Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Delirium (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 18 August 2003 (+still more blank articles). 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).

Please add the following to the page you are listing:

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

See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Listed_for_deletion_notice for more information.

  • 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 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)
        • I think this is a great idea in general, but I would just merge the content with the year pages, just like births and deaths are. After all it's not like the yearpages are unmanageable monsters yet, plenty of room there. If they balloon into huge mammoths, then split them. US Senators of 57 should go to their own page, but heads of state of the world into the year-page proper. -- Cimon Avaro
        • I also think it's a great idea but is simple plain-text a good support? I mean, there were a debate wheter battles should be listed by War, year, location... Looks like a database was be better. --Ann O'nyme 14:13, 17 Aug 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)
    • I've done a little copy editing on it; it's a shade more encyclopedic now, but it still needs work; and I'm not at all competent to adjudicate the facts. -- Bill 10:42, 14 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)
    • I support the deletion of the British Monetary Crisis. I furthermore suggest that the text would serve better as a description of the events leading up to the institution of the "Gold Exchange Standard." I have looked at the possibility of moving the text, with extensive edits, to "Gold Exchange Standard" for which there are existing links, but no text. I believe it is most suitable there. I have found, however, that the Gold Exchange Standard is now redirected to the Gold Standard page, and the redirect has been protected. This is an inappropriate disambiguation link, since there is a great difference between the Gold Exchange Standard and the gold standard. The text I am offering up for inclusion in the "Gold Exchange Standard" page can be found on my page -- Octothorn 15:18, 17 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)
    • Merged into 2060s, with others. Keep redirect.
  • 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)
    • keep 2156, 2199 - merge them into relevant decade or century, leave redirect. Delete 802701.
  • 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 [1], which is a formal international scientific committions. Professor water 09:54, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support, but that's not my point -- even if one looks from a very neutral point of view at this entry, a single self-published article doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry. Or next day I'll publish an wikipedia entry about my M.A. thesis, or the like. -- till we *) 13:12, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see your point -- which is much more NPOV than my comment, and so I support deletion for the rationale you raised. Professor water 23:57, 15 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)
I rewrote Back to the land. Kat 21:43, 14 Aug 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)
  • David Essex (II), Luke Pebody, Neil Hamer. University staff. Added by User:Doctorbozzball. Angela 23:53, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete x 3. --Menchi 00:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete Smith03 00:47, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Do not delete Luke Pebody, he is a respected combinatorist, director, actor and game inventor: The Bozzball 23:32, 14 Aug 2003 (GWZ)
          • Only 69 Google hits. Nothing notable about this character - article just lists some lectures he has presented. Written about by someone at the same university as Luke Pebody if not by Luke Pebody himself. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Angela
          • Not written by Luke Pebody, but indeed written by someone who went to the same university, aiming in time to give details of most of the people working on the Combinatorics of Finite Sets, by going through the medium of collaborators. He also invented the game InterSect, which is very heavily played amongst user's of Richard's PBeM server and is in the process of being sold. The Bozzball 01:54, 15 Aug 2003 (ARP)
          • We simply have no way to evaluate his achievement. Is he the leading mathematician in his field? Who can prove it? How much hits for him in MathSciNet? (Well, I don't have access to MathSciNet right now)wshun 03:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
            • Three hits in MathSciNet, published in European J. Combin. (2002), Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud. (2002), and J. Combin. Theory Ser. B (2000). -- Jitse Niesen 13:40, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • He is not the leading mathematician in his field. Not even one of the leading mathematicians in his field. He did solve an important problem in his field. The Bozzball 11:23, 15 Aug 2003 (GWF)
