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 Ram-Man (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 27 July 2003 ("List of best physicists" redirected.). 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 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 19

July 20

  • Afghanistan timeline 1991-2000 and Afghanistan timeline 1981-1990 - obsolete; articles have been split
    • Please don't delete valid redirects. Martin 17:56 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • They're not needed (there are no links to them), they just clutter up search results if you search for Afghanistan etc.
        • There might be external links from the vast spans of the internet not archived by google. There might be bookmarks. People might have scribbled the address down on a piece of paper. Broken links piss people off, and there's no need to create them when we've got redirects specifically to solve this problem. If I search on Wikipedia for "Afghanistan", they don't even come up in the first page of results, so there's no clutter problem. Keep these redirects, in accordance with deletion policy. Martin 19:24 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
    • There has got to be another image of Cassavetes we can go with. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52 26 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)
    • Appears to be a tolerable stub. Google seems to show the company as real, and the products it makes (RFID tags) are looking like becoming a genuine consumer issue soon. I vote for keeping it. Evercat 19:04 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • King & Spalding - looks like advertising. --Jiang 03:27 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Has been substantially improved by Oliver Pereira now. Can be kept, I think. Evercat 19:01 25 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
    • discussion to talk:yoism. No clear consensus: mav, esp, mintguy, martin, frecklfoot, ping favour deletion. Ram-Man, Rdnlu, delerium, technopilgrim, and "over zealous fan" favour keeping. The criteria of size had not been met, but there is no clear consensus about whether or not this criteria is actually important. Information in the article has been independently verified by at least one established wikipedian (Also note that as far as I know I am the *only* person involved in this conversation who would identify him/herself as Yoan. --over zealous fan)

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)
  • Ivy the Terrible Confusing and poorly written: I doubt Ivy is worth even a well-written entry. Jwrosenzweig 21:07 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I've deleted this once already, although the spelling's now better jimfbleak
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • I doubt it is a relevant movement -- a search for celestialism turns up almost nothing. I vote for deletion. --Eloquence 10:16 25 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)
  • ILGA Purges seems to be significantly POV (it's the work of this anonymous user [2], most (all?) of whose edits have been reverted), but I don't really know anything about the subject... I would have thought the title is argubly POV in and of itself, too. James F. 03:27 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Can be edited; against deletion. --Eloquence 10:16 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Krautrock - copyvio. --Jiang
    • I added a completely new stub, written from scratch by me. So, please don't delete. --Lexor 10:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Jacques Kinnaer - this person does not seem to be a major figure ... yet. olivier 08:37 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • A student in his Masters degree? Doesn't sound very ...professional, yet. Nice site, though. --Menchi 18:24 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I was going to agree with deleting, but that is quite a major and professionally done site, and the counter indicates it's gotten over 2m visitors. If accurate that's probably on the borderline of encyclopedic, though the article should be slightly changed to note that his 'claim to fame' is the website, not his academic work in egyptology. --Delirium 21:45 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with Delirium--the site would be his best argument for inclusion. A simple article seems like a fitting thing to me (if it became five paragraphs on his contributions to Egyptology, that would be another matter of course). Jwrosenzweig
  • Provenance. Content is "history of ownership, origin, source". Angela 19:40 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Fuckwit -- dictionary entry. -- Tarquin 20:15 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Damn, you caught me in an edit conflict as I was adding the same article! -- Oliver P. 20:20 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Fashion sense - inaccurate (seemingly intentionally so for humor's sake), and I can't envision this topic needs an entry. Jwrosenzweig 23:50 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This is something that should be deleted before the one week waiting period. 172 03:23 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Not it isn't. It was rewritten by various Wikipedians and merged with fashion. Keep. Martin 12:24 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 26

