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 Evercat (talk | contribs) at 02:33, 10 July 2003 (cm place names). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please review our policy on permanent deletion before adding to this page.

Add links to unwanted page titles to the list below so that other Wikipedians can have a chance to argue for and against the removal of the 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

  • Verboten - Dictionary definition. Can't think of any conceivable encyclopedic content that could go under that name. Delirium 04:44 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Axe It! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 12:09 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This is linked from List of German expressions in English, which encourages the creation of such pages, and coexists with many similar ones. Arguably, the entire list is more a thing for Wiktionary than for Wikipedia, but while it exists, I see no reason why this individual page should be removed. --Eloquence 16:53 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Ah, didn't notice that. Perhaps the list has some place in Wikipedia, as a documentation of German influence on the English language through contemporary word-borrowing (rather than common heritage). However, I don't think there need to be separate pages for these words, since that'd degenerate into a dictionary. So I'd support deleting essentially all the pages linked from that list. -- Delirium 02:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't delete them. We should move them to Wiktionary instead. Emperorbma 07:47 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Allwiki -- this hasn't really been touched since February, and I see no point in keeping it. Thoughts? --bdesham 02:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree - and it do'nt pass the goggle test Jensp 11:56 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Friendship in Islam - contains long religious sermon posted by User:Scyrous. While having an article about friendship in Islam is not a redundant topic, the nature of this particular text is not Wikipedia suitable. It appears to have been copy & pasted from a www website . Crusadeonilliteracy 06:59 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Adopting a dog - not a 'pedia article. 212 09:23 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The article as it stands, is a bit rubbishy. But in the fullness of time, with an almost complete rewrite, it could make a decent article. I think we should keep it. Theresa knott 10:38 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Rewritten in a NPOV form with the POV rubbish removed. But I think the new name, Dog adoption sucks. FearÉIREANN 23:10 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)~
  • 212.85.1.1 - Not wikified, and possibly some copyright violations. (See only contributions from 2003/07/03.) كسيپ Cyp 11:41 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Radical individualism - Not wikified, maybe if someone can make any sense of it, it could be fixed somehow. Perhaps someone could e-mail them, telling them, if and why the page is deleted, since they left their e-mail address... كسيپ Cyp
  • John Kahn - possible copyright violation -- JeLuF 19:22 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Spnak. Contains "SPNAK /sp&-nak/ n. The act of officially claiming that someone ducked out of an argument. IMPORTANT NOTE: The people still in the argument are the people who are eligible to claim a SPNAK. Claiming a SPNAK is basically a way for the remaining party to celebrate victory by default. v. To claim a SPNAK. interj. The cry (typed out) given when claiming a SPNAK. Not a good thing to be on the receiving end of; of course, if this is the case, you're probably gone anyway, so you'd never know. Oh, but they do." RickK 03:06 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


