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 Oliver Pereira (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 26 May 2003 (Keshavianistic Politics and Keshavianistic Oligarchy). 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

  • London Institute of Pataphysics - probably copyright infringement andy 12:03 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • No copyright infringement as published in the journal Situationniste Internationale a pioneer of anti-copright in the fifties and sixties. This translation comes from 'Smile' No. 7 1987. It should come as no surprise that those of us who have been exposed to situationist and neoist material should also enjoy developing the wikipedia project. I have moved the original entry to Pataphysical situation which is what it is about, rather than the L.I.P. Harry Potter
    • London Psychogeographical Association: Same contributor, but not much more than a list of links, which Wikipedia is not. -- John Owens 12:12 19 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Now it contains a little more text, which however seems to be copied from websites as well - at least part comes from [1]. And excuse my ignorance but I don't understand a word what that article is about. andy 12:58 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Add psychogeography and its psychogeographical redirect to the non-encyclopædic list. -- John Owens 18:52 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Pataphysical situation has exactly the same text. The text is obviously POV and is also hard to understand. Andre Engels 10:18 21 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Text has now been slightly altered. Yes the text could be improved. As for being hard to understand, what about octonions and other mathematical concepts? one of the joys of wikipedia is that you can discover Total depravity without being immersed in Calvinism. Now Total depravity is a Calvinist concept, a therefore any explanation would have to delve into Calvinism. And the people keen to do this are the Calvinist community on wikipedia. This has led to a number of pages being a bit POV (and you can read themselves to see how easy they are to understand). But this should not be an argument for deletion. No doubt someone will come and improve both Pataphysical situation and Total Depravity, for instance. Check the discussion on predestination for example. Perhaps it is best to be patient until then. Harry Potter
  • All the subpages of Internet humor which are pure source texts should be removed or replaced with external links to the content. In any case, the subpages must go. --Eloquence 00:09 20 May 2003 (UTC)

The following entries were posted here by Theresa knott on 20 May 2003 (UTC):

  • Admissions Essay
  • Classified ads
  • Girlfriend software
  • Goodtimes Virus Warning
  • Honor System Virus
    • "Apparently this actually fooled a lot of people into thinking they actually got a virus" If this statement is true then the page should be rewritten and kept
  • How Hot is it in Hell?
    • Letter from R Shambaugh starts"In many versions of this story, the correct course number and title are given (CHE 3123 -Heat, Mass,and Momentum Transfer -- yes, I do teach this course), " I vote the page shoud be kept because the story purports to be factual. This reply from the professor who is supposed to have set the exam question should therefore be kept.
  • How to measure the height of a building with a Barometer
  • Letter from the Smithsonian Institute
  • Lightbulb jokes
    • I'm not sure, It doesn't seem to have very much merit
    • I disagree. I have heard lightbulb jokes for years, but never understood that they were a worldwide phenonemon. I found it interesting to read.
  • Number of the beast
  • Standard Disclaimer
  • System Qual
  • You have two cows
  • George W. Bush lexicon
    • Of these, the only ones I see worth saving (and moving) are Goodtimes Virus Warning, Lightbulb jokes, and You have two cows (although those last two could be trimmed down). -- Minesweeper 11:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • I've indicated my thoughts above, but I would say that the contensts should be copied to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense rather than lost.
    • I disagree. I see no good reason to delete just about any of these. Better entries should be written, based off of the content (e.g. You have two cows), but they are all useful and interesting starting points. --The Cunctator 22:50 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • No, there's no reason to delete them, if you ignore our policies on source texts and subpages. However, since these policies are established, any argument that ignores them without successfully changing the policies first is null and void. --Eloquence 23:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • The What Wikipedia is not guidelines are just that: guidelines, subordinate to the goal of creating a good, complete, and consistent encyclopedia. They are not gospel (like the principles of neutrality, self-identification as an encyclopedia, and open content are). Thus individual cases should be viewed within that context. What purpose does having these entries serve? In the case of the Internet humor pages, they are distinguished primarily by the fact that this is an area of knowledge in which traditional paper encyclopedias are particularly deficient. Although Wikipedia should not be a repository of source documents, Wikipedians should not feel constrained by ex cathedra laws to use their judgment to determine the degree that including source material is useful and necessary. Wikipedia is a living document, and the guidelines are meant to reflect best practices as much as they are to shape them. --The Cunctator 23:19 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • The guidelines are not subordinate to the goal, they are a reflection thereof. They have been formulated and agreed upon with the specific idea that following these guidelines will improve our encyclopedia. Without justification calling into question these principles for each individual case is not only counter-productive, it is also annoying. If we are to make an exception to any individual rule, such an exception needs to be well qualified, and the qualification itself should then become part of our guidelines. For the case at hand, there is no particular reason to ignore or amend our established policies. It is true that Wikipedia knows more about Internet humor than the Britannica; it also knows more about Linux, yet we do not import the entire set of Linux HOWTOs, arguably much more factual information and readily available under compatible licenses. We do not even import relevant political speeches or essays. Why have we formed this policy? Simply because an openly editable encyclopedia is not particularly useful for mirroring static content, where authenticity is of very high importance. This is also the case for these humor articles, because if the source texts are collaboratively edited we diverge from the goal of documenting what is known to the separate goal of creating new "knowledge", which is not what an encyclopedia is meant to do. I am a supporter of the Sourceberg idea (though I dislike the name), but Wikipedia is not such a source repository. If we don't store crucial political texts or literary works that are freely available, the rationale for including George W. Bush jokes and chain letters is much weaker still. Your argument thus has no merit whatsoever. --Eloquence 23:39 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with Minesweepers assesment, though George W. Bush lexicon looks like it could be remade into "Texas Slang" or something similar. -- Infrogmation 06:39 23 May 2003 (UTC)


