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 05:12, 12 June 2003 (Hmm. That last edit changed one of the characters...). 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 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

  • 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)
    • "for promotional purposes" is a bad excuse. The Encyclopedia does not promote any point-of-view, and definitely not any "celebrity". --Menchi 21:14 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Pete Liddle - Content ripped from www.flamenco.com with the name Miguelita replaced by 'Pete Liddle'. Someone's little joke, I think. -- about June 9
  • PackBits/C source - subpage that only contains source code. -- Minesweeper 06:56 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's relelvant: it implements something discussed the PackBits article, and it even has comments. If it really bothers you, paste it onto the end of the PackBits article; there's no real edit history. -- Merphant 07:52 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but it still remains that Wikipedia is not "mere collections of public domain or other source material". In a case like this, we should just provide an external link to the source code. -- Minesweeper 08:07 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • Heh, while it's "source code", I don't think it really qualifies as "source material". It's just one implementation. There are surely free libraries that have packbits routines, but their source will be more obfuscated since it has to be integrated with the rest of the project. Until someone decides to enter the packbits algorithm, I think we should keep this; even if someone does write the algorithm, it will probably be in another programming language like Python or Java anyway. -- Merphant 19:38 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Gaia Theory (homeorhic) probably unncessary now
  • Gaia Theory (Lynn Margulis) similarAnthere 23:58 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Policy is to keep redirects. People might still have links or bookmarks. -- JeLuF 11:26 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Policy is not always very "bright". These articles are inside Wikipedia only linked from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. As for being bookmarked, they have existed (both of them) as real pages, for a grand total of ... about 1 to 2 mn. I doubt very much anyone had the time to bookmark them, and that they would be missed by anyone. Do you have another argument please ? User:anthere
  • Paul Stacey is the creation of User:195.218.116.8. It appears to be pure garbage, which the user keeps trying to re-insert. Jim Regan moved its contents to the bad jokes page. John Owens has had to revert to Jim's version when 195 . . . tried to put his/her 'funny' garbage back in. I have protected the page stop 195 . . . inserting his 'humourous' gibberish again, so to allow us to decide what to do with this page and to stop people having constantly to do reverts. Should this page be simply removed or is there someone out there who can salvage it? Is there a real Paul Stacey who could be written about? Though it looked like pure bullshit I did not want to delete it but get people's advice first. FearÉIREANN 23:35 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Paul Stacey should be removed. Being in a band that's recorded a demo hardly merits inclusion in an encyclopedia - if it did I'd have pages written for most of my friends :) -- Jim Regan 20:33 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Inu-yasha to make a room to rename it to Inuyasha. It seems no one objects to renaming. -- Taku 03:54 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Doctor Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahneman
    Created the page, but hadn't checked that an article was already written. Furthermore the name has a spelling error. Sorry will be more thoughtfull next time.
