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 Tim Starling (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 25 July 2003 (users need explicit approval to write about themselves). 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 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 administrator 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. Note that obvious junk can be removed by admins at any time.

Please review our Wikipedia:Deletion policy before adding to this page, and before performing deletions as an administrator. To challenge a decision made over a deletion, see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

See also:

July 10

July 15

  • Rob Fenwick not clear that he was even elected. Is every local councillor going to get an entry (I was a parish councillor once, so think about this!) jimfbleak 17:10 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree, dump it. A quick google search turns up dozens of Rob Fenwicks across the world, none of whom are that particular one (of the pages I've clicked through to anyway). --Delirium 18:04 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • There's probably only a sentence or two of verifiable information about him at this stage. They could go in Don Foster's article, maybe, but the connection is a little tenuous. Hmm. I'll think about it... -- Oliver P. 22:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 19

  • GmbH - This is a dictionary entry, and a German one at that. No real content anyway.
    • Perhaps it should redirect to corporation? That page already discusses several types of corporate entities, such as LLCs, so a brief mention of GmbH could be added. --Delirium 22:32 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • We can't have a redirect from every foreign word. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a translation tool. CGS 23:04 19 Jul 2003 (UTC).
        • Yes, but in this case it's a word used in English, as quite a few companies with the designation "GmbH" do business in the United States, the UK, and other English-speaking countries. It wouldn't hurt to just put a note in corporation along the lines of "corporations registered in Germany typically use the suffix GmbH, while corporations registered in the United States typically use the suffix 'Co.' or 'Inc.'" --Delirium 00:59 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • I agree that this should be kept. A GmbH is a specific form of business organization under German law, as is (for example) an LLC under US law or a plc under English law. The German abbreviation is used in English because it's a specifically German thing. This should be fixed, not deleted. -- Cjmnyc 06:54 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • William Casnodyn Rhys - 10 results on google (webpages on him not in english). --Jiang 01:39 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Add Rhys; link to above. --Jiang
    • Del this genealogical worship. One of the no-no of WPing is genealogizing. --Menchi 19:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)


July 20

  • Image:Mess.me262.250pix.jpg and Image:Mess.me262.550pix.jpg
    • I think the copyright doesn't allow us to use them, but it's so vague and self-contradictory I'm not sure. Anybody else got any idea? --Robert Merkel 11:52 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • If it's public domain (as they claim it is), then they have no right to restrict it to non-commercial use only. I say keep it. -- Tim Starling 12:36 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I believe it's entirely possible and within their rights to take public domain content from upstream and put restrictions on its use to the downstream. The Disney Corporation made a mint on doing just that. If we can, we should try to find the sources this Web site used, and use those instead. Otherwise, I say either ask permission for the content, or err on the safe side and take it out. -- ESP 22:55 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • They can put restrictions on it if they own the copyright to it. Disney can claim the copyright to their version of a fairy tale if it is original, and has a significant amount of their own creative expression. They can't claim the copyright to The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, nor can this site put restrictions on public domain work where their only input has been copying and scaling the images. However, it would be nice to find their original sources, since I wouldn't be surprised if this site is infringing the copyright the actual owner. See my user page for an IANAL statement. -- Tim Starling 23:57 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Charles C. Boyer - currently redirects to Daniel C. Boyer for some mysterious reason. This is misleading, as there is a rather famous Charles Boyer (redirecting it to him instead, however, probably isn't much good, since he doesn't seem to have a middle name at all). (I don't mind the other Boyer redirects, btw, just this one.) --Camembert 13:11 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • see title of http://forum.psrabel.com/biografien/boyer.html. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:58 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Email them and tell them to change it. Here you go, here's a contact form. I vote for deletion. -- Tim Starling 00:01 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • It's been changed; the redirect should be deleted. --Jiang 05:59 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Daniel C. Boyer's self-aggrandizement is out of control. Any possible permutation, misspelling, misrendering, permutation of a misspelling, or vaguely related reference to one of his works inevitably has a link, redirect, or reference added by him to his non-user page or one of his self-entered advertizements for his works. In other words, I agree that it should be deleted. --Daniel Quinlan 05:33 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote for deleting all related to Daniel C. Boyer. Case is similar to that of Charles W. Swan, an apparent attempt to use the Internet to create the identity of a "famous person" out of nothing. Web is full of evidently self-submitted references to Boyer, but absent of any evidence of artistic recognition by others which should be there for any artist worth to be included in an encyclopaedia (otherwise everyone could make an article about himself). As a rule of thumb, to justify an article for any living person there should be at least one mention of that person in the editorial part of a serious news source.
      • Would you accept Brill's Content as a "serious news source"? It is defunct now but I was mentioned in it. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:22 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • 217.85.213.254 02:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • 217.85.213.254 is grossly exaggerating, to say the least. For instance, I have no part in the running of New York Arts Magazine, an internationally-distrubuted arts magazine, and it was not because of some submission of mine that I was asked to respond to an inquiry on "new surrealism." I have no part in the running of Cultural Observator, a Romanian magazine; no part in the running of The Improper Bostonian, &c., &c. Surrealist Subversions, in which two of my articles and a drawing appear, was edited, introduced and published by others, &c., &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:18 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • keep Daniel Boyer and Daniel C. Boyer and delete the 15th other ones. This is utterly ridiculous. User:anthere (my ! did not I just said this just above ? Why is this discussion taking place two times ?)
  • Babri Masjid garbled and intensely POV SimonP 15:54 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • needs revision, but is a legitimate topic
      • Yes, it seems to have become a legitimate article SimonP 04:18 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Gatchina -- possible copyvio. Anon user cited the source, but gave no indication that there was permission to copy it. --Delirium 18:26 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 21

