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 Viajero (talk | contribs) at 08:16, 16 August 2003. 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.

NOTE: Always indicate on the listed page itself that it is here. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Listed_for_deletion_notice. If this is not done, then the page will not be deleted.

See also:

August 9

  • September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/External news sites - no longer helpful; do we really need to donate money at this point in time? This article was originally made on Sept 14, 2001. Some links may be obsolete. --Jiang 05:41, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • no longer helpful? donate money? hmm mabey i missed something but i didn't see any donation things ... and the links aren't obsolete. Most goto sites that still have info on them (atleast the first few categories did) -- reddi 20:24, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • A good number of those links don't work. Maybe someone can check them and transfer them to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. Some of them (such as links to search engines) just arent helpful and dont serve our purpose. --Jiang 07:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Viktor Klimenko, rv to NPOV version gets blanked regularly by User:65.19.129.213, author of first highly POV version. -- till we *) 21:00, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Much as it pains me to type this, he really does deserve a NPOV article about himself on Wikipedia. He is such an integral part of Finnish cultural Kitsch. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

August 10

  • Chronicles of Berth - what is this? jimfbleak 06:02, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • very strange and certainly not encyclopedia material in its present formPing 08:18, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Finland facts - doesn't look at all encyclopedic, and some of the content is dubious at best (notably when it starts talking about Belgians) Vicki Rosenzweig 14:14, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • All of the info AFAICT is at best subtly off-base. Loads of the info is at least ten years old and out of date. Frankly it would be less trouble to start from scratch than to edit this to be remotely correct. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:53, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 08:36, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Note: There is also a Belgium facts which is probably where the anon user copied it from in the first place. Delete that too? -- Jniemenmaa 15:44, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! The idea of separate "fact"-pages with trivia is bad. --Ruhrjung 11:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge the info into Finland, redirect when you're done. Martin 08:25, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • List of Finnish postal codes - looks like a direct data dump from the Finnish postal service, not remotely encyclopedic. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:38, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not even comprehensive. Lacks frex. 00011 the code for the postal service itself. Hasta la vista, baby! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:53, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete or beautify it. The only reason it's not an orphan is because the Anon starter stuck a Wikilink of it at Finland. Why would a general article on a nation be concerned with a link to a ugly list of ###########? --Menchi 20:01, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete! --Ruhrjung 11:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Piero - This was a redirect left behind when the content was moved to Piero de' Medici. However, now that I've reworked a lot of the Medici pages, no page refers to this any more. Given that it's simply a common Italian given name, it should go. Noel 16:45, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • If it was linked once, it will probably be linked again. Keep. Turn into disambig if there are many famous Perio's. Martin 20:04, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, you're in charge of creating the pages for Tommaso, Riccardo and Harold, then! :-) Noel 22:31, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Gangrene - copyvio ([1]); violation confirmed by copyright policy; you should consider recreating the article from the stub text that existed before Daear's edit -Smack 19:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Converted to pre-copyrightvio form. Deletion unnecessary unless to remove the copyright vio from the article history. That would delete some valid history too, though. Andre Engels 12:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 11

  • California Jam rock festival - just a band list. -- Notheruser 04:35, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 08:36, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • There are actually some good reasons for an article on this, and I have created one (and included the bandlist) at California Jam and put a redirect at the original spot. I did delete the mention of Linda Lovelace which is not relevant. Jgm 05:05, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Kaze no Kizu I nearly deleted on sight, but it might be intelligible to someone. jimfbleak 06:13, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a dictionary definition from Inuyasha, an anime television series, specifically, the Japanese/undubbed version. I watch the show (dubbed, *gasp*), no way does this need an entire article in either English or Japanese. Daniel Quinlan 06:46, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 08:36, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)


