Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

This page contains Votes for Deletion listings that have finished their voting period and are eligible for either deletion or removal from the list, as appropriate. Sysops can delete those articles for which a consensus to delete has been achieved. You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.

Ongoing discussions

Wikipedia:Possible abuse of User namespace
Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?
All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at Talk:List of recipes/Delete (see also Wikien-l)
Unsolved problems in biology See Talk:Unsolved problems in biology
List of Europeans & List of EU people, see Talk:List of Europeans & Talk:List of EU people Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
MediaWiki:VfD-Translation articles - school project, in the process of contacting the professor/other users.
Simpson vs. Savoie - Rossami has requested verification, but said request will take time to complete. Article kept and discussion shelved until that time.

Needing Transwiki

International Meridian Conference - deletion debate
Urban walks in Melbourne - deletion debate - to Wikibooks or Wikitravel if legal
Oregon Legislative Councel's opinion on gay marriage - deletion debate
Animal names in Papiamento and related articles - deletion debate
Declaration of Paris - deletion debate
How to learn a language - deletion debate
Transwiki:wiktionary ("Testa-lying") - deletion debate
Peter Gay - to 9/11 memorial - deletion debate
Maitrayaniya Upanishad - to Wikisource - deletion debate
Winston Churchill Quotes - to WikiQuote - deletion debate
Paris Peace Accords - to WikiSource - deletion debate

Individual debates older than five days

May 18

French Region

No reference of "French Region" as defined in the article could be found elsewhere. The content of the article is just a repeat of information from the France and Monaco articles. olivier 10:51, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

See talk page for further arguments. I agree that we need proof that this term is actually in use. Otherwise, get rid of it as quickly as possible. Possibly this should be a redirect to List of regions in France in stead. -- Jao 10:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It's used in Europe#Regions in Europe. It will be looked at. Zoney 19:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any document outside Wikipedia talking about this alleged "region". I suspect that Europe#Regions in Europe is equal baloney. Remove. David.Monniaux 07:48, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a term made up for the purpose of grouping countries together in the Europe article. Agreed w/ comments of David Monniaux on the talk page. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

Childe Harold's Pilgrimage and Hymn to Intellectual Beauty

Two poems, in full. From Project Gutenberg, so copyright isn't a problem, but these should be moved to wikisource or wikibooks or wherever such things live, and deleted from wikipedia. --Stormie 03:51, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I'm a Byron fan, but the entire text of Childe Harold is a bit much for an encyclopedia article. Satori 22:47, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to WikiSource. That's where these things live. Ambivalenthysteria 13:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not transwiki to wikisource. There's no need to duplicate Project Gutenberg's archives in a piecemeal fashion. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:34, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Trigintillion

Can anyone explain in detail the reason trigintillion was put on Vfd?? 66.32.142.216 23:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can help. The following are all, AFA I can see made up names for numbers. They score circa 145 hits on google: Trigintillion - Quindecillion - Tredecillion - Quattuordecillion. Alarmingly there about about 100 more of them, each with more zeros and less use than the last. If we have to have them at all, could we have them on a single page with redircts from the discrete page to the common page. For now could we delete these dubious additions. See http://www.io.com/~iareth/bignum.html for background: "As can be seen, there is neither a single definition for these words nor a consistent means of deriving them ... "Using the rules described above" the author goes on to 'invent' some of the above. --Tagishsimon 23:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I had, in fact heard of trigintillion and the decillions up to quattuordecillion before. They're legitimate enough. But I agree on Tagishsimon's proposal. Dpbsmith 23:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC) There is an article on large numbers already, but it doesn't yet have anything like a "list of number words ending in -illion" Dpbsmith 23:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
These terms may not get very many hits, but whoever entered them did not make up the terms--I saw them at least fifty years ago in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. They are legitimate terms. They could probably be combined into one page, if that's wanted. Oops, sorry I got this in the wrong order. Rsvk 23:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