    • New items at the bottom, BTW. Better suggestion, make a redirect of it. Unless it's a really, really unlikely spelling error. -- John Owens 07:44 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • List of notable eccentrics: What is the point in this? How can anyone objectively distinguish between when to name-call a person "eccentric" or a "non-eccentric"? This is prone to heavy and silly edit wars, and also violates the NPOV policy. -- Rotem Dan 17:03 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. LittleDan 20:00 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • If the article is non-NPOV, then convert it to NPOV. If the article one what we don't need, then use redirect. I don't see any reason to delete that permanentally. Redirect is good enough. Don't bother sysops. -- Taku
      • What would you suggest as a reasonable redirection target? I can't imagine any ... -- JeLuF
  • Jean Dezert
    • Probably self-promotion -- it's just a copy of Dezert's autobiography from his homepage. It reads like a CV. Also, he's associated with the man of the moment, Florentin Smarandache [1]. -- Tim Starling 10:05 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The post-er is in France. Maybe some fan or student of Dezert's. --Menchi 16:10 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I am not a fan of Dr. jean dezert, but he organized an international conference on fusion in Paris, France, 2000. He is the secretary of FUSION organization, but you don't have anythink on fusion, do you? I read many papers of him in 3-4 international fusion proceedings, he is well known, and he is an expert of the Dempster-Shaffer theory of evidence. I propose to have this biography better structure, but to keep it in here. -- Arizonaval
      • Hello Arizonaval and welcome to Wikipedia. Interesting choice for a first edit, but your point is taken nonetheless. Indeed Dezert is an expert in information fusion (not to be confused with nuclear fusion). We have a small amount on the subject in Dezert-Smarandache theory, a page which was created two days ago by a new user. However, on this page neutrosophy has been labelled "crackpottery" and an "absurdist joke", and such allegations are to be taken seriously. Perhaps you can help us. How close is the relationship between information fusion and neutrosophy? Are they close enough to be tarred with the same brush? -- Tim Starling 07:22 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • Comments copied from the neutrosophy discussion have been removed: see Talk:Neutrosophy for replies to my questions above. -- Tim Starling 02:33 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • list of self-promoting scientists - title is inherently non-NPOV. --Robert Merkel 05:18 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • All scientists promote their own work. Would someone just say, "No, I don't think my research was valid. I came to a false conclusion using too small a sample size and faulty logic" LittleDan 01:09 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • I created the page, and agree with all that is said above. (I didn't think so at the time, or I wouldn't have created it at all) The standard it is being put to is a good one. I don't think some other pages meet it either, but that is neither here nor there. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick
  • Feneberger -- An account of research into a family name, If this is removed the link from Mythology also needs removing. -- sannse 10:58 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Ha. I have vanquished the fiendish article. It was quite a rambling thing, wasn't it? But it contained some information on a castle in the Tyrol by the name of Feneberg. So I moved the page there, and chopped out anything that didn't relate to that castle or its environs. Most of the chopped out stuff was editorial speculation, with some information on historical linguistics which may be salvageable from the page history if anyone would like to give it a go. Unfortunately, I can't find anything verifiable about this castle, although I have found reference to a hotel/restaurant by that name... -- Oliver P. 14:57 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Twenty-four historical books - no explanation as to what is so special about these 24 books -- Zoe 23:26 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Google proved to be a handy resource, giving a page from its cache on the Twenty-Four Histories. Apparently these are a seminal collection of works on Chinese history. I've written a short introductory paragraph, but it could use some work by someone who actually knows something about the subject. -- Wapcaplet 23:48 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Daggeru.jpg - Why is this photo on Wikipedia? User:Vikings is uploading a number of photos which he claims to be copyrighted, not this one included, which seem to be in violation of the Wikipedia copyright policy. -- Zoe 02:15 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The image you refer to (uploaded by User:Kils, not User:Vikings) is an illustration for the robe article, which has been written by Kils. As for the copyright thing, it's perfectly acceptable for a user to upload photographs that they own the copyright to; in fact, it's encouraged! -- Oliver P. 02:35 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • No, it was uploaded by Vikings. He is making a copyright notice as he uploads the pictures, and does not indicate that he intends to release them to the Wikipedia. This is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. -- Zoe 02:41 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • @ != © - Hephaestos 02:51 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • Image:Daggeru.jpg was uploaded by Kils. Check the upload log. User:Vikings is in any case a project run by Kils and his friends; I'm sure that those images by Kils that they have uploaded have been uploaded with his permission. If not, we can leave it to him to object, can't we? And of course any image legally uploaded here is automatically released to the Wikipedia: the uploader has to tick the box that says, "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." -- Oliver P. 02:56 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • Maybe Kils or Vikings could confirm this, but I get the impression that they are stating "Copyright by Uwe Kils" just to make it clear that they have permission to be giving them to Wikipedia. I think it's good! We could definitely use some more illustrations around here. -- Wapcaplet 11:35 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
          • Dear wikipedians! I feel honored that you spent so much time discussing a topic which was absolutely clear from the begining. As requested I state here thad I do hold the copyright of this image, and gave it to the wiki project for free us. If you don't trust me again feel free to visit us (you can stay in our house, and my younger son will show it to you and you can make a better picture and upload it to replace mine. Just send me an email or use the telephone, because I am often on business trips or sailing - sincerely yours ---- uwe kils
            • Thanks for clearing that up. It's not a question of not trusting you, it's just that the copyright status of all images needs to be crystal clear. Theresa knott 13:09 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Anti-systemic library (Is this a real thing?)
