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.
If the content of a page-to-be-deleted exists on some different page, please indicate that, somehow, on the page-to-be-deleted (either by redirecting it to the correctly titled page, or, better for our purposes, putting in a link to it). To facilitate checking that a "page title to be deleted" really ought to be deleted, please don't redirect such pages to page titles to be deleted.
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.
Discussion about the merits of deleting a page listed here should take place on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.
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 : Wikipedia utilities
- See also : Wikipedia:Deletion log
- See also : Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
- See also : Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub
- Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues
- This page was meant as a forum for turning controversial, POV statements about JW's into NPOV ones that could be reincorporated in the main JW article. It has not served that function, and is now just duplicating information that is already stated in the other pages, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses, Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, and Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust.
- Prophesies
- An NPOV attempt to justify religious belief. Danny
- United States of America/OldPage
- Image:Kon s.jpg xor Image:White horse thumbnail.jpg
- Image:Enigma.png - This appears to be taken from www.gcsb.govt.nz/infhist.htm - according to their copyright disclaimer, the image can be used but the source and copyright status must be acknowledged.
- Grain of salt, Grain of salt/Poetic interpretations and Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations)
- Grain of salt is a brief explanation of the English idiom "to take with a grain of salt". Wikipedia should not have articles on individual idioms, even though it might be worthwhile to start an article "English idioms" to parallel English proverbs. Grain of salt/Poetic interpretations and Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations) are both redirects to User:Stevertigo/Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations), which contains some interesting but non-encyclopedic speculation about the "grain of salt" idiom --Ryguasu
- Wikipedia certainly should have articles on some individual idioms. Maybe not this one, but I'd hesitate to delete. --The Cunctator
- Regardless of one's take on this, I think it is particularly obvious that Grain of salt/Poetic interpretations and Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations) need removal. Stevertigo already has a personal copy of these in the user namespace, so no one should get too offended if we remove these redirects. --Ryguasu
- JewWatch not an encyclopedia entry. --Elian
- With another sentence or two it could qualify as a stub. Perhaps someone was planning on adding encyclopedic content? You'll note that some web sites do get an entire article. See Hot Or Not. --Ryguasu
- The Further Adventures of Robinson Crusoe
- I waited for several days for the original author to explain to us the source of his material. The fact that one of the sentences reads "He had left five Englishmen there, three rude villains and two good fellows." makes me think it's not the article's author's own words. I smell a copyright violation. -- Zoe
- The burden of proof is not on the submitter. Such language as you refer to is from Defoe, and is not copyrighted. The entry is most likely fine, and without direct evidence to the contrary, should not be deleted. --The Cunctator
- I asked the original author if the work was original, and he/she did not reply. Are we to assume that if an originator doesn't reply when asked if the work is original, that it is? What happened to the copyright problem? -- Zoe
- Without other evidence, yes. We only expect the originator to reply if we know that it was copied from a copyright-protected source. Not suspect that it was copied. --The Cunctator
- As I already explained on Village Pump in a similar case, this is mostly scholarly material by Zoltan Simon, formerly editor of the Encyclopedia Hungarica. He doesn't seem to have managed to create an account yet, and some of his historical stuff is a bit outlandish, his references are also often incomepletely cited. The best way to work with him is probably to contact him: zasimon at hotmail dot com. Fortunately, his texts are usually easily recognizable because of their style; his IP address is dynamic but seems to always begin with 200.149. --Eloquence
- Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
- Apparent copyright violation. What's a Mahasamadhi? -phma 2002-12-11
- Note that 8 articles reference this page. Deleting this page will be okay because it will prompt someone to fix the broken wiki and write a new article, hopefully an original one (see the article's Talk page). David 23:30 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
- chemiosmotic potential
- There is no such thing as a "chemiosmotic potential." The word must be a conflation of chemiosmotic hypothesis and electrochemical potential
- Right Thing (and others)
- it's just an entry copied from the Jargon File. It may be worth a mention in a larger article on hacker jargon in general, but not a subject for an encyclopedia. -- Tarquin 18:39 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)
- I think it has promise. We shouldn't add more such entries willy-nilly, but I don't think any harm will come of such entries already here stay there. --The Cunctator
- If it can ever be more than a stub, then OK, but I don't see how it can. The harm that might come of leaving these entries here is that people see them, think that they're the sort of entries we want, and make lots more like them. I think it should be deleted (perhaps it could be moved to the wiktionary?). --Camembert 00:30 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to happen, does it? We shouldn't base decisions on that which has not come to pass.--The Cunctator
- Well, I don't agree with you - I know when I started here I based articles on what was already here, and I should think other people do this as well. And I wouldn't think that people would keep adding these Jargon File entries if we didn't already have a stack of them. But anyway, the main point is that this isn't an encyclopaedia article and never will be - it's a dictionary entry at best, so belongs on the wiktionary. I can't be bothered to push for deletion very hard though. --Camembert 18:28 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)
- Kaunas
- Possible copyright violation. --mav 12:37 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
- Rushden and Diamonds F.C.