    • Not significant enough. Delete. If this person is important enough to list I'd be listing at least half my friends and colleagues..--Robert Merkel 13:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • If the problem is significant on its own, write an article on it and redirect Luke Pebody to the redirect. Otherwise, if the problem is REALLY important but not that significant, then mention it on Combinatorics of finite sets and redirect Luck Pebody. Otherwise delete. Hey! There is no even an article on his subject area! wshun 21:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Luke Pebody! I remember that name. He came top in some Mathematical Olympiad thing, if I recall correctly. One that I did not quite so well in. ;) He sounds an impressive chap. And of course he should have an article. He's a professional mathematician with several published papers, and he solved an important problem in his field. Someone doesn't have to be the leader in their field to get an article. I can't believe this is even up for discussion. I don't know about the other two, but if they've been made Fellows at the University of Cambridge, they must have done something significant. -- Oliver P. 12:22, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I disagree, the information is not verifiable. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies - the person needs to have done something more than have solved a problem in their field. You could mention the person in an article about the field, but you don't need an article on someone not famous just because they did well in some maths Olympiad. Angela
        • The Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies explicitly includes those "who have written ... in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." There are two direct bibliographic references to well-respected mathematical journals in which he has published papers, and even a direct link to a PDF of one of his papers. Nobody is suggesting that he should be included purely because he did well in a maths olympiad: he solved the necklace problem, and if you ask me that justifies the other biographical details. In fact, I notice that the maths olympiad isn't even mentioned in the article. NB I've no idea who Hamer & Essex are. Dogbert 20:36, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • As I've stated in the talk page to that article, that criteria is far too lenient. Just publishing a couple of papers doesn't make you worthy of entry here, otherwise every academic in the world can have an entry. --Robert Merkel 23:28, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • We still need opinions from other mathematicians on combinatorics. Keep Luke Pebody for now but delete the other two. wshun 21:27, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm not a mathematician on combinatorics but from what I've been able to find his contributions aren't yet widely cited. A search on "Web of Science" revealed this guy has published three papers in its index: nobody else has cited the papers yet in a paper in that database. Whilst he should be pleased with his achievements so far, it's not yet so noteworthy that it deserves a Wikipedia entry. I'm still in favour of deletion. --Robert Merkel 10:20, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my mind. It is too subjective to decide who and who is not worthy of an entry. As Cgs just pointed out on the village pump, having an article on the used ship salesman in Monkey Island does not prevent us from having an article on physics. Angela 22:20, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify - the bit about him doing well in "some Mathematical Olympiad" (I think I meant the National Mathematics Contest, in fact) was purely an outburst of nostalgia, and not meant as a serious contribution to the debate. I shouldn't have brought it up. However, my objection to the page's deletion remains. Wiki is not paper, so there is no reason that I can think of (and so far no-one has provided one that makes sense to me) to worry about restricting inclusion to only the most well-known mathematicians. I see no reason why we can't include anyone who has published anything, as long as the publication remains accessible and therefore can be checked to verify any information about it. With all these people claiming that we should restrict inclusion only to particularly well-known people, surely at least one of you can come up with a convincing reason for doing so? That is, if there is one... -- Oliver P. 10:32, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • "Anyone who has published anything"? That sounds a bit extreme. The last thing I wrote had an initial print run of 600,000 but that doesn't make me worthy of an encyclopedia article. Despite what I said above, we can't add everyone. Angela 11:03, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It might sound extreme. But I have still not seen a convincing argument against the idea. If there is one lurking on a talk page somewhere that I've just overlooked, please could you point me to it? Thanks... -- Oliver P. 12:55, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 14

  • Thepalace.com - advertisement wshun 01:33, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: An ineffective ad at that. --Menchi 01:37, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • The reason for its ineffectiveness might be that I have edited it for NPOV. Andre Engels 10:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Not delete: I know its my contribution but if you see my other contributions, which are in the 1,000s I dont go for advertisements. The site is a very important internet site for teenagers, one of the most popular teen hangouts on the net. I go there often and there are more than 200 people sometimes at the same time Antonio Dont make the children cry Martin
