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 Bdesham (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 15 July 2003 (User:Mrityu kec was deleted). 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.

"Listed for deletion" notice

When you list here a page that you think will be listed for the entire 7 days -- i.e., a page that won't be deleted immediately -- please place the following notice above the page's content:

''This page has been listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. Please see that page for justifications and discussion.''

Hopefully, this notice will prevent new users from becoming confused as to why their page was removed. Please note that this text should not be used in the case of a possible copyright violation. In that case, please use the "Copyright infringement notice" text from Wikipedia:Boilerplate text.

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
      • Discussion moved to Talk:100 Worst Britons. Summary: Jtdirl defended the lists as being "compiled in valid surveys by reputable media organisations that were the subject of major public debate", and KF agreed. SimonP pointed out that they were "basically primary sources". I brought up the matter that the lists might be copyrighted by their compilers, but Jtdirl dismissed this, saying, "There are no copyright issues with these polls." -- Oliver P. 07:09 10 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)
    • I'm still right about this. No, I am! But the discussion was too long, so I've moved it to Talk:List of interesting or unusual place names. Summary: KF didn't see how NPOV was relevant; Andre Engels replied that the list was POV, because the terms "funny" and "interesting" are "fully subjective". Evercat, Pizza Puzzle, and Andy G said that there was no need to apply NPOV in this case. Timwi and Jtdirl said they didn't have a problem with the page, but gave no explanation. -- Oliver P. 07:09 10 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
    • [I]t 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. [...] Perhaps someone should find the speech in question and refer to this quotations in an objective article. 172
  • sister (and talk page)
    • Just a dictionary entry. Wiktionary already has an entry for this word. -- Oliver P. 02:08 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • gendernym (and talk page)
    • Dictionary entry. And who even uses this word? I've never heard it before, it's not in the Oxford English Dictionary, and it only gets about 53 matches from Google. -- Oliver P. 02:08 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Wiki isn't a dictionary, but even if was, if that word doesn't feature in the OED then dump it. It sounds like some makey-up PC word that someone is trying to push into acceptance. This belongs in the bin. FearÉIREANN 04:14 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Only six of those Google matches are in English, and four of those refer to this article. Delete it. -- Tim Starling 05:14 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Must Phrases for NCEE
    • Very bizarre article about some Chinese phrases; no pages link there. -- Cordyph 19:46 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Strange and incomprehensible (even if I did know Chinese). Delete. -- Wapcaplet 21:10 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • pop punk archived content for July
    • I am a newbie and borrowed from some offline textual sources without permission before really getting into and understanding your copyright files. Another user helped revert the page back, but I would like the cached stuff for July permanently deleted. I read that I had to request this here, but I am not sure if I have to do this myself; I am not very tech savvy so I wouldn't have a clue how to anyway. My sincerest apologies. -- weezer76
      • I presume one of the developers could selectively remove all the July history for this article. The other option would be to delete and then replace the stub. But that would remove the record of edits by 68.100.238.156 and Ams80. Anyone got thoughts on this? -- sannse 20:30 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Western Expansion Map. Whoever the eBay user "Gamer352" is, he or she might consider suing Wikipedia if they ever saw this. The rest of the article is hardly NPOV, either. RickK 03:19 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Total crap. Delete. Kosebamse 06:23 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Petty minor gaming fake prop. --Menchi 10:13 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Modo no content besides a long quote that is perhaps a copyright violation. - SimonP 23:02 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation - a monstrously long title; a disgrace to the name stub. -Smack 04:33 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless there's a better or more commonly used name for this particular consitutional phrase, it seems fine to me. Even if there was a more commonly used name, I think a redirect using that long title would still be useful. It could use a few more links from the specific amendment articles, though. -Daniel Quinlan
    • Deleting an article "just" because its title is long ??? How strange. User:Anthere
    • It also contains nothing that is particularly worthy of being called "information". I support its deletion. -- Oliver P. 09:57 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • How about moving it to Congressional power of enforcement? --Dante Alighieri 09:59 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Someone should add some material on what the congressional power of enforcement is, and what its significance is. At the moment, all it says is, "Here is a phrase. It appears in some articles." That doesn't tell anybody anything. -- Oliver P. 10:04 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This article should be incorporated into the main United States Constitution article. I don't see a need to start a whole new article for each semi-important phrase. --Jiang 19:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm with Jiang. I also object on principle to articles that assume there is only one Congress in the world. jimfbleak
      • It does no such thing. The article explicitly states that it refers to the US Constitution. -- Oliver P. 11:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Maybe, but I don't see US in the title jimfbleak