  • Dawn of man - vague and confused stuff on evolution, non-encyclopedic, blanked. Kosebamse 20:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Rolf Josef Eibicht - blanked by John Owens, was a German non-encyclopedic article (political pamphlete) before -- JeLuF 21:38 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • The more I look at it (which hasn't been much yet), the less it looks worth keeping. -- John Owens 11:03 21 May 2003 (UTC)

- - *Educational issues - Lists some supposed "educational issues" in the united states. Except the temporary problem of US-only coverage, I don't think a concensus can be built about this kind of topic. For example, if I think X is an issue and you think Y is an issue, what would we do, write "Some people think big classes is an issue", "30 persons think not having a pool in each school is an issue", "5 people think schools are themselves useless" etc. etc. Focusing in an academic treatment of different teaching methods, or concentrating on controversial issues regarding education (as in the evolution example) sounds more encyclopedic than these newspaper-style contemporary-ministery-of-education-politics treatments, a more academic view is needed with another name -- Rotem Dan 02:05 21 May 2003 (UTC) - :It was merged to education now. -- Taku 13:50 21 May 2003 (UTC) - ::'kay -- Rotem Dan 15:12 21 May 2003 (UTC)

  • Image:Roken1.jpg - can someone see if this orphaned image has any reason to stay? -- Minesweeper 08:00 21 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Quite the contrary, it looks like it only contains filthy sentences (e.g. you can find "anal sex" or "blowjob"), someone speaking dutch can tell more, I can only guess from the similarity with german. 100% agree to remove it. andy 08:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)
      • It is a number of mostly pro-smoking statements. I assume it is used as a reaction to a law last year that every cigarette package should have some large text warning of the dangers of smoking. I see no reason to keep it. Andre Engels 09:44 21 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Okay, so does this count as random junk that can be deleted without waiting a week? -- Oliver P. 11:21 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Ov10cdf.jpg: 12.81.64.208 is complaining rather loudly, alleging that this picture from User:Ray Van De Walker is copyrighted and used without permission. Ray looks to be the sort who only pops in here once every couple of weeks, so I don't know if he'll be back soon enough to vouch for it. The alleger seems to think that the picture is © Doug F. Smith & http://www.DSXPRODUCTIONS.com/, which is a company that seems to produce entirely automotive show video, for what it's worth. -- John Owens 11:17 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • A. P. Mathur - is this person significant? Kingturtle 18:13 22 May 2003 (UTC)
    • The name gets 527 hits on Google [2]. He seems to have written a number of books. -- Infrogmation 06:40 23 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Atlas Shrugged/Section181 - there used to be a lot more articles on Atlas Shrugged, they have now been brought down to 12 main articles, the rest having been deleted or redirected. This one seems to have been forgotten. Andre Engels 20:08 22 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Assassins' Guild - a club that plays a game called Killer. It's a small club, probably made up of high school or college kids. The game they play could use an entry, but the club doesn't deserve one. There are probably dozens of clubs with the same name around the world. --Frecklefoot 22:35 22 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This will never become anywhere close to an article. --Menchi 13:13 24 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Quantum Neutrino Field This is a complete nonsense page Stupidmoron 01:43 23 May 2003 (UTC)
    • "Quantum Neutrino Field" gets exactly 1 Google hit: a page called A Gamma World Hell Hole: Chapter 24. It's a role-playing game. "Farsnworth effect" gets zero hits. Barely even worth waiting 7 days to detete this one, but I guess we might as well. I've blanked it. Tannin 01:58 23 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Of course there is a quantum field theory of neutrinos (e.g. [3]), but this isn't it. -- Tim Starling 03:12 23 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Yukar - possible copyvio. Author gave the vague assurance that the original source didn't mention copyright. This is hardly the same as permission. Evercat 02:27 23 May 2003 (UTC)