  • Neen art - more surrealist art stuff of indeterminate (but probably small) significance, article initiator seems to be a gallery owner exhibiting this stuff. Note: I already deleted NEEN MANIFESTO on the basis that it's a primary source. What is it with all these damn self-promoting surrealist artists? --Robert Merkel 09:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm confused about what Robert Merkel is talking about because there is no question that neen art is not surrealist in any way. At least, the eccentric way in which this is written, which makes it very difficult to figure out what this is all about, could stand substantial revision, but perhaps deletion is a better option. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:06, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Surrealist, not surrealist. I can't figure it out. What I can figure out is this is blatant self-promotion for an art movement of little verifiable significance. --Robert Merkel 23:00, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Judging by some googling, it seems very insignificant and it sure is self-promotional. Delete. Kosebamse 11:23, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • Neen art Yes, guys, delete what you don't understand. For you art arrives to Surrealism: so vast is your knowledge. Selfpromoting: so? What does that mean? Isn't it any movement self promoting? That's why it is in movement and not frozen as your notions about art.Here you have it: a real art movement with Manifesto, International members, press covering from all around the World, what else you need to consider it real? But it it will make you feel more relevant ( yourself), hit your delete button: Your future users will just have to re-write everything very soon...
        • I've had a look at http://www.neen.org and it turns out that the content of the article is copied from there. In the absence of an explicit copyright notice, only the author can give permission for Wikipedia to use it. If you are the author of the material on neen.org, then this page violates the principles of Wikipedia:auto-biography anyway and still should be deleted. --Robert Merkel 07:30, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • I am not the author, the autor are the people from Neen and all their texts-work tc is copyright free. I am Sushi Matsuda and I work in the ElectronicOrphanage which is a non for proffit organization interesting to Neen that becomes always more relevant --User:Sushi Matsuda
            • Well, then, could you provide evidence of the substantial press coverage that you claim? If there is indeed such, it's OK for the article to stay (though it will need to be rewritten to be policy-compliant). --Robert Merkel 01:20, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Dedicated lines - not sure what this article is about - makes no sense.
    • replaced with a meaningful stub. --Robert Merkel 12:25, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Salou POV tourist brochure. It would take a braver man than me to NPOV that; and I wonder if there were much left if someone did. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
  • The following were added to VfD later, on the same page:
    • Salou - page appears to be some marketing yuckspeak from the tourist board, with no balance or much actual data about the place. It is the only contribution from the (anon) user who created it. The page should probably exist, but not in this form. GRAHAMUK 01:57, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Just delete the ad unless someone bothers to fix it first. Daniel Quinlan 07:01, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
        • Would love to, but the page appears to be protected!! Not sure how that can happen, but there it is. GRAHAMUK
          • Could have been an accident. Unprotected. Kosebamse 07:33, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)s
  • Two wrongs make a right - Not really NPOV, and doesn't seem as though anyone would intentionally go to this article. Paullusmagnus 13:05, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • delete: not even a real expression, looks mostly like advocacy rather than an article. Daniel Quinlan 20:11, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)


  • 18th Street gang - Sorry, don't know much about this, but it looks rather irrelevant. Kosebamse 13:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 20:23, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. M123 21:53, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Lexis-Nexis gives a long list of articles about this group's activities, and I've turned the article into a slightly better stub. A wider article on crime in Los Angeles would be good... --Robert Merkel 23:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


  • Taja Kramberger - non-famous person, no indication on *why* this person might be important - Guest 23:09, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • I see no reason not to keep it. The last thing we need is a policy that requires debates about something as subjective as how important the subject of each new article is. Mkweise 22:37, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Wrong. See Wikipedia:Auto-biography, Wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not, and related links as to the varying reasons most of us think there is a need for this.
      • I disagree with your principle, but I agree with keeping the page. In my opinion, having written some books of poetry which have been translated in various languages is more than enough for an indication as to why someone is important. Andre Engels 12:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm. She's published books of poetry in Slovenian. Do we have any Slovenians who can verify the existence and circulation of these books. Is she well known in Slovenia? --Robert Merkel 23:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • 183 hits on google, including Italian, Hungarian, Romanian language sites. Most of the sites refer to Taja as a poet, not scientist. One lists Taja Kramberger as one of the ten notable Slovene poets of the 90's. I would say that without contrary evidence that should suffice to keep the article. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 02:43, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • Stuart Todd - a supposed rock 'legend' having success in Japan till he was killed by a fan, however a google search for '"stuart todd" japan shot fan' produces zero results. Mintguy 22:34, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 12