      • Well, we don't delete the website, we just delete the article about it :P Try to write an article about popular sites for teenages and mention Thepalace.com in it. Then make this article a redirect. Otherwise it has not much chance to survive in Wikipedia. wshun 00:08, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I Vote for retention. My comment follows. Rednblu 00:32, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I vote for retention--and I thought the original page captured the genuine quality of the teenage phenomenon at that site better than the butchered and lifeless page that is out there now. I suggest that the page be rolled back to the original--with possibly the 7up and Coke replaced by "soft drinks." Furthermore, I suggest that those who vote for deletion of this site should be required to download the "Palace software" and actually try out ThePalace.com site. Someone may discover some "moral flaw" at ThePalace.com, but I could find none. The worst "moral flaw" I found was a "request" for a PayPal "donation" at one popular party site linked from ThePalace.com. I did not donate, and every feature I tried was still available to me. In my opinion, if you vote for deletion of this Wikipedia entry, you have missed the intellectual boat to what open-source activity is about. The suggestion that follows for a master page of such sites for teenagers sounds good to me. What do you think? Rednblu 00:32, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I am in no position to judge the website and the related software. It is the duty of teenagers :P Timeline of video games seems a good article to me, maybe Websites for teenagers is a good idea - wshun 01:12, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • George Fruits. Does this person deserve an article? It was created by someone named User:Fruits, which makes me think it's his/her ancestor. RickK 03:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • If George Fruits truly lived until 114 in the 19th Century, that's remarkable enough to justify an article (IMO). However, it does raise the probability of the article being nonsense. -- hike395 03:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Fruits did not make the list at centenarian. Considering 114 would qualify him for supercentenarian status and they are so rare, it is unlikely that he is an actual supercentenarian. I would, however, vote not to bin the article until further research supports this. --Ed Cormany 03:41, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless it's faked, there's a photo of George's headstone at http://www.geocities.com/sdf1778/fruigeor.html which substantiates the claim as to his age. RickK 03:52, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm going to withdraw my objections. Some Googling shows him in several places, and he apparently showed up in the Guiness Book of Records. The last survivor of the American Revolution rates an article. RickK 04:04, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • For your information, the person most often named as the last veteran of the American Revolutionary War is Daniel F. Bakeman. I can't find any article mentioning both Fruits and Bakeman, which I find suspicious. In any case I oppose mentioning either of them at the centenarian article, as it should be reserved for people who gained fame for a reason other than because they became a centenarian. 213.73.161.245 04:21, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This is easy to check. Death dates of possible candidate last veteran of American Revolutionary War:
      • Daniel F. Bakeman --- April 5, 1867
      • John Gray --- March 29, 1868
      • George Fruits --- August 6, 1876
    • So, it looks like Mr. Fruits has the others beat. Your opposition to Mr. Fruits in the centenarian list is not consistent with others on the list (e.g., Margaret Booth). Let's take this discussion to Talk:centenarian. -- hike395 05:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Most places seem to indicate Daniel F. Bakemen was the last Revolutionary War veteran. This site [9], "There was always some controversy that I heard (hearsay) that the George Fruits in Bunker Hill Cemetery is the son of George Fruit." I don't know exactly what to make of this make of this. Oldest ____ always seems to be a hard thing to prove. M123 08:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • ChessPuzzles, Answer1 - not encyclopedaeic. -- andy 10:40, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It has been replaced with redirects to a fitting article, thus it's now only another redirect page. However as it is one with an unlikely spelling there is no big need to keep it anyway. andy 19:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • James Packer - irrelevant, non-encyclopedic. Kosebamse 12:17, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I have fleshed it out a bit. Should be kept. -- Popsracer 01:29, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Rømer - copyvio. -- andy 12:34, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. There's already an Ole Rømer entry with an external link to a web site containing the same information (and much more). Kaare 19:35, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Man, Matter and Magic Squares -- page created by me when I just joined, its a published article by me[with permission to use] that is speculative/ interpretative and hence POV and is not likely to become NPOV,though quite interesting. I have deleted the article so page is empty now--KRS 18:06, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Someone seems to have reverted my change, so the article is still there.I leave the choice open--KRS 18:21, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • The page is still there until it is deleted. Blanking it in the meantime serves no useful purpose (unless the material is offensive, which is this case it isn't), and only obscures the reason why it has been nominated for deletion in the first place. But as for the content, it doesn't all look like speculation. Could you perhaps salvage that which is uncontroversially true, and add it to the articles at mandala, magic square, and so on? -- Oliver P. 12:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your suggestions, that's what I intend doing anyway shortly, but meanwhile I wanted this page deleted as early as possible- especially after following the numerous fights on POV and NPOV in my brief stay here:-)KRS 13:49, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • User talk:Nostrum/ban -- This is completely unnessary, this user is clearly not a vandal. マイカル (MB) 19:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Had Nostrum been an anonymous IP addresses persistently adding that illiterate POV rant to Catholicism he would have been banned without hesitation. Anonymous IP addresses get banned everyday for similar conduct. Not only did his conduct on the Catholicism page warrant a ban, his recent defacement of the Holocaust article after his reappearance warranted a ban in itself, even without considering his past obnoxious behavior. I favor a ban and most of the literate users who endured the torment of reading his fourth grade-level, bigoted anti-Catholic garbage probably agree with a ban, or at least agree that his conduct needs to be monitored. I favor a ban and I will not have my stance on Nostrum censored. 