagree. There is little that can be said of one that cannot be said of the other, so splitting doesn't make sense. And they certainly were prominent enough to merit their own article. Kat 19:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Aneley. Content does not appear to be true. Anely+maths gets no Google hits. Angela 17:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Marin Boucher - A settler in New France, whose importance seems to be that he is an ancestor of a lot of Francophones in North America (or that Champlain gave him a suit). On Google all the sites seem to be geneology webpages. I guess it could be made more relevant, but right now it is also an orphan article. Adam Bishop 18:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Some descendant's work most likely. --Menchi 00:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Mywebcommunities.com - looks like an advertisement for a credit card/casino site cleverly written to appear as an encyclopedia article.- Ark30inf 21:34, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's as clever as it intends to be. It just sounds like a barely NPOV commercial on TV. --Menchi 00:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1287018"