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 Kingturtle (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 31 May 2003 (+Michalis Frangos). 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)
      • why are u moving 'psychogeography'? this is a serious discipline with practitioners and theorists all over the world!!!! these are new articles that are just taking shape as we speak and already they are going to be deleted! what's going on ????
    • 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
    • I think these pages should be retained. Of course they are gibberish, but they are notable gibberish. GrahamN 14:12 27 May 2003 (UTC) (Anti-Deletionist Tendency)
      • Probably (no, make that certainly) this subject should be covered in wikipedia. I think the only reasonable ground for deletion would be that no amount of npoving or annotation starting from the text as it now stands could make these articles informative. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 15:07 27 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Pataphysics (and, apparently, all things associated therewith) are absurdist jokes. An encyclopedia might have articles on absurdist jokes, but they should be ABOUT the joke, they should not BE jokes. Any article which might lead a reader to take the joke seriously is seriously misleading and does not belong in an encyclopedia, so if these are not rewritten to be about pataphysics instead of an example of it, they need deletion. -- Someone else 15:10 27 May 2003 (UTC)
        • This last suggestion is seriously POV. It is possible to describe pataphysics as a Ludibrium, i.e. a serious joke. Thus any attempt to dismiss pataphysics as an absurdist joke would equally be seriously misleading. I also find Someone else suggestion that they should be deleted if they are not rewritten seriously flawed. Most wiki pages are less than perfect so why not abandon the project except for one entry wikipedia: a nice idea but impossible to realise. I feel this so-called 'serious' line of 'reasoning' leads nowhere. Scrap the entry on Rosicrucianism because certain people see it as a joke!!! There also pages and pages given over christianity, and indeed many people may take this seriously, although others see it as a joke. Likewise those of us who consider Plato's Republic as a satire might get cross that this understanding is not mentioned on that page. But surely then it is up to us to negotiate with those people who have considered the text as being of sufficient importance as to post it to organise a consensual solution, not just demand that it should be deleted because it does not make clear that the whole thing is probably a big joke!!!.C'mon, let's get serious now! Harry Potter
          • Yes. Let's. -- Someone else 01:30 29 May 2003 (UTC)
          • i agree, and will be seriously upset if either pataphysics or psychogeography are removed. this is not funny!!! these are new articles and already being deleted before they are even complete! if u have something to add, then please add it, do not delete just because u do not understand!!!
          • Harry Potter is a wizard of gibberish. Delete. Also I think some of his other contributions (e.g. The Foundry , read up on Anthony Hancock elsewhere if you need to) may be beyond repair. Pcb21 19:03 29 May 2003 (UTC)
            • HP did not start the Foundry entry, s/he has only contributed once, so to attribute the entry to HP is misleading in the least, if you have some personal problem with HP then please sort it out with him/her instead of messing with other people's contributions! (NOTE : Paragraph written by User:Qqq )
                • Sorry Qqq, I got a little confused. The line that HP added to the Foundry article was to an article Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition which is deliberately misleading, i.e. claims Anthony Hancock is a real person! Being a character in a film, he is about as real as, well, Harry Potter! The article should be deleted and I'd urge Harry to muck in writing a proper encyclopedia. Qqq, I notice that the above line is the only contribution (as of 11pm Universal Time) you have ever made to the wiki, strange choice for a first edit, but welcome! Pcb21 22:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)
                • hi, i've been contributing things (including to the pataphysics page) but have only just registered, mainly because of the confusion with these pages (i'm an MA arts student doing my dissertation on pataphysics and painting - hence my concerns!)Qqq
      • I feel somewhat nonplussed by Pcb21 behaviour. a) Anthony Hancock is a real person. Far from the entry being misleading it leads via the link (which is reproduced above) which is directly >>leading>> to an explanation of his role in the film The Rebel. Also if Pcb21 wants things which aren't real deleted, then Imaginary numbers should be deleted. But Pcb21 is the true master of gibberish pushing a clearly Cartesian POV line in the pretense that only people of his philosophical persuasion can distinguish between "reality" and whatever. Now Pcb21 is welcome to the opinion that only head banging cartesians should contribute to an encyclopedia, but should not expect everyone else to feel constrained by such warped and narrow views. As Leibnitz remarked "Perception is only a hallucination that is true." Check the page on imagiunary numbers: the limitations of Descartes position when he named them are referenced. I have altered the text of Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition, (which had suddenly been backed off to the talk page) of removing the POV term "unjustly", included an explanatiion of pataphysics with a link to the imaginary numbers page. Or is Pcb21 going to now dispute whether the exhibition ever took place, whether The Foundry exits, whether the London Institute of Pataphysics, whether the individuals mentioned exist, or whether Art Monthly exits or whether or not is probably the most influential art magazine in the UK. Or indeed whether London itself exists! On a more general note, with all the accumulation of knowledge that wikipedia promotes, perhaps we should allow for the accretion of a little wisdom! Harry Potter
        • The page was removed to the talk page because it was copied from another website with no indication of permission.
