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 Zoe (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 16 March 2003 (Qaraxanlik Federation). 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 an administrator can find them and check whether or not they should be deleted.

Please review Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages before adding to this page. If the page should be deleted, an admin 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.

As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.

In many cases, a page does not need to be deleted. In particular, do not add page titles of stubs that at least have a decent definition and might in the future become articles. There's no reason to delete those (see Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub). Also, please don't list pages that can easily and sensibly be redirected to another page. E.g., a page called Hume can be redirected to David Hume; presidant (a misspelling) can be redirected to president; etc. Even misspellings can be caught by search engines and provide Wikipedia perfectly relevant traffic! Similarly, pages in the wrong namespace (for example, user pages in the main namespace), can be redirected and should not be deleted if there are still old links to them.

Please sign any suggestion for deletion (use four tildes, ~~~~, to sign with your user name and the current date).

If you wish to delete subpages in your own user space, use Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted

NOTE to Wiki Administrators: Simply deleting a page does not automatically delete its talk page or any subpages. Please delete these pages first, and then the main page. Also, if you delete a page, remove it from this list as well.

If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item.


See also:

Note: people misunderstand the difference between tribute pages and Wikipedia pages. The tribute pages are where people can put in personal comments. The Wikipedia pages are for biographical content.--The Cunctator

(among others) If we're going to allow stuff like this, we may as well go the whole hog and import electoral registers directly into the 'pedia. - Khendon 12:15 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I Agree - the S11 victim stuff is tasteless and pointless
These entries have more information and detail than exist in electoral registers. --The Cunctator
They are neither tasteless nor pointless, but they are not encyclopedic. They should be transferred to http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ before being deleted here. The Anome 12:47 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
I think it might be considered tasteless in that we don't highlight the victims of other terrorist incidents, the bomb in Bali springs to mind, or perhaps a different kind of incident on a similar scale the victims of the Titanic disaster, unless noteworthy for other reasons. Mintguy
Who's "we"? There's nothing stopping you from writing up such entries on the victims of the Titanic disaster, or the bomb in Bali springs. This is a specious argument.--The Cunctator
There is a much more complete listing of people who might need to be moved here: Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Memorial wiki pages Martin
  • Bush League, Dubya Dubya Three, Bush Knew, October Surprise
    • dubious contributions of a banned ex-user The Anome 07:26 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
      • Bush League: Don't care who started it( besides, the 142 IP address is ambiguous), others have contributed, it is linked to, it is a used term. It should stay. October Surprise: Valid article about a book, should stay. Bush Knew - unneeded redirect, can be deleted. Dubya Dubya Three: more a slang article, content should be moved to one of the Bush criticism articles. I am strongly opposed to deleting articles because the authors are banned, that is not a valid argument. If our bans are ineffective, that is another matter, but valid content should stay. --Eloquence 09:17 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
It is poorly written paranoid rubbish that would hardly get into your average tabloid, let alone a serious encyclopædia. (PS, I hate Bush so I find myself squirming having to defend him, but this stuff is pure conspiracy-theory nutsville stuff)