172 00:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wheather a user is a vandal should be discussed on the ban page, not here. Efghij 02:21, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • To 172: "censored"? That's just a bit rich after you removed a comment by Nostrum on a page discussing his own banning. Please reform your ways. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
      • Shame on you for slandering me! I didn't intentionally delete anything that vandal said; it might have just been an edit conflict. I have no reason to hide his inane drivel. Quit budding in every time you find a dispute and coming to ill-informed conclusions. 172 03:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • I cordially request you do not allege that I have slandered you. If one peruses the page history, there is not the slightest possibility that the removal of the text by Nostrum was due to an "edit conflict". If you say that you did remove the text by some form of unintentional action, I would find no grounds to dispute that, but I would still feel bound to admonish you to not do it again!!! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:14, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • It is patiently absurd to have this page is listed here. This user has done nothing but vandalise every page he has touched, writing in such nonsense as that Pat Robertson's penis is small, Mormons are Catholics, etc. People have been banned for less and all the evidence is that this is another kooky vandal. There is a lot of support for his banning on the page. For MB to try to get the page deleted is a gross abuse of this page, which should be about dealing with vandalism, not protecting vandals. FearÉIREANN 03:28, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • After assurances from MB who knows Nostrum off wiki that this is a serious but so far misguided user, I am withdrawing my opposition to the deletion of this page. FearÉIREANN 03:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Wik 05:05, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we decide to ban Nostrum, we should have a record of why. If we decide not to ban Nostrum, we should likewise have a record. Please do not repeat the arguments made on that page here, however. Martin
  • Indic alphabets - unnessesary. Vancouverguy 19:38, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to make it a redirect? Once the language is deciphered (if possible), this article will be useful. wshun 00:41, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Could possibly redirect to Devanagari, but that's not the only Indic script; there's also Tamil and Kannada-Telugu. - Efghij 02:20, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • There are lots of different scripts used in India. We should have an overview article for them. I don't see why this couldn't become one. It looks a half-way decent attempt at a start. I see no reason to delete it. -- Oliver P. 12:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 15

  • 1726 in science and 1796 in science. Each contain one link to a page that does not exist. (Do things like this need to be listed or could I have just deleted it?) Angela 00:35, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Know-Nothing movement seems to be a copyvio of the The Columbia Encyclopedia: http://www.bartleby.com/65/kn/KnowNoth.html, every other sentence or phrase has been paraphrased somewhat, but it goes far beyond fair use. So, unless there is some public-domain source that both are derived from (seems unlikely given how close the original article was to the Columbia version), it should be deleted. Daniel Quinlan 01:11, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Nostrum/White board - stupid rant page. Vancouverguy 02:10, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • A User is allowed to put whatever they want in there user space. Quit being dumb. マイカル (MB) 02:38, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
      • No they're not. This isn't a comment on whether Nostrum should be doing what he's doing, just saying that you can not put whatever you like in your user page. Angela
Shouldn't that go in Personal subpages to be deleted? Angela
No, that is only used for deleting your own pages Ark30inf 02:30, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't know where it should go, just get rid of it. 172 is trying to prove he is smarter by adding *'s to all the misspelled words on it, which is quite annoying. Vancouverguy 02:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The whole thing is annoying. I would humbly suggest everyone going and actually writing some articles to cool off for awhile. Ark30inf 02:30, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Love-Hate relationship - the article makes very little sense and has no real info to offer
    • This is poorly written and more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I am not saying it is impossible, but I am hard-pressed to see how any article on this subject could be an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary definition. Perhaps famous or infamous love-hate relationships (such as in Krazy Kat?) throughout history could be mentioned. I am leaning towards voting for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Seems a useful redirect to me.
