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 Kosebamse (talk | contribs) at 09:47, 9 May 2003 (battle of warsaw). 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 one of the Wikipedia:Administrators can find them and check whether or not they should be deleted. Please review our policy on permanent deletion before adding to this 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 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.

Don't list here...

  • 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
  • pages that need editing - see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • subpages in your own user space, use Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted

Note to admins

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

Please put new items at the bottom of the page

  • Pittsburgh Locomotive And Car Works
    • possible copyright infringement, even though it's taken from the Smithsonian. And whether or not it's a copyright violation, it was certainly carelessly pasted. -- John Owens 23:41 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • Transcendental idealism
    • It said "Copywright©(sic) 2001 Alex Scott" right on the page. Obviously not new content written for the purpose, then, and merely added with non-GFDL conditions. -- John Owens 23:50 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • Thats how a nigger goes -- by banned user/racist troll User:Zog. It now redirects to Johnny Rebel, which I don't particularly object to; however I'd still like it deleted for the following reasons, mostly in the old versions in the edit history: 1)Zog's is deleberately racially insulting 2)It quotes in full the lyrics of a song by Johnny Rebel; as the Johnny Rebel article notes the copyright holder apparently doesn't like unauthorized copies on the web 3)It is mis-titled; "Thats" should have an apostrophy; capitalization is wrong for a song title. I think unlikely to be a usefull redirect, but if anyone feels strongly it should stay a redirect, perhaps we could delete the article to get rid of the potentially troublesome history and then recreate it as a simple redirect. -- Infrogmation 05:15 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • While I understand the motives, we don't normally take care to strip copyrighted material out of the history, and I don't want to set a precedent that we do. Martin 08:01 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • See meta:Wikipedia_and_copyright_issues for some legal arguments for permitting copyrighted text to stay in the history. Martin 13:04 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • To my knowledge, before this no-one has ever suggested we need to remove copyright material from history. I suspect that the Infrogmation's main reason for listing it is not the copyright or the naming issue, it's the offensive nature of the text. What if the next we hear about this text is when some white-supremacist magazine publishes "check out http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Thats_how_a_nigger_goes&oldid=xxx for the full text of Johnny Rebel's song", and another part of the media uses this to sully Wikipedia's reputation? -- Tim Starling 13:44 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • You could say the same about 1000s of other articles that have dodgy stuff in their histories. What makes this one special? Martin 14:38 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I find the banned user's contribution here offensive-- intentionally so. I also think that even as a redirect it's pretty useless. However I was not trying to propose any change policy. That said, I'm curious to know if there are any particular arguements why keeping that history is a positive thing-- perhaps as doccumentation of the banned user? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 20:51 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
  • Robert Lee Miller - not only an obvious attempt at self-puffery, but an extreme example of too much linkage. -- Zoe
    • BethpageHillBrier - an adjunct of Robert Lee Miller. -- Zoe
      • More pieces to the puzzle:
        • If this company is as large as it's claims, surely a simple Google search will turn up something, right? Well, not really ... also note that bhb.net has no information on it and is currently registered to "Midtown Consulting" out of New York, NY.
        • There is no mention of a "Brittany Miller" at either the physics or math faculty listings at UNC-Chapel Hill. Note that "Robert Miller" is not listed on the computer science faculty page, which presumably is where he would be.
        • "BethSpeak" turned up two measly Google "results" ... if they can be called that.
          • --TimmyD 08:02 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
      • Permanent deletion. --Menchi 02:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Take a look at the self-proclaimed "official web site", http://www.bhb.net/ , that should wrap things up. -- John Owens 06:01 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • BreeLynne
    • More of the same as above. Hephaestos 23:56 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Robert Miller - see above. Evercat 00:00 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Breanna NC
    • Adding to the collection. - Hephaestos 03:40 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Now at Breanna, North Carolina, and not quite as bad and useless as the rest. -- John Owens 03:46 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Breanna, North Carolina - a creation by user 12.65.79.206, the same person who wrote the fiction at BethpageHillBrier, Robert Miller and BreeLynne. A Google search finds no such place as Breanna, North Carolina. -- Zoe
      • It is also word-for-word from [[1]], the only place that I can find in Google that even mentions a "Southeastern Baseball League Hall of Fame". -- Zoe
    • Except that it's fictional. (There's a Bethany, North Carolina, but it rates a separate article) Hephaestos 07:26 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • I did find one single reference to a "Breanna South Caldwell High School" in NC. That's not exactly what I'd call conclusive, though. -- John Owens 07:35 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
        • Oops, I misread that, it was "Hamby, Breanna" of "South Caldwell", run together so it looked like "Hamby" of "Breanna South Caldwell". Ah, the joys of Google. :p -- John Owens 07:40 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