- Possible copyright infringement --Camembert 13:32 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
- Battle of Poltava
- Copyright violation (discovered by Zoe) -- Andre Engels 17:58 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
- Tippoo
- Possible copyright infringement --mav 02:16 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
- Skate punk
- Might be an aticle title, but what's there now isn't an article. --Camembert 02:06 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)
- Charter of the New Urbanism
- Possible copyright infringement. --mav
- Chie
- Content copy-pasted from the copyrighted Encyclopedia Mythica, please check it --Mrwojo 17:02 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)
- The Incidentalist Manifesto
- Some kind of weird rant -- Zoe
- SUITCASE BOMB
- Nonsense. Mintguy
- He didn't even use the case correctly. Suitcase bombs do exist (as far as I know), but they are low yield (200 T to maybe 5 KT) tactical devices. The ones I have read about are more cylindrical "nuclear mines" than rectangular "suitcases" too. They are just "suitcase sized", but certainly not "suitcase weight" either. -- RTC
- Smoj and related nonesense Rmhermen 20:30 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
- I was just on my way to say the same thing. Wetalldid Corner should also be deleted (Googling the phrase returns no hits). --Camembert 20:33 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
- Beach volleyball
- possible copyright violation -- JeLuF 22:20 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
- Jewish Islamophobia
- Highly inflammatory and POV. Has no purpose. -- Zoe
- Laurence Binyon
- There is another fuller article called Lawrence Binyon (name correctly spelt) that makes this one redundant.
- NO! - Laurence Binyon is correct Other article is spelled incorrectly, they need to be merged Mintguy
- Ah, a check using google indicates that both spellings are in use! Which is the correct one? (To see what I mean, use google or some other search engine to look for sites with Lawrence Binyon and Laurence Binyon).
- Laurence Binyon is correct. That is the usual Brittish spelling as in Laurence Olivier and Laurence Harvey Lawrence is a surname as in T. E. Lawrence and D.H. Lawrence, Americans adopted this spelling. Look at http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/faculty/teaching/laurence_binyon_prize.htm I expect Oxford probably spell it the correctly. Mintguy
- Ah, a check using google indicates that both spellings are in use! Which is the correct one? (To see what I mean, use google or some other search engine to look for sites with Lawrence Binyon and Laurence Binyon).
- Existentian
- META-PHILOSOPHY and Talk:META-PHILOSOPHY
- META-PHILOSOPHY SPARTACUS Political Rant --AN 11:15 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
- this page was moved to meta by TheAnome but this user (User:Saprtacus) has continued to recreate this page when it's been deleted. Please do something about him. Mintguy
- Spartacus meta-philosophy
- He's back again Mintguy
- Meat-philosophy
- please do something about this user User:Saprtacus he is a persistent violator and probably needs to see a shrink or pretends he does. Mintguy
- Meta-philosophy of spartacus
- more of the same. -- Tarquin 12:00 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)
- Please delete Tucker. Thank you....DW
- Do you mean the page that is now Tucker or the one that is now Tucker automobile? I see reason for neither. Andre Engels 20:27 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)
- The initial vote was made after Tucker automobile was moved from Tucker, but before Tucker had been made a disambiguation page. There was a case for deleting it when the vote was made, but there isn't any longer, I think. --Camembert 20:30 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)
- Mamelukes
- possible copyright violation. Please convert to #REDIRECT instead of deleting after grace period expires -- JeLuF 00:14 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Lito Mc Cassidy
- Is someone's "shout out". --Nate 00:34 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Polygonos
- Advertisement for a web site. --Nate 02:50 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