Well, given how many "de' Medici" pages we have, if we created "de 'Medici" redirects for all of them on the offchance of a typo, we'd be knee-deep in redirects. We have redirects for the obvious variant, "de Medici", and I think that's enough. Noel 02:43, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Universe (mathematics)
    • I am a mathematician, and I agree. I believe it was written in good faith and that it took real effort but that it doesn't belong in the wikipedia. Michael Larsen 10:36, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • A mathematician should look at this - it seems like oddball city to me. --mav 04:56, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • makes absolutely no sense to me. seems like disinformation --Alex.tan 06:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Typical quackpot ramble. Andre Engels 10:47, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Nonsense - delete it. This should contain an entry on the set-theoretical term "Universe". -- Schnee 23:33, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) (mathematician)
  • Klosterquelle - not encylopedic, and orphaned as well. -- andy 13:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Shit sandwich and HUA quotient - I don't think these articles add much to the sum of human knowlege. Mintguy 16:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Without considerable expansion or revision, which I am at a loss to see how it would happen, the former should be gone. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't know, I've heard this typically southern expression all my life. It might be better off as a wikidictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia article.Ark30inf 17:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Abram in the 1911 Encyclopedia - I don't see a reason to keep this after Abram was rewritten (by User:Jonadab, which then created this article to archive the previous version). The text is still available from the 1911 encyclopedia itself, and in the history of the Abram article. If at all, it should be a subpage. uriber 17:25, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • 16 words nonsensical detail aspect of the Iraq disarmament crisis article. --戴&#30505sv 22:27, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • OK, I admit, the detail was too small to create an extra article. Probably in America this was not so much in the news as it was in Europe. But the reason for a war to be called "nonsensical", I have a different opinion on that. Just delete it, if this is the general opinion, I will not oppose. History will tell... Fantasy 22:43, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Ark30inf 08:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is a historic concept. A famous casus belli already becoming a catchphrase. Where's the beef? anyone? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
    • The detail is too small for its own article. I recommend adding any relevant information to a related article and then deleting "16 words" or changing it to a redirect. M123 09:52, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Make it a redirect. wshun 23:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I replaced this image with Image:Cayenne.png Image:French_guiana_sm02.jpg because it looks better. Image:Cayenne.png can be deleted, it isn't used anywhere anymore -- Pascal 23:50, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • In the future please upload the new Image with the same name the old one has. The new version will replace the old and the old version is kept in the version history. -- JeLuF 05:00, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici is now just a redirect page, using the Microsoft character ’ instead of the common keyboard '; the article was moved to use the ordinary ', like the rest of the Medici pages. Nothing refers to this page now, and no other Medici page uses this character. I would further argue against a whole series of redirect pages (one for each Medici page) using this character instead of the normal one. So this is an orphan, and should go.