AntonioMartin

  • Bush regime - a simple definition of an uncommon phrase that seems to only exist as a partisan swipe. Certainly doesn't deserve its own page. J.J. 10:18 May 3, 2003
  • If you don't think it's balanced, then you should edit it. --The Cunctator
  • Juan Maria Solare - Self advertisement? -- Zoe
    • It's pretty badly written, and some of the content is copyright questionable, but if you give me a day or two I'll give it a rewrite. --Camembert 12:38 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • Juan Maria Solare: List of works - possible copyright infringement --Camembert 12:38 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Of course is MY material, I spent hours making the formatting and now you delete it? I do not find it very kind. There are enough ways of contacting me, why didn't you contact me before erasing? BTW Camembert: than you for the flowers, try to write in Spanish first and then we compare results, OK? Juan Solare. Ah! And why was my user name (Eralos) also deleted?
      • I'm sure your English is better than my Spanish. Apologies for any offence caused. I've restored the works page. --Camembert 16:52 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • Observing - I don't know how to qualify this: even less than a stub? -- Looxix 21:36 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • A google search for Aravind Aluri retrieves nada. Kingturtle 03:09 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Clearly self-puffery. --Menchi 02:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Ian Penman
    • It's a point-of-view smorgasbord, and I'm not sure there's really any info to use. Tuf-Kat
  • List of artists - Has anyone heard of any of these people? They seem to be from some Slavic country. If we should desire to keep it, shouldn't it be renamed to List of artists from X (whatever country they're from). -- Zoe
I googled 5 of them; Slovenian. -- Infrogmation 00:43 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Aberavon Constituency - this consists purely of two tables representing the results for this parliamentary constituency at the last two general elections. I've listed further objections to it on the talk page. Deb 20:44 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • Are We Get Restless, Martin Wright and Laura Norder of importance? IMHO I'd say, delete them. Kingturtle 22:04 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • 1) Delete. Name of an exhibition?? What, Is they modern da Vincis who have only two exhibitions in 4 centuries? --Menchi 02:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • I can't ascertain the importance of Martin Wright and Laura Norder:
      • 2) Martin Wright is a really common name, of many many people.
      • 3) Laura Norder happens to be also what Margaret Thatcher pronounces "law and order."
    • --Menchi 02:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Purple Rain would be as easily rewritten from scratch as fixed from its current state, plus it would need disambiguation between the album and the movie/film andyway. -- John Owens 22:55 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • Getting There: I think it's talking about a movie? If so, extremely POV and content-free. -- John Owens 23:12 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • Patrick Herron read like a press released. I wikified it. But I don't know if Herron is a significant poet. Kingturtle 02:06 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Patrick Herron looks like a vanity page and has hardly any content. --Nate 06:46 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • Sankaraabharanam needs to be either extremely reworked or deleted. It's a bit hard to follow at the moment, to say the least. -- John Owens 06:59 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Big job to re-write. Someone ought to .... but ... It certainly can't stay in its current form Tannin
  • How to get rich - nonencyclopedic. -- Zoe
    • Let's move it to Meta-Wikipedia instead. --KF 04:19 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • I object -- Taku 14:01 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Zoe. Many editors have wasted time trying to make it better, but it's still rubbish. What on Earth could we put here other than a random collection of editorial opinions? Plus there's an anonymous contributor hanging around, resisting any attempt to fashion it into an encyclopedic article. -- Tim Starling 00:59 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Sangoma: stubby and POV, only makes a single point about them (happens to relate to the only page that links to it). More info, or delete. -- John Owens 04:53 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • Balanced scorecard is nought but an external link to balancedscorecard.com, and a link to scorecard, which is itself only a link to the Spanish language page for scorecard. I think they can both go. -- John Owens 23:04 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • Tipperary Hill: copyright violation, it says so right on the page, "© 2001 David W. Bishop" -- John Owens 23:33 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • Daniel Evans: very non-encyclopædic, and I'd guess that not a lot of people other than that one contributor know much to write about him. -- John Owens 23:53 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. A self-puffery at its extreme. --Menchi 02:21 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Ah hah, a look at Aneska makes things much clearer. Note the User:Sam Francis link. -- John Owens 05:49 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Isn't this favourtism? Allowing small bands whose members are Wikipedians to have an article? --Menchi 20:17 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
        • Mind me, I certainly did not mean that that justified it, just that it explains it. -- John Owens 20:32 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • If anything, it should be a user page (assuming it's an auto-biograpghy). --Menchi 20:36 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
  • Prime Minister of the United States: pages for things that don't exist create a special sort of problem for Wikipedia, since the very existence of an article implies that the subject has some importance outside of the mind of the person who created it. Once created they are rarely deleted, but I'd like to suggest that this is an article you would never find in a printed encyclopedia, and one we'd be better off without. -- Someone else 04:23 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • I am finding some interesting new items while trying to fix this article. Let me struggle with it for a night and see what happens. Kingturtle 04:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC) P.S. I disagree that a printed encyclopedia should be our barometer.
    • It's already a very interesting article! Double-quoting "Prime Minister" would make for a bit less puzzling title, but a Wikipedia strength is that not all articles are dry-as-dust recitations. BTW, it reminds me that I once read an interview with the descendant of the might-have-been King of the United States (Founding Fathers apparently shopped around a bit before deciding to stick with just a President.) Stan 03:47 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
  • I'm not at all sure about this, but I suspect People's Temple, Jim Jones, and Jonestown of being machine translations, and therefore likely copyright violations. About all I base this on is that I repeatedly had to correct "were" to "was" in the articles when speaking of Jones, as if the translator assumed it was plural because it ends in an 's'. Of course, most other languages won't use 's' for plural, so given the subject, I'd suspect Spanish or Portuguese; but then again, machine translators aren't necessarily completely logical. I don't know either of those languages, so I can't try to track it down very well myself, though. -- John Owens 05:34 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'd say keep them. Could have been a machine translation, or it could have been a non-native speaker who doesn't know/remember the correct conjugation of the verb "to be". Martin
      • I'm still not saying I'm sure one way or the other, but "was" was used correctly elsewhere, and "he" was used to refer to Jones, so the writer wasn't under the impression that "Jones" was plural. -- John Owens 20:29 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, the originals had spelling mistakes, and machine translators don't make spelling mistakes. I guess someone could have deliberately added spelling mistakes to hide the machine translation, but that starts to become a conspiracy theory, doesn't it? Martin
  • Orchidometer content "nutz ruler" jimfbleak 06:04 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • "An orchidometer is a medical instrument used to measure the size of the testicles." - Will it do now? :) -- Oliver P. 06:10 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=904759"