  • Image:John_cassavetes.jpg -- My too-clever copyright knowledge -- "It's a postage stamp, made by the Federal Government! It must be in the public domain!" -- caught me up. Postage stamps after 1970 are indeed copyrighted by the private US postal service. So, this is a copyvio, and it needs to go. It's a shame, too -- It's such a nice picture. -- ESP 02:46 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Capitals of the Netherlands - hardly worth an article, should be explained on Netherlands
    • It probably won't live up to Capital of China, even if historical capitals are included. But how and why and when the two capital appeared could be encyclopedically interesting. --Menchi 19:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • MorroWindHelp. Looks like something that'd fit better in a single-page "quick help" insert in the game box than in an encyclopedia. --Delirium 07:03 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Flatworks - content is "not sculpture. something that is made by cheesey painters and printmakers and, sometimes, even a puter user". Does this have any chance of being made into a real article? Angela 21:02 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or move to wiktionary. --Jiang
  • Chris Bailey - I'm not sure if this could be made into a real article, but right now the article itself says it's just a joke. Adam Bishop 23:29 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 22

  • 32- Dale Hunter, 5 - Rod Langway - copyvio; both by the same anon user. --Jiang 02:03 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Articles have since been rewritten and renamed to better names. The orignally article names exist as redirects and the redirects should be deleted. -- Popsracer 21:19 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Alien Technology - not sure what the article is about and whether this deserves mention. --Jiang 03:00 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Legio II Augusta - possible copyvio -- mav 11:57 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I replaced with the article that I should have wrote weeks ago. :-) Stan 16:55 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Kleit - Huh??? כסיף Cyp 12:58 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Same user created Shlomo, an article on a given name. - Efghij 17:20 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've already deleted the same article two times, and sent a message to the user saying wikipedia is not a personal blog. This is the email I got in response: "Actually, you're wrong. This isn't the begining of a personal blog. It's the introduction to a history of the Bundist/Yiddishist movement in Eastern Europe. Shlomo Kleit was a leader of that movement. Please don't misidentify something because it is written well." (from User:Lazarkl). I have asked the user to write in a form that is acceptable and title the article more accurately. If this is not done, I say delete. --Jiang 20:28 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've moved this to Shlomo Kleit and rewritten as a stub. - Efghij 22:57 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Yoism, Yo
    • Idiosyncratic "faith". Just because a person has a website an a weird idea for a new religion doesn't mean we should have an article on that. There are no independent sources of information on this "faith" and it doesn't pass the 5,000 person rule of thumb. This is beyond silly and is in fact an attempt at proselytizing and giving far more credibility to a "new faith" than it deserves. --mav 19:23 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)~
    • Hmmm...seems like this article about a new religion offended mav for some reason. I wonder why? -- The original contributor
    • He's told you why, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Evercat 19:43 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • He's told me why it should be removed, but not why it offended him. Anyway, I can see some validity in the argument about why it should be removed, but I don't see any reason to get offended. And while I can understand the arguments for removal, and I'm considering them, I'm not sure. Does it add value to an encyclopedia to remove small topics? It seems to me nothing is lost by including them, as long as their existence doesn't effect negatively the clarity and organization of other topics, which, it seems to me, it doesn't have to. Anyway, I've long marvelled at the beauty of the opensource process, and the speed with which this issue seems to have been addressed is just amazing. Within minutes people where objecting and removing links and deleting the topic I had added. I think that is great. Shows the power of this whole idea. -- The origional contributor.
    • Me too. Perhaps the contributor can come back in a few years when Yoism is famous and successful and write a big article about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. -- ESP 20:02 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I've got to remember that slogan. --mav
    • This is an interesting act of censorship! "Beyond silly" is the most interesting part of the syndrome! Idiosyncratic deserves at least a footnote to a dictionary. [1] Hence, in the interests of improving the Wikipedia NPOV process, I vote for retention. Rednblu 20:09 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Censorship! Ha! So I can create a website on my cat and then because that website exists I can create a Wikipedia article about my cat? Give me a break. This is the micronation thing again but even more ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to advance idiosyncratic faiths - the burden is on the author to prove that their "faith" merits inclusion in the cannon of human knowledge. --mav
      • Yes, indeed. Me thinkst thou dost protest too much, dear mav, and showest us sinners all the bias in thine own cannon. Rednblu 20:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind keeping these articles (though one with a redirect might be better), but I do object to the original contributor sprinkling links to them all over Wikipedia; that strikes me as more like advertising. See also the discussion at the Village Pump on this topic. --Delirium 20:20 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote for deletion. Mintguy 20:45 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Whether yoism is "beyond silly" is an irrelevance. We have an entry on Discordianism and similar nonsense religions, as we should. The important question is whether it is sufficiently important to warrant an article in Wikipedia. This has not been demonstrated. Martin 09:57 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmmm...what is the metric for inclusion here? There are a lot of important ideas that only a few people know about. Infact that is the reason for the existance of an encylopedia, to organize and provide knowledge, knowledge that a layperson would consider esoteric. There are many very important physics theories that only a handfull of physicists have ever heard of, or understand. Does that mean they are unimportant? That they shouldn't be included in wikipedia. I would argue that honest and objective articles improve the value of wikipedia, *except* when they reduce the value of other articles. So little known theories ought to be included, as long as they don't obscure the more important articles. From a user's point of view this is the logical approach. If someone has a particular interest and they can research that line of interest more deeply because there are detailed articles, this improves the value of the wikipedia, as long as it doesn't make it more difficult for people with a more general interest to find the information that they are looking for.