  • TextOut is a Windows API function. It is currently far less than a stub (it doesn't even say what the function does) and there are no other Windows API function articles. It has been vandalised and blank for most of it's history. CGS 14:56 23 May 2003 (UTC).
  • Casting drama
    • In order to cast drama is important to know how many roles are in a play. That seems to be a howto and not an encyclopeic article. -- JeLuF 20:54 23 May 2003 (UTC)
    • There are other howtos but this one seems particularly useless. It really doesn't explain anything, and I don't understand it at all. Seconded. Evercat 20:57 23 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Where is all this how to crap coming from? D-E-L-E-T-E. FearÉÍREANN 06:16 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Dana International - was a list of romanian prime ministers. so i created Prime ministers of Romania. does anyone know why someone would post such a list for a dana international article? Would anyone like to write a decent article about Dana International, an Israeli, cross-dressing, pop singer? Kingturtle 20:48 24 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Actually she is an Israeli transsexual ex-soldier who won the Eurovision Song Contes and who named herself after an Irish Eurovision winner turned conservative Catholic politician and friend of the Pope! :-) (that's the Irish politician who is the friend of the pope, now, not the Israeli transexual ex-soldier. Or maybe she is?) FearÉÍREANN 06:16 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • User_talk:Dewlaylomo
  • User:Dewlaylomo
  • User_talk:Dewlaylomo/ban
    • Originally deleted with comment (Offensive user name, mostly vandal). I disagree with deletion, because we should have some record of why a user has been banned, etc. Please discuss :) Martin 18:32 25 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it :-) Anthere
      • Please clarify which you're seconding? This is the "Votes for deletion" page, after all, not "Votes for undeletion". For my part, I'd say keep it for the reason given above. -- John Owens 20:41 25 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Apology, I was not clear. Ant
  • Right Back
    • Originally deleted with comment (Michael). Content is accurate and has been verified by two other Wikipedians. See Talk:Right Back for discussion. Martin 18:32 25 May 2003 (UTC)
    • So what? It was created by Michael, and as such, is de facto to be deleted. If you want to recreate it under your own name, please be my guest. -- Zoe
      • Some wikipedians disagree with the de facto. I think what is important is the content of the edit, not the name of the editor. A good edit is a "good" edit, even made by a "bad" author. If you disagree with an article for whatever reasons, would you please list it in that page, for the content to be considered by other wikipedians, rather than deleting it without it being through the proper process of community decision making ? Thanks User:anthere
      • Wouldn't recreating it under my own name be plagiarism? Martin 17:57 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • The Theo Wade Brown article was made about a month after he died. Google only picks up one hit on his name.....and that one hit is Theo Wade Brown. If Theo is significant, the article needs to explain how and why. Otherwise, it should be considered for deletion. Kingturtle 03:59 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:843-870 Europe.jpg -- map which appears to be from a textbook or encyclopedia, being a direct competitor this almost certainly cannot be called "fair use". Source not cited. Uploaded by DW last year. --Brion 05:24 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:ClovisDomain.jpg -- more of the same. Uploaded by "Triton" recently. --Brion 20:21 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • "Mary Kay Letourneau ? Just a bunch of links. I'm not even sure this person should be in Wikipedia at all. Is anyone going to want to look her up in 50 years?" typed by Pandora 20:09 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC) on the pages that need attention page'.....Nothing has been done at all to help this page. It should be deleted Kingturtle 06:09 26 May 2003 (UTC)


  • James Anthony was marked as a copyright violation long ago, but seems to have slipped through the cracks until now. -- John Owens 14:17 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=965680"