    • Entry put back after an editing lossage caused the page name to get mangled, making it look like the page was already gone. It's still there. Noel 12:38, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 16

  • Mozougly
    • Unknown painter trying to become famous by having his own Wikipedia article. Google finds nothing for 'Mozougly painting' or 'Mozougly artist'. The images have to go as well (no copyright info anyway). --mav 04:27, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Cuzco - only a redirect. -- Viajero 08:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Please read the rules above! Redirects are valid. Keep. --mav
  • Beach use - inane, not even worth salvaging. Wikipedia deserves better -- Viajero 08:24, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It is awful, but I suggest merging it with Beach and then rationalizing it. Mintguy 11:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)~
    • Interesting. First someone splits Beach use (stupid title anyway) from the Beach article so that the latter reads like an entry from a geological textbook and now, rather than elaborating on them, they want to delete the cultural aspects altogether. I vehemently oppose this proposed deletion. --KF 23:57, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Since when are tourism, recreation, child play and sport taboo subjects? - Patrick 02:33, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with Patrick - we're a general encyclopedia, and such topics are on topic. I salvaged it into beach, towel, and sand castle, and redirected it. Keep. Martin 15:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • The Craft (movie)/temp - all the info on this is also in The Craft (movie). - Regulus 11:35, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • so redirect. Martin
      • What's the use in redirecting a temp page? It isn't something people will have bookmarked. Leaving it only makes it more complicated next time someone wants a temp page about the topic. Angela 00:50, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Daniel Ziegler
    • Deleted this afternoon without listing on VfD. I don't know if he's one of the people mentioned on the page, but there's an illustrator with that name. -- Oliver P. 16:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Marc Rich
    • Deleted this afternoon without listing on VfD. Apparently quite a well-known person. He's got several articles on news sites. I'm sure someone can rescue this. -- Oliver P. 16:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Marc Rich definitely should have an article; of course, the one currently in existence will have to be completely redone, but in particular the controversy over his pardon was quite significant. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Dont delete. --Jiang
  • Experience
    • Deleted this afternoon without listing on VfD. Not sure if this could be turned into a useful article, but maybe... -- Oliver P. 16:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Reverse piggy-back position
    • Deleted this afternoon without listing on VfD. Apparently it's "illiterate", but I expect that correcting the grammar and punctuation and so on wouldn't take too long. -- Oliver P. 16:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • In my opinion this is more of an example of something that needs revision and wikification than a candidate for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Martin 19:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Mimeogram of the 29 Google hits: 2 were about art and both were written by Daniel C. Boyer -- wikipedia and [10] , the other 27 seemed to refer to any article printed with a mimeograph machine. This confusing probably Boyer-coined word is confusing and unnecessary. M123 17:54, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • User talk:172 sysop status -- No longer needed. Please see User talk:172 sysop status#My final statement for my justification. Removing this page should help 172 get past this. If anyone wants to read the page in the future, they can read my personal achive of it in my personal space. マイカル 19:29, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for transparency. Consider refactoring. Consider moving related material here. Martin 19:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete it, but preserve the contents. It would be best to add it to the administrators' page, where it all was placed originally, and then save a new version of the article so that it cannot be viewed on the current main page. Let it stay in the page history of the administrators' page, where it belonged in the first place. If anyone wanted to refer to it, it would be in the page history. If MB, the major antagonist in effort to have my sysop status revoked, deems it unnecessary, this should be a sign that the matter has been put to rest. 172 00:13, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for transparency (somewhere, but visible). Fantasy 08:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Every word is now saved in votes for administrator page history, along with all other debates on the administratorship of every other sysop. I copied the current version of the 172 page and added it to the votes for admin page, and then reverted that edit. Thus, the contents of the 172 page remain in the page history, but are not posted on the current version of the page. There's no reason that this remain the single debate over an adminship with its own individual page. If it's deleted, not a word would be lost. 172 08:45, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with deletion of this. Angela 17:15, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • ...for me posting something without comment is "hiding"... Fantasy 21:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • La Salette: similarity to apparently copyrighted text. -- Someone else 21:54, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I am Ray Vogensen, the author of the La Salette page and the "apparently copyrighted" text is my own from my own site at http://www.portcult.com/FAT.05.INFLUENCES.htm. I have several articles in your encyclopedia, all from my own sites: Chaves, Vila Real, Fátima, the Douro River, the Tâmega River and Verín. My own site on Portugal is http://www.portcult.com/. If you have any questions contact me at rcvogensen@hotmail.com. My material is not copyright. I do it for fun.