July 23

  • Kleit family : like the writer recognizes, just the biography of his family Muriel Gottrop 12:17 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Kleit also listed above, with a reply or two. כסיף Cyp 12:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Reiter's Syndrome - possible copyvio. -- Wapcaplet 22:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • User:Whyang's user page says he "pilfered" it from Merk.com. I checked the page, but it appears he just paraphrased it and didn't lift it directly. So I don't think it's a copyvio. Nevertheless, if it is, the text should just be blanked since I think Reiter's Syndrome deserves an entry. &mdash;Frecklefoot 18:58 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 24

  • Image:Image8.jpg -- image of Chasey Lain getting (still clothing-on) friendy with another pneumatic blonde lady, not linked from the Lain article. --Robert Merkel 05:03 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • In any case I think an image of Chasey Lain should contain only her, not someone else too. This creates confusion as to which of these ladies is Lain. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:24 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Royal and Noble - seems to be saying royals and nobles are registered like pedigree animals. Doesn't seem to contribute anything of value that's not far better said in related links (at bottom). Gritchka 10:23 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It should cleaned up by someone or merged with a similar article and made into a redirect to an article. But it shouldn't be deleted outright. -- Popsracer 00:17 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Small business - doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic entry at all, just advice. I'm a little hesitant to post it here because I can't decide if a good article on small businesses can (or should) be written for Wikipedia. If I'm off-base, please let me know. Jwrosenzweig 18:14 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've now added an introduction, because I think an entry for this subject might well be useful, but it was no good as it was. It now needs to be amended to reflect different national patterns. Deb 21:40 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Daniel C. Boyer - It seems quite clear to me (as it would most other users) that this article does not belong on the wikipedia. Daniel C. Boyer is not important enough (based on the tests we have used that resulted in the removal of many other articles) to have an article in an encyclopedia about him. It seems to me, that this page may have originally been his userpage, and then when the new user namespace was made, it wasn't totally removed? This page should be deleted, or made into a redirect. See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for more details. MB 18:16 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Could you please list to what "tests" you refer? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • The biggest test is to use google, and see how many hits it gets (people use this test ALL the time). If it doesn't get at least 2 or 3 pages of results, it's most likely not worthy of an article. Additionally, there is the purposed "1000-person" or "5000-person" guidelines, which while not policy, are a good idea. I doubt this article would pass a 100-person guidline. MB 18:41 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Please explain the x-person guideline. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
          • It is still being finalized. you would probably have an interest in getting involved in it, since you think your page is an exception. I last saw it discussed on the Village Pump. MB 19:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • I get it; I may have been a bit dense. But in what way is "my page" (presumably you mean Daniel C. Boyer an exception? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • I just ran the google check, but if you look into the results, you'll see that these are mostly sites where Daniel has posted his works. Anyhow, I still don't think that Daniel C. Boyer is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia about him. I don't think I am the only person who thinks that we shouldn't just put anything and everything in the wikipedia. MB 18:41 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It is hard to measure the importance of a person, but more time could help. We may better leave the article here and reopen the issue five years later. During this five years, Daniel should better hand off the article, no matter how terrible it is, because it will hurt the objectivity of Wikipedia. If Daniel is really important enough, his supporters will come and make corrections so Daniel shouldn't worry. wshun 18:45 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • keep Daniel Boyer and Daniel C. Boyer and delete the 15th other ones. This is utterly ridiculous. User:anthere (my ! did not I just said this just above ? Why is this discussion taking place two times ?) (oh ! is not that the third conversation on Mr Boyer on this page ? Well, I don't know if he really is famous outside, but sure, you make his game discussing these ridiculous redirects over and over and over.