  • Malolan - apparently some sort of an essay in favor of building a temple (of what religion?) in the Washington, D.C. area. The page doesn't even use the term Malolan either, which is rather confusing. --Delirium 00:55, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 04:13, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • 1957 incumbents. Do we really want an article containing every officholder in every country for every position for every year in history, or are we planning on just having this one page? And why 1957 in particular? RickK 01:44, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This article was just an idea I had and I picked a random date for it. I think they might eventually be quite useful.
      I think this sort of information is quite relevant to how we link to year articles. For instance someone reading about the Great Smog of 1952 would quite likely be interested to see who was British PM in that year, more so than what was published that year, for instance.
      This is just the sort of obscure, but useful, information that wikipedia will want to gather as it heads for the million article mark, information that would be hard to find anywhere else.
      It can usefully illustrate trends, for instance the 1980's cabal of conservatives leaders such as Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl, Mulroney etc., who were all in office at the same time.
      Lists like US Senators in 1957 can certainly be regarded to be as important, or even more important, than such things as hit songs or the winner of that year's horse races. - SimonP 02:48, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
      • Given the experimental nature, perhaps this should be off in your sandbox until it's a bit more fully developed... Daniel Quinlan 07:01, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
        • I think this is a great idea in general, but I would just merge the content with the year pages, just like births and deaths are. After all it's not like the yearpages are unmanageable monsters yet, plenty of room there. If they balloon into huge mammoths, then split them. US Senators of 57 should go to their own page, but heads of state of the world into the year-page proper. -- Cimon Avaro
  • Billy Strayhorn. NOt an encyclopedia article. RickK 02:12, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • If he wrote "Take the A-Train" this guy certainly deserves a Wikipedia article. Certainly needs a rewrite, though. --Robert Merkel 02:54, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with that, but I certainly don't feel qualified to rewrite it. RickK 04:03, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I've done a little copy editing on it; it's a shade more encyclopedic now, but it still needs work; and I'm not at all competent to adjudicate the facts. -- Bill 10:42, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Thursday (band). Is empty and protected. In other words, just about anything possible has been done to make this page useless. Andre Engels 09:53, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Unprotected and restored pre-Michael content. Don't know whether it should be kept. Kosebamse 11:11, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 11:19, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
      • Looks like our misguided friend Michael is back and trying to vandalise this page again. I'm not re-protecting it now as his activity seems rather low, and anyway it might be better to delete. Kosebamse 08:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • British Monetary Crisis -- Needs to be deleted or subject to a massive rewrite. The text was borrowed from a POV rant posted on the Great Depression article and later removed. But if you do not take my word for it, let me quote another user:
"Having read the article I do not think the rewrite done is salvageable. Its analysis is so biased even Margaret Thatcher would have blanched reading it. It is so inaccurate and POV it is mindblowing; it is the equivalent of the IRA writing an Irish history article or Saddam Hussein (or rather his ludicrous war spokesman) writing an account of the war in Iraq. The version 172 reverted to is deeply flawed, by far less so than the rubbish which there now. IMHO we should use the version 172 reverted to as the starting point and work on it, incorporating from it the less loopy elements of the current article (I'm sure there is something in somewhere that qualifies, though a first and second glance didn't show up much). I would suggest using the 172 revert as a temp into which salvageable bits of the current article can be moved. Using the current version as the starting point would, as Mr. Spock would say, illogical. It is sooooo POV and simplistic as to be comical. Trying to add to a workable but flawed basic article is preferable to trying to take apart a much longer monumentally flawed bit of POV nonsense, most of which is beyond salvation.
I won't claim to be an expert on that area but from the knowledge I do possess, I have rarely read an article that drew more "you can't be serious", "that is BS" and "for f*** sake, that is crap" responses from me as this article. This is to history what the X-files is to science. And keeping what is there now as a template would make wiki a laughing stock among historians of the period. Wiki has many many good points but its weakness is that some people, if no-one notices, can totally agendise an article to the point where it becomes a totally biased loopy polemic, whether extreme right or extreme left. This is one article that had been so agendised, so such an extent that it would be a nightmare trying to salvage it. Which is why I believe the revertion, though an extreme act, in this case is the best, or at least the least worst, route. FearÉIREANN 02:40 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)" 172 14:22, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree with deletion. JT's above comments (placed on Talk:Great Depression) directly apply to British Monetary Crisis because that article is based on text 172 removed. All reference to this article should also be removed, esp with any summary of this article. --mav