  • Dinah Webster
    • zero content article; Text of article "This article was moved to m:Dinah Webster". Text of meta-article "A victim of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack". Martin
  • Oomoto
    • possibly a copyright violation. please see the talk page. Tomos 04:24 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Ben Hajioff
    • Phew, that was close! I've been a sysop for less than 24 hours, and I just caught myself within one mouse-click of violating Wikipedia policy!!! ("As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.") Ben Hajioff is a redirect which leads out of the main article space, and therefore should not be in the article space itself. But since I was the one to bring the matter up, please could someone else delete it? You may think I'm being absurdly over-cautious here, but hey, it's the thin end of the wedge. You know what they say about the effect of power... :) -- Oliver P. 02:39 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • EucliD
    • I did not post this one here. Should not be deleted. olivier 00:31 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that was me. Euclid is valuable; do we need the CamelCase EucliD, with no links to it? Catherine
      • Yes. See at the very top of this page. -- JeLuF 14:29 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Thumbscrew
    • empty, after nonsense was removed. olivier 00:28 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • I fleshed it out a bit. Should be a respectable stub now. 192.150.186.102 02:25 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • List of songs where the title does not appear in the lyrics (and related)
    • This is Everything2ish. While it might be fun, it's trivia and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Also, these lists will necessarily become overwhelmingly long when it's more than the pet bands of a few contributors; if people started adding in all of the songs from many different musical genres and locations. It's not like these songs are a rare occurence, anyway. DanKeshet 21:28 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • Who says trivia has no place in an encyclopedia, and who are you proposing should be the judege of what's trivial and what isn't? If you just have a look at the edit history of this article, you will see that a great many Wikipedians consider this a very interesting topic. Mkweise 21:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm going by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #11: "List repository of loosely associated topics". As for who should be the judge, I'm not going to propose any new decision-making policy; I followed normal procedures and put it on votes for deletion for discussion. As for the fact that many people find it interesting, that is not and has never been one of the criteria for whether something stays in Wikipedia. Many people on Wikipedia find long, drawn-out debates interesting, but we try to discourage that stuff anyway, because this is an encyclopedia and not a debate forum. DanKeshet 22:08 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not - do not delete this list. It has seen ample contributors and is as suitable for an encylopedia as any other "list of" article.
    • I agree that this should be deleted. The moment I saw this article I burst out laughing. Some lists are useful but this is one step too far. It is irrelevant trivia that hardly belongs in an encyclopædia but some music magazine. What next? A list of left-handed rock stars? People with six toes? World leaders who dye their hair? JtdIrL 21:45 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • I see nothing wrong with the article. Im sure Jtdirl and Stevertigo-Zoe will soon reach a consensus. Susan Mason
  • List of people with six toes please delete. This list garbage is getting childish and ridiculous. JtdIrL 22:16 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • This is an excellent list. It should not be deleted. Susan Mason
    • Surprise, surprise, Sue approves!
    • It may be a new and undeveloped page, but how is it ridiculous? After a few revisions and edits it could turn into the heart of a new article on polydactlism. If nothing else, a list like this could help some poor teenager who is struggling with their six toes understand that it is "ok" and give them role models.
      • If it is written as a serious article on polydactlism, using serious sources, with credible evidence, keep it, but if like so many lists it is just a mixum-gatherum of names put in for the fun of it, then bin it. This isn't a scribble board for messing on, it is supposed to be a serious encyclopædia. JtdIrL
    • Keep this list. Its fascinating to know which famous people could count beyond 20. Gaz 02:44 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)~
    • Maybe Jtdirl doesn't like people with 6 toes? What serious article on polydactlism would not include a list of people with 6 toes on one foot?Susan Mason
    • I am sorry you do not like the wikipedia. You should remember that this is a work in progress. If you would like to contribute, feel free to add to the article regarding famous people with 6 toes. Susan Mason
    • Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I said, Sue. I love the wiki. I just hate seeing it making a laughing stock of itself with some people's play-acting. A serious article would contain a list. A joke of an article would just be a list with no content, explanation, etc. What we have here is a joke article, made up of a list of four names, offering no explanation, no evidence, nothing but four names, one spelt incorrectly (which I fixed). Some article. JtdIrL 05:27 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • While you've all been bickering, I've made a start on polydactyly. :) Please check it; I haven't studied biology formally since GCSE... Anyway, I think a waffly article and a straightforward list can easily co-exist, each linking to the other and providing complementary information. -- Oliver P. 06:47 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Table of Derivatives and Indefinite Integrals orphan, title violates capitalization guidelines. Misleadinging redirects to Table of integrals, which, though it does have indefinite integrals, has no derivatives and has some definite integrals, too. Eric119 23:37 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • How does it 'violate capitalisation guidelines' given that correctly in a title it treats the words 'Derivatives' and 'Indefinite Integrals' as proper nouns? Proper nouns in wiki are given capitals in titles. JtdIrL
      • Neither 'derivative' nor 'indefinite integral' is a proper noun. Eric119 05:24 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • It depends on context of usage. In some contexts, in particular when used in titles, they are capitalised, particularly in some European textbooks when used as definitions.
  • User:JCWF This was my old userpage, that I thought had been deleted
  • User:Jcwf2 This is the one I have recently created. I do not wish to participate any longer. The reason is that wikipedia does not legally exist, which means that all liability for any possible breaches of copy rights lie with us all personally. Without any legal protection from a legally registered organization I deem that irresponsible.
If you are not breaking the law then why is this an issue? What does "legally registered" supposed to mean anyway? We will be a non-profit soon and until then we are owned by Jimbo Wales. --mav
I suppose the fear is that someone inadvertently might download something they understood' was available, then find it wasn't and find themselves personally in legal difficulties. JtdIrL 02:56 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)