          • Well, not for nothing, but my suggestion for the title change above leaves the possibility for an article that deals with the enforcement powers of Congresses from many countries. --Dante Alighieri 09:11 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • It's not likely to be an issue under the constitutions of other countries. This really is a very narrow subtopic of federalism in U.S. constitutional law, probably too narrow even to deserve treatment in the United States Constitution article. If you are reluctant to delete it, maybe the text can be inserted in Talk:United States Constitution. If any of the people watching that article feel like integrating it into the text of United States Constitution, they can do so. -- Cjmnyc 09:26 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • There's no need to delete an entry because the title is long or because the topic is limited. Wikipedia is not paper. Moreover, unless there is actual ambiguity, Wikipedia convention is to have the article title be as brief as possible (e.g. London refers to London, England). And as the linchpin of federalism, it is one of the more important phrases of the United States governmental structure. --The Cunctator 22:49 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • OK, I'm persuaded, and I've written substantive content so the article now says something meaningful. I haven't moved the page yet, but it definitely needs to be moved to "Congressional power of enforcement" or whatever the consensus is as to an appropriate title. Is everyone OK with "Congressional power of enforcement", or can someone suggest another alternative? Once that's done, I'll also add a link from the United States Constitution and Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution pages. By the way, it appears that the reason for the odd page title is that the page is linked directly from the text of the relevant Constitutional amendments. Cjmnyc 05:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Science in China just contains the title of two organizations IN CHINESE (the first one says "Chinese Chemistry Institute" and I'm not literate enough to read the second one) and a link to the System Software Magazine stub. --Jiang 19:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Ocean City: Poems and Artwork. Can somebody make heads or tails out of this? RickK 00:55 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Despite its professional cover with an ugly drawing, it has less than a dozen Google mentionings [3] + [4]. --Menchi 09:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Gaia Theory (homeorhetic) and Gaia Theory (Lynn Margulis), non relevant now. Rather misleading. No history, no talk page, not linked. Never existed as an article, so little chance to be bookmarked. Elk 01:18 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • "Elk"? Oh, they're just redirects. They don't do any harm, do they? -- Oliver P. 11:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Oups, I forgot to restore my nick. Done. They don't do harm, except that when you search gaia ([5]), this is messy, slightly ridiculous, and non professional imho to see all these redirects. Anthère
    • Search result very ugly. Delete. Wikilinks people will not use anyway. --Menchi 12:06 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Finance Capital. Entire contents are "The capital to be used to gain money from money, again instead of production." I'm a bit baffled. --Delirium 07:24 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't it be decapitalized? --Menchi 09:03 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Wiktionary (and edit) or delete. --Cjmnyc 21:14 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikicide listed on Wikipedia:votes for undeletion. See discussion there. Anthere
    • Moved to meta -- Tim Starling 15:46 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Bring it back please. Can we do it properly just this once? Just to humour me? If the consensus is still for deletion after it has been up on this page for seven continuous days, then it should be deleted. GrahamN 16:05 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Totally made-up word by User:Harry Potter, presumably for a personal agenda. A search for the word "wikicide" in all talk, user, wikipedia, and article namespaces turns up only this article and its associated talk page. A Google search for same turns up only two links to Wikipedia. I would support its permanent deletion, and support User:Eloquence's decision to delete it without waiting the requisite week, as it seems to me little more than vandalism. If an anonymous contributor came here and posted a new article defining the word "Blibbityblabbity", would we wait for a week to delete it? -- Wapcaplet 17:46 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes we would, if we respected the democratic nature of this place and respected other people's right to express themselves. As I think I said before, personally I think the concept of "Wikicide" is a useful one, although the article should have been named Wikipedia:Wikicide, and the current page should be changed to a redirect,as with countless other made up words such as WikiLove, Wikiquette, Wikipedian, etc. However I don't care that much about it, and I seem to be in a minority of two, so I do not object to the page being deleted (or moved to meta, which amounts to the same thing) after it has been up on this page for a week. What I do object to very strongly is administrators acting like an autocratic elite and taking it upon themselves to make these kinds of decisions on the spot and without consultation. GrahamN 22:45 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • What do you mean "bring it back please"? Do it yourself, fool! This is a wiki! The previous revision is still saved, just revert my edit! I don't need to list a page for a week on "votes for typo fix" before I fix a typo, and nor do I have to wait a week to move a page to meta. As for moving it to Wikipedia:Wikicide, the Wikipedia namespace is for policy and documentation. If you have a look at Wikipedia:Meta-Wikipedia, you'll find that this is precisely the kind of content Meta-Wikipedia is intended for, and if you head on over to meta:Main Page you'll find that's where material such as this has accumulated. -- Tim Starling 23:04 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The fact that GrahamN thinks that an article called "Blibbityblabbity" should be listed for a week before being deleted speaks volumes about his role in this and other debates. He is just pushing a nonsensical fanatical policy that is not based on wiki rules but on his own agenda. No wonder he drove User:Zoe away. It seems to have escaped his attention but we are not creating a place for people "to express themselves", we are creating an encyclopædia!!! This is not a place for playacting and posting, but supposed to be a serious endeavour. Is Wikicide encyclopædic? No. Is it a valid dictionary term? No. Is it an agenda-driven makey-up term, yes!! If it belongs anywhere it is on the meta, nowhere else. FearÉIREANN 23:20 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Eh ! Wikilove everyone ! (a totally made up word as well). Anthère
  • Wikipedia:Wikicide listed on Wikipedia:votes for undeletion (I left aside the wikicide which had nothing to do in the article space)