May 20

Devil's beatin' his wife

From Cleanup: Devil's beatin' his wife - an anything more be said about this? origns would be nice but still a dictdef. vfd (I moved this to vfd from cleanup and fully support its deletion - SimonP)

DELETE. -Litefantastic 00:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
See if Wiktionary wants it. Otherwise, it's an orphan. Delete. Rossami 01:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a bit about the origins that I found, maybe someone will add more. --Starx 02:40, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RickK 03:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or merge with any article on such expressions. Maybe could be joined with such as "Angels bowling" and such - Tεx τ urε 02:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Original Six and Original Six era

Both have similar content, and describe much of the same thing. The contents should be merged, and one should redirect to the other, but which one to go, I'm not sure. kelvSYC 05:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You want Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not VfD. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:41, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Original Six stays, but the era is equally and seperately relevant. -- user:zanimum
Keep. OK, so maybe a merge is in order, but both are well written/formatted, and neither has a VfD tag, so I say leave well enough alone. Niteowlneils 17:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a vote, but I think they should be merged into Original Six, with era as redirect. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daniel. Merge into Original Six. Can we also deny any future expansion entries to teams from places where the only place you find ice is in your drink? Denni 00:59, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

Pro-American sentiment

No real content; just a poorly written attempt to counteract the Anti-American sentiment article. No evidence is offered for highly POV statements like 'Europeans in general are still grateful to the United States for its participation in World War II and the sacrifice of so many American lives in defeating Fascism in Europe.' Deus Ex

~~No point listing this here. The immense weight of Americans will ensure it stays. Chameleon 19:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Yes. Because all Americans are jingoistic idiots. Thank you for your enlightened contribution. Meelar 23:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, it's not my fault that most are. Anyway, as far as this debate goes, I have been fortunately proved wrong so far. So Delete.
Delete it. All the NPOV content that article could contain is already providing balance in the Anti-American sentiment article. - jredmond 19:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every page needs the creation of its opposite. —Morven 20:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anti-American sentiment does a good job on this. Lord Bob 21:10, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, everything worthwhile in this article is already at Anti-American sentiment. DO'Neil 21:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fully expected to vote delete until I actually carefully read the entire "anti" article. While it has enuf rebuttal/commentary to be quite admirably NPOV, it really does not include many positive views of the US. (In other words, I strongly disagree with "All the NPOV content that article could contain is already providing balance in the Anti-American sentiment article.") Especially given how many people around the world are willing to risk their lives, and/or give up all their wealth/belongings to immigrate to the US, I believe there are sufficient "pro" facts/beliefs/attitudes/whatever to warrant a separate article. (The current content does need some NPOV help, however.) Also, FWIW, I actually very much agree with many of the criticisms of the US (war on drugs, unilateralism, ignoring PRC genocide in Tibet, overly pampering Israel, not signing landmine treaty, environmental damage, sexual hypocrisy, overly restrictive copyright enforcement, privacy violations, "God" on currency and in pledge, death penalty, past direct meddling in other nations governments, etc.). Niteowlneils 22:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "All the NPOV content that article could contain..." etc., I meant that all the existing NPOV content in the Pro-American sentiment article is already in Anti-American sentiment; that is, when one removes the heavy-handed POV from the Pro- article, what little is left is already in the Anti- article. - jredmond 04:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I still disagree. The anti- article doesn't (and probably shouldn't) mention the Marshall Plan, the fact that Europeans to this day officially express gratitude for US help in WW2, the space program, the fact that people from eastern Europe specifically cite the US as a factor in the fall of the Soviet Union, and so on. Or should the Marshall Plan article, etc. be removed as POV? Niteowlneils 14:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everyking 22:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until it has had a fair chance at being improved. Or merge with the Anti into Attitudes toward the United States, which is probably a poor idea. The idea that specifically pro-American sentiment is not real enough to be encyclopedic is one that's hard to ascribe to sheer ignorance. Skeptics might read Jean-Francois Revel's recent best seller (in France) on the anti-American obsession; it's so pro-American as to be useless. But the article as it stands definitely isn't good enough. Dandrake 00:44, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this one. It is non-encyclopedic in that it does not anywhere define the topic or describe the sentiments. It appears to be part of an on-going debate with the article on Anti American Sentiment On the other hand it does provide a lot of links with other good articles on the subject. Send it to Clean Up maybe. ping 08:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Canada is particularly funny. Delete for POViness and Non-encyclopediness. MvHG 08:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Awww! Muriel said what I was going to say! D3L3tifiK473. Denni 04:06, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
Delete. RadicalSubversiv E 12:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's crap. And whats this about the sun expanding to consume earth? --Starx 04:23, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure POV and propaganda. There could be an encyclopedic article on this, but this article isn't it and isn't likely to evolve into it. It's just a long pure POV assertion that there Pro-American sentiment exists, and I think it is intended to suggest that the amount outweights the anti. Dpbsmith 21:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV that cannot be saved - Tεx τ urε 02:51, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how there can be so much anti-American material here on Wikipedia, but heaven forfend there be anything good to say about the US. RickK 02:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RickK, if it was good, that might actually be another thing. But it is MacDonald's for the mind. Denni 07:29, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Delete. These kinds of debate forum articles (that means you too, Anti-American sentiment) just aren't useful to anyone. Nathan 09:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid article topic & title, methinks. ✏ Sverdrup 15:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring cast