      • Why not just make an account, it's easier for us to confirm whatever with you. --Menchi 09:45, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
        • I do have an account, but I still don't think people should eliminate articles written by the same person who wrote the Internet site without investigating first.User:portcult
          • It's not "eliminated", it's under investigation: If you confirm that you wrote it (as you did above) and that you release it into the public domain and/or GDFL on the talk page, you confirm that we won't have copyright problems with it, and the text is restored. This should be done any time you're adding text here we might find on your site. BTW, your material IS copyright, until such time as you release it, whether you want to have such a copyright or not. -- Someone else 17:09, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
            • Oops, spoke too soon. Your webpage states that the text was taken from the New Advent Encyclopedia and links to a version with a copyright of 2003. So the copyright issues still have to be worked out. -- Someone else 17:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan
  • Chump basically a dictionary definition with an apparently incorrect etymology. M123 22:40, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Corrected the data, should probably still end up on wiktionary. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostiçk
  • Love Showdown I think this is right on the edge. What do others think? Should this stay or should it go? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
    • Squish it. Cyan 05:42, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 17

  • Wear-Management. A link to an outside webpage and a long discussion of its usefulness to Wikipedia. Not at all encyclopedic. RickK 00:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This artcle is just a link to a commercial web site. And the site dosnt tell us much other that it cost $80 to join. mydogategodshat 00:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
While much of this stuff may be redundant to Deep England, a page that may have POV issues itself, I don't think it's irreformable. In fact, it might be preferable to have the Deep England material at Merry England, especially since, at least outside of the UK, few have heard the phrase "Deep England," but most everybody knows what kind of nostalgia is meant by "Merry England." -- IHCOYC 16:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Richie Ceez. Does this person rate an article? RickK 02:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if this is a fictional character or a real person. The radio station used to be fictional but now is real. If the person is fictional, they could be moved to a page about Phoenix Nights if one exists. If not, move them to the page about Chorley FM. Angela 02:11, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • K. Kay Shearin blanked for some reason I don't know. M123 02:26, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Talk:K. Kay Shearin has an explanation. Though I would kinda like to see it restored to its full glory (which isn't in the page history), the consensus so far favours deletion on grounds of a quiet life, which seems reasonable. Martin 15:27, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • .au
    • Disambiguation page, for the TLD and the file extension. I don't think we need articles on either TLDs or file extensions (although file formats are fine of course). -- Tim Starling 11:26, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems a reasonable disambig page to me. Martin 15:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Finally, many mathematicians study the areas they do for purely aesthetic reasons, viewing mathematics as an art form rather than as a practical or applied science.
-- Miguel Sun Aug 17 21:40 UTC 2003

I deleted the text myself (Portcult) since I think an external link is more adequate. Interested people can go to original on the Web.

  • national chess champions only content is an external link, I've deleted it once, but it's come back, and I don't want to be accused of being trigger-happy again. jimfbleak 17:43, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 18

  • Michaels Probability Conjecture. The article originally stated that a certain simple proposition in the theory of probability had been conjectured, and indeed "discovered" by Patrick Michaels. The proposition is in fact a commonplace error in mathematics, well known to everyone who teaches probability. One of its immediate corollaries would be that certain probabilities can be more than 1. Michael Hardy 00:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • That is so rediculous. According to that, if you don't test the probability at all, the thing invariably happens. Why do we have to wait for the week to delete it? LDan
  • I'm going through the blank pages to clean them out. I've fixed as many as possible with redirects or stubs, but suggested for deletion so far are the following. --Delirium 01:14, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1306151"