    • I am awfully procedurial (?) sometimes. I think if some people ask that a decision made by a sysop be reconsidered, they should be given a right to speak their opinion and be involved in the process. The article previously deleted was undeleted after request. It was deleted again after 2 days on this list. I think this is wrong. The top of this page is talking of 7 days, so 7 days it should be. If 7 days is too long, then the rules should be changed. But right now, it is 7. Boudiou ! This is getting stupid !Anthère
  • Blazing Arrow - track list only, of what I don't know jimfbleak 12:36 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Blanked. Reads like an advert from someone in a band. Wiki is not a place to advertise. Unless someone can find some hard evidence this exists and can turn the advert into a real NPOV article it should be deleted. FearÉIREANN 23:36 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)~
  • Hennes - about a pet goat of a German football team - Skysmith 17:32 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless the goat has a particularly interesting story, I think the info could be incorporated in an article about the football team-- but the team seems to have no article. Unless some football fan thinks this is worth fixing (perhaps making the goat article a redirect to a team article), I'd say sacrifice the goat. -- Infrogmation 03:42 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Having looked at it, it doesn't warrant an article. Delete.
  • Image:Sidnnancy.jpg. Appears to be a digitized copy of the poster for the movie "Sid & Nancy", linked from Sid and Nancy. I'm pretty sure that there's no permission to use the image, and the poster's explanation ("this is a public poster") suggests pretty shaky understanding of copyright and fair use. --ESP 00:12 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • Image:Water lilies.jpg and Image:Clip image001.jpg
    • The only contributions of User:Mashdaley. Water lilies is too big to use in an article, and Clip image001 doesn't look like it belongs in an encyclopedia. Neither is used by an article. -phma 04:28 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Sources unspecified, and user long gone (in April), therefore, contact unlikely. Delete. (Waterlily looks way too suspicious anyway) --Menchi 04:46 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed is not really an article, and on Google, there are 10 hits, 3 of which are from Wikipedia, while the others seem to be about different people with that name. Adam Bishop 05:09 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Climbing any serious mountain with a skirt seems a bit... --Menchi 05:12 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I bet Bill Brasky did it. Adam Bishop 05:19 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • She was a mountaineering pioneer, and wrote several books. It's true that there aren't many Google hits, but there should be! (There are a couple more under her married names.) I'm sure more information will turn up about her later... -- Oliver P. 14:40 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Malbonulo possible copyright violation -- JeLuF 19:22 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Warped Tour some strange article which is about some punk tour and opens Warped Tour is a tour of punk bands of the people who's been touring for the year. Linked pages were blanked by me now have been deleted by G-Man. The remaining article are not remotely encyclopædic. They should be deleted. FearÉIREANN 20:38 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a fairly well-known event that's been happening for nearly a decade now, so I think it deserves an article (though surely a more encyclopedic one). It's no Woodstock, but it's on par with Lollapalooza. --Delirium 01:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Delirium, it should be kept. It is a significant cultural event that should appear in Wikipedia. As well as going to North America, the tour has also been to Australia and New Zealand so has a semi-global appeal. It needs a more encyclopedic article and doesn't really need seperate pages for each year. Popsracer 07:57 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Word puzzle - less than a stub; virtual orphan; I just merged its content into puzzle. We have two courses of action here: making it a redirect or deleting it entirely. -Smack 21:05 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • We can also make it a gateway to word puzzles in languages other then English. Wshun
  • Controversial issues involving Jehovah's Witnesses and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. I propose that these two articles be deleted because (1) Both are currently empty, their contents having been transferred to other articles on Jehovah's Witnesses, (2) Why should there be an article on criticism or controversy in general? Any controversial issues can be included in at least five other articles referring to specific aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines and practices. (3) All religious, political and philosophical groupings are in any case controversial by virtue of the fact that they all have radically different worldviews. (4) With the exception of Scientology (just a few days ago), no other religious group has a 'Controversial Issues' page. Jpb1968 22:37 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Given that they're blank, I'd support deleting them. In the general case though, I don't think it's always inappropriate to have such articles: if there's a huge controversy that requires lengthy explanation, it may sometimes be clearer to separate it out from the main article -- sort of how we break all the country articles down into 10 sub-articles for history/politics/etc., have a separate page for Global protests against war on Iraq, and so on. --Delirium 01:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Brow piercing "A brow piercing is a piercing in the area aboive the eye (roughly 2-4 cm) they are usually a piercing" -- Infrogmation 05:06 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Green Turtle. Probable copyvio, from a WWF page [6]. WWF says "Unless otherwise stated, all text featured on this website is copyright of WWF-- WWF Guianas, (also known as World Wide Fund For Nature and World Wildlife Fund)." --Delirium 06:10 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Randy Sash Has "released" two demos. Has signed to publish an Album. If he becomes the next Bruce Springsteen, we can still write an article for him later. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 06:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Pacman (song). Claims to be listed on VfD for copyvio, but doesn't appear to be actually listed on this page, so adding here. --Delirium 06:45 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Book of the Master of the Secret House - "The Book of the Master of the Secrets is under construction.......contact Gavin Sands, the Master of the Secrets Girl. She knows all...... " --zeno 09:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1152402"