  • Nucular
    • pointless
    • Don't know who included this, but I agree with them. - Zoe
    • Also don't know who included this, but I do not agree with them. - Hephaestos
    • A superb page. Susan Mason
    • Don't think it should be in wiki -- SGB
    • I found this article quite informative. Knew about Homer Simpson saying nucular all the time, but never really got the joke prior to reading this -- JeLuF
    • I first heard about this factoid from a science teacher in high school over 25 years ago (in re Eisenhower). And as it reads at this moment, I feel it is NPOV. Like it or hate it, for many how one pronounces "nuclear" is considered a shibboleth that determines whether one is educated or not. -- llywrch 21:01 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • List of books without an article in the title
    • There are far too many such books to make a comprehensive list at all useful or even interesting. In order to have trivia value, a list of special cases in a category needs to be limited, such that the "average reader" wouldn't be able to think of more than a handfull without wracking his brain. Mkweise 21:13 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Blame Ed Poor. A look (a few pages back) at his user contributions shows creation of some lovely lists, including a list of literary characters with nine fingers. -- ヤギ
Discussion shortened
Every single one of the episode pages is a possible copyright infringement, the text being identical to text at TV Tome.
  • List of words commonly mispronounced
    • Irredeemably POV. Salvageable contents should be transferred to List of words of disputed pronunciation. -- Oliver P. 09:11 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • There no reason to claim that this list is "irredeemably POV". OK, it's yet another list of fairly trival stuff, but it has interest and already contains useful information. If not forced to waste time constantly defending themselves against destructive edits, the peope who are interested in this stuff could do something good with this page. Tannin 09:21 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • OK, but how do you resolve differences in pronunciation between different countries? American English speakers may well pronounce minute(adjective) as my-noot, but no British English speaker would. The response "ah, but that's because they mispronounce it" seems to miss the point slightly. Merriam-Webster gives the pronunciation as either mI-'nüt or mI-'nyüt. The word 'mispronounced' cannot be NPOV unless compared against some standard. It can then only be used relative to this standard, e.g. Words that are commonly mispronounced with respect to their formal pronunciation as given in OED, or Merriam-Webster, etc etc etc. Which just turns it into a dictionary war. cferrero 13:08 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to me that if either Merriam-Webster or OED list a particular variant, then that variant must be regarded as one of the correct ones. (It might not be correct in both UK & International English, but if it's correct in either one then it's a valid variant usage.) If it's not listed in OED or Merriam-Webster or Macquarie, then it just about has to be incorrect. My feeling is that any word consistently pronounced in a way that none of the major dictionaries recommend has got to be an interesting one! -- Tannin
      • The very word "mispronunciation" means "pronunciation that is wrong". That is, in itself, a point of view. "Disputed" is simply a NPOV way of saying the same thing. List of words of disputed pronunciation was intended as a NPOVisation of the title of the page, not as a separate article. Any material at List of words commonly mispronounced is valid material for List of words of disputed pronunciation. There is no need for two pages. -- Oliver Pereira 04:06 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
      • It is, in that case Oliver, POV to claim that (e.g.) pronouncing "aircraft" as "fish" is not wrong - that is what your nonsensical argument claims. However, it seems that no-one is interested in working on the page (I've never had much interest in it), and since Zoe's hacks (dishonestly marked "minor") it is useless as it stands. Might as well delete it. Tannin
  • Rodcet Nife
    • Possible copyright violation. --mav 09:25 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Chump
    • not encyclopedic material: "chump" is a slang term, not a specific concept. -- Tarquin 15:43 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • Virginity pledge
    • Only history is a POV screed Tuf-Kat
    • It has been rewritten by MyRedDice and is an exemplary example of how to write an NPOV stub. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:34 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Albertanism
    • The material on this page is idiosyncratic, and not encyclopedic. The only references to the term "Albertanism" are on Jacher's own sites and newsgroup, to which Jacher is the major poster: the rest is only spam. Keeping this article only feeds Jacher's vanity by drawing traffic to his website, as shown by his delighted response on the talk page. Whatever Wikipedia is, it is not a vanity webhosting site or link farm. -- Anon.
    • See my response to this on Talk:Albertanism -- Tim Starling 08:46 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • I give up. Danny's right - let's get on with the real work. -- Tim Starling 12:19 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Concur with Anon. This article is about as encyclopedic as 'Joe Random's Lint Collection'. Salsa Shark 08:56 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Tannin 09:05 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • I concur with Tim Starling. A trivial subject, but Wikipedia is not paper, so we can theoretically cover all sorts of trivial subjects, as long as we do so in a neutral way and don't make unverifiable claims about them. -- Oliver P. 10:36 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • Ψ
    • I don't even know what the title is. --Lorenzarius 16:40 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • injoke - dumb redirect created by some idiot
  • AIDS Kills Fags Dead
    • This article was initially created by me and has since been moved elsewhere. I now consider the title to be in bad taste since it shows up when people search for "AIDS" and it's not clear from the title that the article discusses the slogan and not the thesis. I would therefore like to delete this redirect page. AxelBoldt 00:08 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • American Metric Standard - according to Mintguy there ain't no such thing, just some solitary individual with too much time on his hands to put a ficticious item on wikipedia that he alone in the planet believes in. Though until you examine it, it actually looks 'serious'. And Metric Time may be similarly dodgy. (Mintguy's info is one the American Metric Standard talk page). Delete quickly this unfortunate soul wears himself out adding to these pages on the hour, every hour. (Every friggin' hour!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:55 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=751357"