    • I see no really good reasons for these to be deleted. Could someone check their content and say whether they are worth keeking or not ? User:Anthere
    • What are these doing here? They are perfectly accurate encylopaedic articles. Keep. FearÉIREANN 18:06 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Open Letter to Hobbyists
    • Source text. As present. Also defamatory. (even if deserved) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 20:16 4 Jul 2003 (UTC).
    • I'd prefer this to be fixed, with a summary of the argument and liberal use of quotations from it... I may try and do this myself. Evercat 20:33 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Martin 18:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Kentucky Colonels. Contains "The Colonels should return as an NBA team along with the a new franchise in Cincinnati to replace the Royals" RickK 22:19 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Cooking pan. It is hardly an encyclopaedia topic, the article is a barely encyclopaedic stub, the item in question is called a frying pan (or, if referring to something else (quite what he is referring to is unclear, a cooking pot.) Are we really going to have pages of cooking utensils now? It sound like it belongs in a cooking dictionary, not here. (This seems to be one of a number of cooking utensils entries this user seems to be creating, BTW) FearÉIREANN 00:43 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • And how is it that cooking pans are less important than, say, altar rails? There is actually quite a lot to say about cooking utensils, and they actually matter to me, unlike altar rails which are utterly irrelevant. And speaking as an amateur classicist, I can say that researchers today really really wish Varro and the Suda had seen fit to say more about the mundane items of everyday life in ancient times. Stan 04:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Your agenda as always is hilarious, Stan FearÉIREANN 06:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I support cooking utensils on Wikipedia (see Talk for reasons) Martin 18:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Cooking on a campfire - unencyclopaedic POV stuff that belongs elsewhere, not on wiki. Delete. FearÉIREANN 01:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • What POV? Sounded like pretty good material to me. Do you actually have any camping experience? Stan 04:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • More than you can possibly imagine. FearÉIREANN 06:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • If it's POV, fix it. I admit that I wasn't entirely qualified to write it, but you sound like you are. It's not that big of an article; shouldn't take too long. If you think that the topic itself is unworthy of Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia talk:How-to articles. The fact that the article on How-tos is linked to from the Main Page as a categorization scheme speaks in my favor. -Smack 18:00 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Occupancy. Contains "Occupancy is the states when the call being in server. or in another words it's mean : the server that has call inside" RickK 06:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Natasha Bobo According to imdb.com, Together We Stand is the only project this actress has ever worked on. She was apparently six years old at the time. She hasn't acted since, in the last 17 years. Only 33 Google hits. jimfbleak 07:31 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Traffic load "for the telephony network, the load is mean the calls that generates by subscribers. so traffic load is amount of calls on the server." كسيپ Cyp 07:41 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Rabin automaton - one sentence, in German. (perhaps better to translate than delete - I'm not sure what's the policy on non-English pages). -- uriber 07:58 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The normal thing would be to port it to the German Wikipedia, I guess, but in this case I would be in favor of deletion - the text would be too vague to be useful even after translation, in my opinion.
  • Why was this taken off the VFD list nanomedicine a collection of book listings and external links G-Man 14:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a perfectly decent stub about a book. It names the author, and describes the subject matter. What more do you want from a stub? The ISBN numbers and external links are just an added bonus. -- Oliver P. 14:22 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Anarchitecture - Can't understand a word of it, not wikified, exists at [1]. Possible copyleft/up/down/whatever it's called violation? كسيپ Cyp
  • Ralph Waite. The beginning doesn't make sense and the end is just personal comments about his own name. Angela 19:32 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Anne Dudley. This appears to be somebody's resume. RickK 23:35 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Oddly User:BillBell wrote a decent article and then decided to replace it with this resume. A resume that does not even mention her academy award in 1998. SimonP 14:00 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Bo Hammel Net is not in English.
    • German text about some online gamers group (?). Non-encyclopedic, can't see how this could become an article. Kosebamse 16:34 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Social War is already part of Roman Republic. Angela 16:39 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Urg. Roman Republic is monstrous and still incomplete - the Social War should get one sentence and a link to the separate article for details. I might get a chance to poke at it today. Stan 18:27 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Cruftmanship ancient, stubby, slang. 12 Google hits, top three of which are from Wikipedia. Kosebamse 17:40 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 23:23 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • No Homers Club
    • While the article could be turned into a real one on the fictional entity from the television show, it probably shouldn't, as it appears only in one episode, and only in a peripheral usage. The article as it stands is just a bad joke. --Dante Alighieri 20:34 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Similarily, the Adam D. Montoya page, created by the same person. The page is amusing (to me anyway), but it's not an encyclopedia article, obviously. Adam Bishop 21:19 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Where to buy marmite - the line must be drawn here, this far, no further! ;-) Evercat 00:09 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • delete - jimfbleak 07:26 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've redirected it to Marmite and merged the contents. (Probably some of the contents need to be removed, though.) -- Oliver P. 08:40 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Mrityu kec. I'm not sure what the rules on deleting user pages are, but the page states "Permission is granted for unlimited noncommercial use. All other rights reserved." Doesn't this go against the GFDL? The user hasn't made any contributions other than this page and the page contains 165114 words. Angela 00:16 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've written the following summary of the page (I suspect the summary contains all of the important details in the article, but I'm not an expert on the subject...): Character frequency distribution: "Ee": 94038, "Tt": 69890, "Oo": 68039, "Aa": 65094, "Nn": 61980, "Ii": 61724, "Ss": 55117, "Rr": 50077, "Uu": 32544, "Ll": 31828, "Hh": 31284, "Dd": 26920, "Cc": 26212, "Yy": 23968, "Mm": 19218, "Pp": 18656, "Ff": 16744, "Gg": 14612, ".": 10341, "Bb": 9996, "Vv": 9470, "Ww": 9403, ",": 8169, "Kk": 3353, "Xx": 1828, "_-": 1281, "Jj": 1274, "-": 1195, "'": 1005, "Qq": 987, "1": 752, "()": 749, ":;": 525, "2": 463, "Zz": 454, "9": 454, "\/": 342, "0": 340, """: 319, "3": 299, "4": 272, "6": 245, "5": 214, "-o°": 192, "8": 177, "7": 169, "=": 115, "(c)(R)": 71, "[]": 62, "+": 31, "??": 30, "&": 17, "<>": 11, "*": 6, "AEae": 3, "Ii": 3, "!!": 2, "#": 1, "%‰": 1 كسيپ Cyp 18:20 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • 100 Worst Britons I am not going to argue the case. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:28 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I would also delete 100 Greatest Britons. There are thousands of polls like this and wikipedia should not be archiving them, they are primary source material. You may reference them, say mentioning that Winston Churchill was voted the Greatest Briton, but the lists should go. SimonP 01:15 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. They are both perfectly encyclopaedic. They are not the POV of a user. They are lists compiled in valid surveys by reputable media organisations that were the subject of major public debate. That makes them perfectly logical factual lists. God we have tonnes of nutty lists on wikipedia. These are both factual, credible ones, which beat our usual [[grandfathers with the longest toenails in Arizona]] and [[Song titles containing more that four Zs]] bs. Keep. FearÉIREANN 03:11 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN. Of course we have to draw the line somewhere, but if we have lists of all the tracks of LPs hardly anyone cares about these two here at least reflect what Britons (well, certainly not all Britons) think at a given point in time. They may be used productively by non-British users to learn more about current affairs and/or people in the media. --KF 03:52 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Are these lists not copyrighted by the compilers? Lists can be copyrighted if some creativity has gone into them, and I think that's very likely the case here. Can we claim fair use? I'm not sure... -- Oliver P. 13:50 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The chances of these lists being copyrighted are ziltch. They have been quoted, referred to and referenced in almost all the British print and broadcast media, many of whom printed the full list. So either the entire media is in breach of copyright or there is no problem whatsoever with quoting them. Broadcasters don't copyright lists, period, because they want them to be circulated as widely as possible. While they may have been constructed accurately, they were created as a PR stunt to get media publicity to promote the 'Saturday night history' zones on both BBC2 and Channel 4. In the circumstances to copyright them and so limit their availability would be an act of such moronic stupidity that even the thickest TV executive (and there are many, the Sunday Times mocks them as the BBC 'Tristrams') would not do so. Why create the lists at considerable time and effort if you don't want as many people as possible to know about them, know your association with them and so hopefully watch your expensive history programmes? FearÉIREANN 23:06 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the statement, "Broadcasters don't copyright lists". Every piece of text created by a human being is copyrighted by default. You don't need to "copyright" it. As soon as it is written, it is copyrighted, and remains so until released into the public domain. Feel free to use your wide-ranging journalistic contacts to find out if it has been. But in any case, as SimonP says, these things are primary source material. Much as I like these lists, they are not really encyclopaedic content. However, now that I come to think of it, I don't support outright deletion. Articles on the polls would be all right, if they are well-known and interesting to the general public. But including the full results of the polls in the articles would be like including the full text of a story in an article about that story, and we don't do that. An encyclopedia is supposed to describe things, not just regurgitate them. -- Oliver P. 21:55 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Jabir of Kuwait - NPOV, useless text. There shouldn't really be an article under this title at all; preumably the person he is referring to is Amir Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir Al Sabah, which is already linked from several places and should get an article under that title at some point. --Delirium 04:05 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:PackBits/C_source: Orphaned talk page. It's not linked to from anywhere. (Although it does appear to have been move there from here - is this normal?) Tenbaset 06:14 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • List of interesting or unusual place names
    • There is absolutely no way in the world that this can ever be NPOV. -- Oliver P. 08:40 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Why is this a question of NPOV? The names in this list are not fictional, and the introductory paragraph explains quite well (a) the intention of the page and (b) that in many/most cases the names just sound funny to foreign language speakers. If someone added things like "Fucking is very popular with tourists", well, that would of course have to be removed. But the bare list? --KF 08:54 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Do we really need to apply NPOV to an issue as trivial as whether or not a place name is interesting? I doubt this can ever offend anyone. Evercat 13:54 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • NPOV is a Wikipedia-wide policy. We can't just start arbitrarily deciding not to apply it to some articles. Whose POV do we go with when deciding whether or not to apply the NPOV policy? This is just silly. -- Oliver P. 13:58 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • NPOV is overrated mental masturbation - this is a nice article Pizza Puzzle
        • Well, of course it's nice. But Wikipedia is not here to be nice. ;) You love NPOV, really, you know you do... -- Oliver P. 14:49 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
          • Heh, OK, but I still refuse to believe that it's POV to say that Fucking, Austria is an interesting name. I mean, who doesn't find it so? :-) Evercat 15:10 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • Well, I do, admittedly. :) But it's still a subjective judgement, and I think we should be trying to be as objective as possible. Much as I like this list, I don't think it is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- Oliver P. 21:55 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
              • If you really want it to be NPOV you could re-cast it as list of place names that sound like "vulgar" (dictionary tag) English words, list of place names with an unusual number of letters, etc., and move remainder to "inherrently funny words" article. But why bother? Leave it in, Killjoys. Andy G 22:15 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
                • "Killjoys"? This is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia, not somewhere to have a laugh. "Why bother?" Because an encyclopaedia is supposed to provide a summary of human knowledge. What does one learn from this page? Nothing, except about the minds of the Wikipedians. How can we check a "fact" on this page? What reference source can we use to check if something is interesting or not? We can't check anything on this page, because it contains nothing but the subjective impressions of the people editing it. -- Oliver P. 02:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Objected. :-) -- Timwi 23:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • On what grounds? I know the page says "Votes" in the title, but I think we should provide arguments. -- Oliver P. 02:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • What does one learn from this page? you ask. One learns about interesting and unusual place names. Evercat 02:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Pomy - is unencyclopedic in two languages. SimonP 23:57 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Athenagoras - copyvio. Evercat 01:32 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Since it turns out there's also a Patriarch Athenagoras in addition to Athenagoras of Athens (who the copyviolating biography was about), I've turned it into a disambiguation page. --Delirium 01:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • An action which would have been rather unfortunate had I not noticed it, since the public domain text Evercat flagged as a cp vio would have been lost indefinitely. -- Tim Starling 01:55 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This is why we have a VfD page. :-) Evercat 02:07 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Susan Finlayson - Not to seem snooty or anything, but Stanford directory has her as a lab assistant. The info was added by an anon some time ago, perhaps by herself or an acquaintance. If the latter, Susan may not be pleased to discover some of her personal info encyclopedized... Stan 03:18 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Cyanotype -- orphan, no content, only link to de language wikipedia. Is there some particular policy about this sort of thing? -- Infrogmation 04:48 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a Wikipedian who speaks both German and English could place a translated version on the EN WP? The DE version looks to be of good length, but I don't know German, so... --bdesham 05:01 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Speech by Saddam Hussein regarding the United States
    • Was a grotesquely POV article; although it is now NPOVed, it is in my opinion needless to have this article. If at all, the main statements of the speech can be included into other articles. After all this is not likely to become a historical speech. -- Cordyph 13:17 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Tannin 13:19 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • In its current form, it should be removed. After all, he has made many speeches pertaining to the United States. I suspect that it's being used as a forum for these quotations.