I am not so sure. If I understand the criticism, it is that the article is to monitorist in focus. That would seem to call for some upstanding wikizen to fix it, not to delete it. After all there was a british monitary crisis and it did have a signifcant effect on the british economy of the time. I have not checked, but the facts correspond to my recolection. What facts, not interpretations, are clearly wrong? Jfeckstein 19:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This is absolutely not the focus of the criticism. Even if it claimed to be an analysis of the period from a monetarist framework it would be extremely flawed and simplistic. I totally concur with the critical statements. This topic seems to receive far more objective treatment in another article, Great Depression (United Kingdom), something that could actually be considered a work of economic history rather than a layperson's polemic. I vote for deletion. Wenteng 19:25, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I highly respect the opinion of Jtdirl and defer to his judgment in matters of historical accuracy. JT mentioned that the text is not salvageable. I can't speak to the accuracy of the text because even the title is not confirmable; a Google search brings up 8 hits. Most of these refer to Wikipedia articles the author worked on and the author's user page. One hit deals with an event that happened in 1810 and another is part of the name of a book. Sorry, but "British Monetary Crisis" simply does not pass our confirmability test and Wikipedia is /not/ a place to publish new ideas. That is what highly respected historical journals are for. If you can't get published there you most certainly will not get published here. --mav 19:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Bond Girl I accidentally created this with the wrong capitalisation. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Leave it as a redirect — people are just as likely to link to "Bond Girl" as they are to "Bond girl". —Paul A 01:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • 2062 - about fictional events in the year. No reason why the content shouldn't just be at the relevant article about the fiction. Evercat 19:45, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • No opinion on where the text should be, but I did take the trouble of fixing the page to the standard format with century and decade links. So I vote to keep it, and wait for legitimate content. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:59, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merged into 2060s, with others. Keep redirect.
  • 802701 - Same as 2062. Vancouverguy 20:02, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • also 2156 & 2199 - Efghij 20:07, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • These are not the "same" as 2062, the difference is that there are decade links up to [[2090s], the later dates at this stardate still lack them. Hence I wouldn't delete 2062 but the later years should definitely be disposed of, and the data moved where relevant, if there is such a place. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 01:59, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • keep 2156, 2199 - merge them into relevant decade or century, leave redirect. Delete 802701.
  • Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - A wikipedia entry about an obscure (self-published) article for one position in the climate change discussion. -- till we *) 21:01, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • I would strongly support this. There is a well established consensus amongst qualified scientists regarding the adverse effect of increased atmospheric CO2. See for example the Intergovermental Panel on Global Climate Change [2], which is a formal international scientific committions. Professor water 09:54, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support, but that's not my point -- even if one looks from a very neutral point of view at this entry, a single self-published article doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry. Or next day I'll publish an wikipedia entry about my M.A. thesis, or the like. -- till we *) 13:12, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see your point -- which is much more NPOV than my comment, and so I support deletion for the rationale you raised. Professor water 23:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Guts - appears to be some vile fictional character, with no context. User:NuclearWinner
    • is a character in Berserk anime, whatever that is. (The WhatLinksHere page is invaluable in situations such as this.) My vote: merge Guts into its parent article. And then work out what to do with the parent article. :/ —Paul A 06:38, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • If you can have Goku seperate from Dragonball Z then you can keep Guts seperate from Berserk anime.ZeWrestler
        • A topic qualifies for a separate article on its own merits, not just because some other superficially similar topic has a separate article. Guts is a one-paragraph stub that nobody will link to, and there's no reason it can't just be a section in Berserk anime; what Goku may or may not be doing to qualify for its own separate existence is entirely irrelevant. —Paul A 14:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 13