  • theories of imperialism - an article started by the banned user Vera Cruz. Contains nothing more than redundant material borrowed from another page, on which this same material is posted.
  • Ronald Regan - redirects to Ronald Reagan. Misspelling of last name. 172 06:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • keep; common misspellings are perfectly legitimate redirects according to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy --Jiang
    • keep; Might be a bit confusing against Donald Regan although I suppose that error is vastly less common (missing vowel vs. changed first letter). If it seems confusing, then someone could create a disambiguation page. Daniel Quinlan 22:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Aerodina Lenticulara - copyvio, admitted by the anonymous submitter (who put "from: (url)" at the top of the article, without any indication that he/she was the original author). --Delirium 08:20 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Bob Tisdall - copyvio. --Delirium 08:26 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The submitter claims on Talk:Bob Tisdall that he knows Mr. Tisdall personally and is basing the article on various material compiled over the years. It came up on google because it had several sentences taken verbatim from other biographies, but he has indicated that he'll rewrite those portions so it's wholly original (and at least two-thirds or so is already original). --Delirium 00:57 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Life under Taliban rule - i don't see anything enciclopedic on this one. It was a piece of news during the Afgan war. It's a very dated article: will it be interesting in 10 years? Muriel Gottrop 11:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why you want to delete this. This is history, not news. These were things that did happen under Taliban rule. RickK 19:15 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • The name alone suggest that it doesn't meet encyclopedic standards. Valid content should be moved to the history of Afghanistan page. 172 03:23 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It was moved from the main Taliban article by User:Ed Poor. I would keep it. --Jiang 03:27 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems fine to me. Of recent interest, yes, but that doesn't make it less worthy of being an article. I think it is a long-term piece. Daniel Quinlan 05:37 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Artist's book - seems like a dictionary def to me... Martin 19:18 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete. Daniel Quinlan 05:32 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I think this could definitely be expanded into an encyclopedia article, whatever its current failings may be. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:15 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • The Black Madonna of Czestochowa. Someone's very idiosyncratic view of Bible and human history. RickK 19:36 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, it could be an encyclopedia article if someone who knows something about it wrote it up. I've come across it several times in reading. If it is deleted, it should at least be put on the requested article list.Danny
      • The spelling and grammar are idiosyncratic. The ideas not even unorthodox, since the ideas generally are just not talked about, rather than actively refuted. The one criticism I would direct at the article, is that it isn't specifically about the history of that particular Black Madonna, which has genuine history separate from other Black Madonnas. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:48 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I think I've largely fixed the problems. I moved the article to Black Madonna, copyedited and pruned out the kookiest bits. I also put a stub at The Black Madonna of Czestochowa. Both articles still need much work, but should stay. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 02:29 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Albert Herter A joke, or a vanity page. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 22:52 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This seems to be a self-aggrandizing autobiography. I suggest that it be deleted before the one week waiting period. 172 03:07 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • 100% agreement, delete it. Daniel Quinlan 05:32 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Currently deletion looks best to me, but wait a week please. Martin 12:02 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Stubbed. Keep. Martin 12:19 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July 27

  • Quantum flux The definition is absolutely wrong. "Quantum flux" is not a term used in any branch of physics I'm aware of. -- CYD
    • The term is used in at least one journal article I found on google (abstract: [3]), but I can't glean enough information from that usage to figure out what it means. Some searching through the physics SPIN journal database indicates that it's been used in 41 indexed articles in prominent peer-reviewed journals over the past decade, so it appears to be a legitimate but not very common term. --Delirium 05:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I've got full text access to those SPIN hits, here's what I found. The SQUID people (like what Delirium found) seem to be talking about a magnetic flux -- some kind of magnetic effect which is inherent to the device rather than externally applied. There's a paper in Phys Rev D called "Quantum flux from a moving spherical mirror". They use it to mean particle (or probability) flux. It's closer to what Reddi's talking about. I'll quote some of it at Talk:Quantum flux. -- Tim Starling 05:44 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • The SQUID term refers to the magnetic flux quantum, which is a magnetic flux that is quantized due to the presence of a supercurrent. Using "quantum flux" to refer to it is okay, but it's not a precise technical term. The mirror stuff is obviously referring to a flux of photons. I'm putting up a temporary page, but I still think the page should be deleted -- there's really nothing to say except that the term "quantum flux" is confused. -- CYD
  • Jovan, Slavitza item listed as surname, first name; also provides very little information.
  • Chef - dictionary entry, and wrong, I think. Evercat 11:02 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Quite off the mark, to say the least. Delete. Kosebamse 17:24 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1205001"