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers cast
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King cast

This applies to the pages for the sequels as well: Obviously, a ton of work went into the tables, but the pages are only exact copies of the cast/crew lists on IMDb, and all the names are external links to the IMDb pages for those people. There's only a few active links to other Wikipedia pages (generally for the main cast members and character names), along with a lot of ghost links, but these can all generally be covered in the main articles for the films. If the article for each film simply has an external link to the IMDb crew list (they're already linked to the main IMDb pages for the films), precisely the same thing is accomplished. I also note that the list for the first film is over 150K, nearly 4 times what usually leads to splitting up a page - this would make it tough to edit, or to add to the areas which the creator of the page seems to want (such as quotes). I just think it's unnecessarily cumbersome. MisfitToys 00:34, May 22, 2004 (UTC) Correction: apparently very little work went into this; it's all just automatically generated from IMDb pages by a software program. Is there any rational reason for doing this? Or are we just duplicating pages of formatted data from other sites? MisfitToys 00:47, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Possible violation of IMDb's copyright on the data compilation. The page for the movie itself has all the notable credits on it already. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:33, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. Definitely delete. RickK 02:21, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While it's cool that there is a program that converts pages to a format suitable for posting on Wikipedia, I question the need to duplicate a page that already exists (as MisfitToys has suggested) and if this is allowed I would recommend to the writer of the program that he comes up with a format that is more pleasing to the eye. Large tables are not. Delete. tslack2000 06:57, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Probable copyright violation. I'll flag & list the pages as such. --Zigger 18:24, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

Delete. The formatting is utterly unsuccessful. Ugly, unreadable, screen-real-estate-wasting, bandwidth-wasting. Not appropriate for separate article (as opposed to cutting down to reasonable size and including in the article about the film). And probable copyright violation. archive.org has its hands full being a copy of the entire web, Wikipedia does not need to be a reformatted copy of the entire web. Dpbsmith 18:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say we already have a reasonable sized version of the credits in the article about the film. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:14, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  - Delete. I agree w/ Cyrius. blankfaze 23:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for copyvio and other reasons. There is no need to duplicate data that is easily accessible elsewhere on the web. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Facts are not copyrightable, and the use is the same as that of other lists of people. anthony (see warning) 21:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Son mex mpos

Delete. This is French, and it doesn't belong on the English version of Wikipedia. 66.245.107.192 00:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it was in French, it should go to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation. And it is not in French any more.Andris 04:55, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Fine and translated (from Spanish) now. - Hephaestos|§ 04:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Fine now. And, by the way, if material appears in a foreign language, it should be handled through Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, not here. -- Jmabel 18:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Cohn