    • No Google hits if the search is done with quotes. (ie for "Anti-systemic library"). Seconded. Evercat 20:18 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • There are however hits if you search for "systemic library" (in quotes). I'm not quite sure what the point of an anti-systemic library would be, but it's possible. -- goatasaur
    • Firstly, the existence of its opposite in no way shows that the thing itself is important. Secondly, the article is useless anyway. "An anti-systemic library is being created at the London Action Resource Centre in Whitechapel." That in no way helps me to understand what the heck such a thing is. Evercat 20:30 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Assuming it is real, it should be a part of London Action Resource Centre article. --Menchi 21:11 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • That would be grand. Evercat 21:12 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • In case you didn't know: the London Action Resource Centre is also known as Lighthouse Town Hall, the home of the Cartographic Congress and user:Harry Potter's favorite hang-out. The library is almost certainly real, but its importance is questionable. -- Tim Starling 13:34 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Sorry, jumping to conclusions. -- Tim Starling 00:20 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Messed Up Wreckords - No google hits, does this exist at all? -- JeLuF 18:45 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I was just about to add it. I placed a note on the user's page, User:Wrongbros. (The only use of The Wrong Brothers I could find is from a video game or something) Tuf-Kat
    • This seems to me to be an advertisment. So I agree it should be deleted. MB 20:45 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Regulations there is a page Regulation and I have copied the text on this page to there.
  • Jean Dezert, Copyright infringment
    • Unlikely, because permission would have been easy for the poster to obtain. See the entry on this article above. -- Tim Starling 02:33 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Discussion about Chasey Lain moved to Talk:Chasey Lain

  • 22. Caliber Mistitled (The amo is .22 caliber), inaccurate (the number refers to the diameter of the projectile, not the "grains of gunpowder in it"; see Caliber), pov, orphan, and generally useless. -- Infrogmation 05:37 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't forget mis-capitalized. -- John Owens 05:40 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • repetition - Ancient; consisting of two sentences, which together dont quite make up even a dictionary entry. I blanked it, I hope that wasn't wrong. I can't think any sense of the word that would justify an article. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 11:20 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth: Repetition is linked to by nine articles, but having looked at the articles I can't think of anything an article on repetition could contribute that isn't in the articles themselves. Certainly the article as it stands doesn't contribute anything. —Paul A 01:29 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Unique - Badly named proof that there is only one identity in a group. If pretified, the proof could be added to the group theory article, but it doesn't deserve an article of its own. -- JeLuF
  • (BET), BET - possible copyright infringement -- JeLuF 17:27 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I redid BET, but nothing links to (or should link to) "(BET)". LittleDan 18:05 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Franz Joseph Gall - copyvio. Was blanked a long long time ago, I added the notice today. Evercat 02:27 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Bush family conspiracy theory - for all the rewrites this is still a ludicrously paranoid fantasist's dream article. It is neither encylopædic nor NPOV just some garbled wacky theories from those who believe the Bush family should really be renamed the 'Antichrist' family. The fact that after various attempts by competent contributors it is still bordering on the looney suggests this is an article that deserves the bin or its own page on the 'nutty conspiracies' website, not a page in a credible encyclopædia. (The fact that it has me defending the Bush family is indicative of how nutty the page is, for I am not exactly a fan of the political version of the Brady Bunch!) FearÉIREANN 02:33 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1026667"