        • That aside, I ask a plain question : Having readAnthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition, Was Anthony Hancock a) a real person or b) a character played the British actor Tony Hancock. Hint to any others reading this conversation the answer is b) but HP insists in the article that it is a). This deliberate misinformation, coupled with repeated copyright violations, leads me to suggest that Harry Potter should be banned from wikipedia. Pcb21 11:52 30 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Pcb21, thanx for the 'hint', but has it escaped your notice that 'Tony' is a corruption of 'Anthony'???! User:Qqq
          • No it had not. Have you watched the film, by the way?
        • Your personal problems with HP are not of concern to me at all, what is of concern is that you obviously have no understanding of Pataphysics as it has been applied in Fine Art, and therefore i respectfuly request that you refrain from messing around with the content of these entries. Your contributions in terms of formatting are, however, still very much appreciated. As for HP, s/he is doing a commendable job in writing about one of this country's most exciting visual and conceptual art forms since Op Art in the 60's. Please let him/her get on with it!!!User:Qqq
          • I understand how might pataphysics apply to fine art, much as it might to fine wine. Pataphysics uses the language of gibberish nonsense, fine : that's your, and other pataphysicists' (ooops pataphysicians), perogative. However to use the language of gibberish nonsense in describing pataphysics is not on. How does the OED define pataphysics, for example? We should reach those standards too. If you don't want to do that, then I am sorry but the wikipedia is not the project for you. Pcb21 14:07 30 May 2003 (UTC)
          • P.S. That message is meant for both Qqq and Harry Potter. You are about as different as Tony and Anthony to me :-). Pcb21 14:07 30 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Well I am sure we can do better that the sorry state of the OED here - even though we are not trying to create a dictionary. I am not sure how helpful it is if you simply repeat your strident cartesian message. OK so you don't want engage with the topic, well I am sure you can find another area more congenial to your talents. However don't expect much sympathy when you project your highly controversial POV onto wikipedia. I am not going to suggest that you withdraw from wikipedia just because you have a hard job dealing with diversity. I happen to think that wikipedia may help you come to terms with this unfortunate aspect of your personality. Some of us may find ourselves a lttle irked by your behaviour, but, hey, that's part of living in a community, your friend Harry Potter.
  • 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).
    • Rewritten. -- Tim Starling 13:38 25 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Moved from User talk:Tim Starling: I noticed that you rewrote TextOut after seeing my vote for deletion. I still think it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an SDK (to coin a policy). I haven't come across any other functions from APIs listed in the Wikipedia, and even then, the TextOut article does not provide anything more than the Windows SDK. Why do you think it should stay (and by letting it stay, saying that Wikipedia should contain articles on specific functions)? CGS 20:40 28 May 2003 (UTC).
      • If I felt strongly about the deletion issue I would have made a comment here, but I'm somewhat ambivalent. The inaccuracy of the content was annoying me (one of the most common functions???), so I fixed it. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be an SDK, but I have a feeling interesting, encyclopedic articles can be written about functions without resorting to discussing the nitty-gritty of the interface. Indeed there are no other functions in Wikipedia at the moment, and indeed the Windows SDK provides almost all information in the article (it doesn't say that ExtTextOut is more common than TextOut -- that's just my personal experience). I don't find either point a convincing argument in favour of deletion. Most of the information in Wikipedia is available from other sources -- this is just a central repository. And when the first chemistry article was submitted, did people argue that it should be deleted because it was the only chemistry article? -- Tim Starling 00:01 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Cha Bumkeun - possible copyright infringement -- JeLuF 15:01 25 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've checked it too. --Menchi 06:34 30 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
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • The author, 152.163.xx.xx and 64.12.96.xx, seems to have taken it upon him/herself to restore the page content with the following on the talk page:
      Please note that some of the text on this page is the same as posted on the website http://www.paulstillarockin.com/bushpilot. That website is The James Anthony Band website, owned by the band's drummer, Paul McKinnon. The text shown is James Anthony's musical biography & Mr. Anthony has given Mr. McKinnon permission to use it for publication. His biography has been published worldwide for promotional purposes.