More like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, and it also stinks of copyvio. DO'Neil 02:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Has been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems by Maximus Rex. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:50, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

VP3.2 Public License

Contains only the text of the licence. -- Jim Regan 05:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless rewritten to be a useful stub. We probably should have an article about this, but maybe this can be moved to Wikisource? Or we could have a link to a website, as this is not an OSI approved-license(because then we could link there). Burgundavia 07:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from [1]. No need for us to have the license text. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:29, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Albert III, Elector of Saxony

The text previous in this article was merged with Albert, Duke of Saxony since the person in question was duke and not elector, which is quite a difference. There is no one styled like this so there are no redirects to be made. As it is, its causing confusion in the already confusing successions of kings, grand dukes, dukes and electors of Saxony and its derivates. And, while we are at it, Albert III of Saxony, the redirect - again, there is no one named like this. MvHG 08:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirs. I don't see the harm in keeping redirs like this--if one person looked for a certain different form of the name, others likely will. Niteowlneils 13:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless redirects. (Just make sure they all redirect to the right title.) Rossami 03:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Hei!! Have you read what i said? There is not a single soul in History with this name. Redirecting an elector to a duke is about the same as Albert, King of Whatever to Albert President of Whatever. MvHG 10:35, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an harmless redirect to enhance my point of view: Henry IX Pumpnickel, Duke of Pupkewitz MvHG 10:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, redirects should be listed at WP:RFD. Secondly, if you read the deletion policy, you'll see that "merge and delete" is not a valid option as it destroys page history, so the merged page should be kept as a redirect. Finally, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, thanks. - Lee (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    - Instead of lecture me, try to read a history book and learn the diference between an elector and a duke. And before acusing me of disrupting wikipedia, which i take personal, go to my user page and calculate the percentage of disrupting articles amongst my contributions. That will keep you occupied for a while. MvHG 08:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now changed this to my best guesses about the appropriate redirects. Rossami 21:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is going to stay as a redirect, at least redirect it to an elector, not a duke. Thanks, MvHG 07:51, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pula (Romanian swearword)

Dictionary definition that's not even in English! -- Graham :) | Talk 12:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, a list of swearwords in a given foreign language and explanations of their correct and incorrect usage certainly strikes me as encyclopaedic. (Though I'm not going to attempt to write this one!) - David Gerard 12:34, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
- That may well be a good idea. We'd also want a list of words that have obscene or offensive overtones or slang meanings. Smerdis of Tlön 03:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that would be a list, not each individual word having its own article. We don't accept many dictionary definitions in English, so why have one in Rumanian just because it happens to be for a rude word? -- Graham :) | Talk 16:59, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pula (Romanian swearword) but keep it as a non-link in Pula disambiguation. - Tεxτurε 17:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Rossami 21:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Legislative Councel's opinion on gay marriage

This is another source text dump. I doubt Wikisource would want it. Guan aco 16:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was on VfD already. Transwiki if possible, but delete even if not. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:42, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
I know it's been here before--I remember the misspelling of "councel". Delete (transwiki optional). Niteowlneils 19:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It had been listen on the copyvio page for several months with no action. Texture removed the copyvio notice and restored the source text. Move to Wikisource and delete from here. If Wikisource doesn't want it, just delete it. It doesn't belong here. RickK 19:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my personal opinion, I can't see this belonging at Wikisource either (not important). Ambivalenthysteria 01:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mew glitch

This is a game guide entry. It can probably be fixed up and be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and deleted. Guan aco 17:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This goes along with Mirror Coat - it, and any other relevant Pokemon articles could be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and merged into one Pokemon strategy article, then deleted here. PMC 18:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikibooks Pokemon game guide keeps sounding like a good idea. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:01, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
I like the sound of that. 16:18, May 23, 2004
Delete. Unencyclopedic, but worthy of Wikibooks. The Wikipedia Pokémon Team has plans for a Pokémon section at Wikibooks, last time I checked. Some of it seems to be covered in Missingno.. kelvSYC 02:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]