      • This was all very far from being my idea. And this third section on me on this page is to once again discuss deleting Daniel C. Boyer. It was my impression we'd already been through all this, but... --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • How to best spoil this page with making it 39 kb long !!!)
  • Daniel, I was giving you the benifit of the doubt, since I hadn't looked at any of your other contributions, but now that I have, it seems to me that this isn't a case of just a little honest discussion of oneself. This is shameless self-promotion! I thought intially that you would know better than to use wikipedia as a tool of self promotion, but your edit history proved me wrong. And then I had a look at what linked to Daniel C. Boyer. What the hell! This is ridiculous! Please everyone who has supported keeping this article around, have a look at the number of articles he has added himself to, and the number of articles he has created about himself. It is astronomical! MB 19:50 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The fact that the existence of certain articles may be inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the existence of other articles. This is a completely ridiculous argument. If an article shouldn't exist, list it here on its own merits and state the reason or reasons you think it should be deleted. If Daniel C. Boyer is biased, either for or against me, if the bias is in my contributions thereto or in the contributions of others, list it under NPOV dispute. But this idea again, where evaluations of one article is based on evaluations of others, is completely illegitimate and ridiculous.
      • you couldn't be more wrong, it does have bearing on the situation, b/c from what I can tell, Daniel C. Boyer has a previously undocumented history of creating articles about himself. People are assuming that this is the only such article, and therefor it should be allowed to exist. Unfortunately, this isn't true. There are a huge number of articles involving Daniel C. Boyer, and he has spent far too much time working on them.
        • I strongly disagree. If the reason that Daniel C. Boyer continues to exist as an article is that people believed it to be the only article touching on something to do with me that I created or worked on, it should obviously be deleted, even if this information were true. Daniel C. Boyer should be evaluated (what its value is, how it should be edited, whether it should be deleted) on the same basis as any other article. Calling the history "undocumented" is beyond ridiculous as my user contributions can be easily seen by anyone who chooses to do so. And as to how much time I've spent working on anything, it's none of your or anyone else's business. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:40 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Before I knew this information, I really had no problem besides it not being the type of article that you would see in an encyclopedia (which I still believe). Now that I have discovered what has really been going on, I think it is an important consideration in this case. MB 21:08 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Let me explain my point with a very exaggerated example. If an article was created about Winston Churchill's nose hair, this be a worthless article but would in no sense affect the significance of Winston Churchill. (Note: I am not trying to make any point beyond the very surface point this makes.) --Daniel C. Boyer 20:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It's all been done (woo hoo hoo), it's all been done (woo hoo hoo), it's all been done... before. Can we please move all this to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer, where the google searches are already quoted, the nature of those links assessed, and people who have heard of Daniel outside of Wikipedia gave their testimony? -- Tim Starling 00:43 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks. There are some other articles that I still think should be deleted, see below. Daniel Quinlan 00:55 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(Bit of an overview) As far as I (Daniel Quinlan 00:34 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)) can tell, every article about Daniel C. Boyer and his creations was created by User:Daniel C. Boyer. A few pages have been undeleted, resurrected, clarified, or moved by other users in attempts to resolve issues related to his self-aggrandizing content, but virtually all of the content originates by him. A few users know of him, but that does not excuse the self-aggrandizement and advertizing that he has done as a Wikipedia author. The problem is, at the moment, less severe than it was a few months ago, through the work of several other Wikipedia editors, but some problems remain:

  • Celestialism - the formatting makes it seem like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere, but it doesn't come up on google, so not sure if it's a copyvio or not. --Delirium 19:32 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 25

  • S'Mores - This is a receipe and not an article -- Popsracer 00:31 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • We have lots of recipes. See List of recipes. Evercat 00:36 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Whoops. Anyway it appears to be a copyvio as well. -- Popsracer 00:46 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)


  • P3d0: I added that page by accident. P3d0 01:21 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1190773"