It doesn't seem to me that giving Mr. McKinnon permission implies giving us permission in any way. And "publish[ing] worldwide for promotional purposes" doesn't mean it's in the public domain, or GFDLed. Also, this brings up the issue of Paul McKinnon page itself, as well, with a similar note in place on the talk page. I don't want to be too heavy-handed, so if I'm right here, could someone restore the boilerplate, and perhaps add it to the latter? -- John Owens 15:28 27 May 2003 (UTC)
P.S. Forgot to mention, I did not, however, find any copyright notice on the external site above, for what it's worth. -- John Owens 15:33 27 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Open Campaign - from Wikipedia:votes for undeletion
    • I vote for deleting this, because it talks about a Greenpeace definition, and fails the google test. Martin 18:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it would be an error to delete an article named "open campaign". This concept clearly exist on the web. However, the current definition is only one definition among others. I think it should be shortened, and embedded in a list of alternate meanings and uses of the expression. Second, since this is a terminology used by Greenpeace, why not move a good part of the article in the Greenpeace article ? Last, I think the last part of the article belongs to metawikipedia, and as such could be moved there. User:anthere
  • Isabel Preysler
  • Empty. I might get around to writing about her soon but if I dont or someone else doesnt, erase it. The girl's got a long biography, just not written on that page. But if Im gonna write about her I will need to search for details. She married Julio Iglesias but she also married some former president of Spain and so on you know. So if I dont get around or someone else does, to it, erase it.
    Antonio Tanya Martin
    • Ok I fixed it, no need to erase it now.
      Antonio I need help!!!!! Martin
    • Considering that Spain is a monarchy and last had a president during the shortlived Second Republic in the 1930s, is this woman the Spanish version of Anna Nicole Smith? If she married a former Spanish president, she would have been marrying someone 100+ years old!!! I hope you mean 'president of the government' (ie, prime minister). FearÉIREANN 01:43 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Cesu county - copyright infringement andy 10:51 28 May 2003 (UTC)
    • This same article with the same text was deleted about a week ago. -- Minesweeper 21:29 28 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Breatharian Diet: delete from List of diets, as this is not a serious diet, unlike the other diets. The author admits its not credible, but insists it remains here. I've duplicated it to List of notable eccentrics, and would like the other copy at List of diets deleted. I can't stomach all this... TonyClarke 22:38 28 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know about that... sure it's crazy, but there were people advocating it at one point... --Dante Alighieri 22:41 28 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Norteños
    • has been blanked, apparently some Northern California Gang -- JeLuF 07:57 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Majulah Singapura
    • Singapore's National Anthem, original material only, no text. Wikiepdia is not Sourceberg. -- JeLuF 08:00 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • No-comply 180
    • Slightly incoherent, but may have useful info for skateboarders? Fix or scrap? ReversionOne 02:45 30 May 2003 (UTC)
    • There are lots of these: see Skateboarding trick. Some are better than others. Keep it -- it'll be fixed eventually. There's no case for deleting the entire category. -- Tim Starling 03:20 30 May 2003 (UTC)
    • How about line "5) War sucks" - I certainly agree with the sentiment, but should that be edited out as not relevant to the topic? ReversionOne 20:38 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Dick Butkus - probably copyvio. Page it originated at contains a copyright notice. Evercat 13:49 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Erythrophobia - possible copyvio. Couldn't find exact original source, but appears to have been published in a periodical. -- Wapcaplet 16:03 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Aeschelminthe - a redir for an odd spelling that is long gone from wikipedia and seen nowhere else on the net. Stan 17:47 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Orphaned Image of ca-ab.gif - flag of Alberta (other exists and is being used).
  • Orphaned Image of ca-pq.gif - flag of Quebec (other exists and is being used).
  • Orphaned Image of Gm-map.jpg - map of Germany (png version exists and is being used).
I made Atatürk and Kreml redirect to the correct pages. For the record, Atatürk is not German. The Turkish have umlauts too. As a result, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk should actually be moved to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. -- Djmutex 20:40 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I moved the article. I also fixed all the double-redirects that got broken. ;) --Dante Alighieri 22:01 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • PQF filter parameter....is what I see in this article some sort of code? Does it make sense to the experts out there? Kingturtle 22:21 30 May 2003 (UTC)


I strongly believe that the page User talk:Viking/ban is unacceptable and demeaning. Each time someone makes it appear on the Recent Changes page it is a negative message about someone who has not been convicted of anything. There is a proper procedure in place for an annoying user or banning. To me, this type of action appears to be in clear violation of the legal rights of User:Viking, the consequences of which could jeopardize the future of Wikipedia, and it most certainly violates Article 7. of User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. Triton 00:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I thought this was the proper procedure. Anyway, I'm sceptical that it violates anyone's legal rights. As for the message it sends, all it says is that there is discussion of a ban. In fact, as this is an important discussion, there's an argument for making it well known that there's such a discussion. Evercat 02:49 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=981256"