However, Saddam's speeches, with his blunt, militant language; allusions to the glorious Islamic past as well as pre-Islamic Mesopotamia; anti-imperialist pan-Arabist rhetoric; Islamic references; and socialist rhetoric were a notable aspect of his regime and made for a unique, easily identifiable style. His speeches were a important tactic by which he portrayed himself as an extension of Arab dignify and Iraq's destiny, assuming the role of a fearless liberation fighter and solider; bold, visonary statesmen; and wise scholar well versed in history. The speeches certainly capsize his worldview and Ba'atish ideology. They're also a reflection of his ad-hoc efforts to forge a national identity in a fragmented society and fragile state. While a secular modernizer in many resepcts, sweeping aways the vestages of the monarchy and aristocracy and not ruling by Islamic law, his speeches are loaded with traditional and Islamic references. In a way, he has been striving to synthesize historical glories with a modern vision. At times, Saddam has employed Arab history to forge some kind of national identity in a country torn by tribal, religious, ethnic, political-factional, and class conflict. Saddam has long referred to the glory days of the Abbasid empire, with its capital in Baghdad, and has made sure that the contrasts between the glory days of Arab unity and the present age (with 22 different, often-conflicting Arab nation-states with boundries drawn up by Western imperialist powers) are not overlooked. While he's struggled with years against those favoring an Iraqi (such as the Communists) national identity, as opposed to an Arab identity, Saddam has, at times, pointed to the unique role of Iraq in the region (as the "cradle of civilization" in ancient times and Abbasid times in the Middle Ages) in an effort to arose nationalist sentiments in favor of the regime and suggest that Iraq is the natural leader of the Middle East. The two quotations being posted, with their allusions to the "empires," epitomize the classic Saddam speech. Some contributors might be able to use these quotations in a more effective manner.

I think that a good, scholarly article could be devoted to his personality cult, with a focus on how he sought to respond, from the perspective of a committed Ba'athist, to US-led attacks and the divisions and conflicts tearing his unstable country apart, with a special focus on his speeches.

Perhaps someone should find the speech in question and refer to this quotations in an objective article. 172

You make good sense, 172. Tannin
  • Great Disappointment - Incomprehensible to me. -- DavidWBrooks 18:30 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, as near as I can tell, this is about the Millerites. Miller repeatedly preached the end of the world to his followers. Needless to say, it didn't occur. Surprisingly, the first few times, he didn't lose many followers... humans are notoriously gullible animals. The Great Disappointment, IIRC, was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. The article should probably stay. I'll try to tidy it up a bit. --Dante Alighieri 18:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Seems to have become an okay article. Leave it. -- Infrogmation 23:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • sister (and talk page)
    • Just a dictionary entry. Wiktionary already has an entry for this word. -- Oliver P. 02:08 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1131906"