  • Technigenic a made-up definition. Google gives 5 hits, all misspellings of technogenic. M123 05:40, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete non-senses. --Menchi 05:45, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Crappy, non-article, delete. Kosebamse 10:11, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Rosalia - looks like total crap to me. If it is not, it needs much rewriting. - Kosebamse 13:57, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I disagree. There is little that can be said of one that cannot be said of the other, so splitting doesn't make sense. And they certainly were prominent enough to merit their own article. Kat 19:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Aneley. Content does not appear to be true. Anely+maths gets no Google hits. Angela 17:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Marin Boucher - A settler in New France, whose importance seems to be that he is an ancestor of a lot of Francophones in North America (or that Champlain gave him a suit). On Google all the sites seem to be geneology webpages. I guess it could be made more relevant, but right now it is also an orphan article. Adam Bishop 18:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Some descendant's work most likely. --Menchi 00:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
I rewrote Back to the land. Kat 21:43, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Mywebcommunities.com - looks like an advertisement for a credit card/casino site cleverly written to appear as an encyclopedia article.- Ark30inf 21:34, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's as clever as it intends to be. It just sounds like a barely NPOV commercial on TV. --Menchi 00:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • David Essex (II), Luke Pebody, Neil Hamer. University staff. Added by User:Doctorbozzball. Angela 23:53, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete x 3. --Menchi 00:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • Delete Smith03 00:47, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Do not delete Luke Pebody, he is a respected combinatorist, director, actor and game inventor: The Bozzball 23:32, 14 Aug 2003 (GWZ)
          • Only 69 Google hits. Nothing notable about this character - article just lists some lectures he has presented. Written about by someone at the same university as Luke Pebody if not by Luke Pebody himself. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Angela
          • Not written by Luke Pebody, but indeed written by someone who went to the same university, aiming in time to give details of most of the people working on the Combinatorics of Finite Sets, by going through the medium of collaborators. He also invented the game InterSect, which is very heavily played amongst user's of Richard's PBeM server and is in the process of being sold. The Bozzball 01:54, 15 Aug 2003 (ARP)
          • We simply have no way to evaluate his achievement. Is he the leading mathematician in his field? Who can prove it? How much hits for him in MathSciNet? (Well, I don't have access to MathSciNet right now)wshun 03:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • He is not the leading mathematician in his field. Not even one of the leading mathematicians in his field. He did solve an important problem in his field. The Bozzball 11:23, 15 Aug 2003 (GWF)
    • Not significant enough. Delete. If this person is important enough to list I'd be listing at least half my friends and colleagues..--Robert Merkel 13:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • If the problem is significant on its own, write an article on it and redirect Luke Pebody to the redirect. Otherwise, if the problem is REALLY important but not that significant, then mention it on Combinatorics of finite sets and redirect Luck Pebody. Otherwise delete. Hey! There is no even an article on his subject area! wshun 21:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 14

  • Thepalace.com - advertisement wshun 01:33, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: An ineffective ad at that. --Menchi 01:37, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • The reason for its ineffectiveness might be that I have edited it for NPOV. Andre Engels 10:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Not delete: I know its my contribution but if you see my other contributions, which are in the 1,000s I dont go for advertisements. The site is a very important internet site for teenagers, one of the most popular teen hangouts on the net. I go there often and there are more than 200 people sometimes at the same time Antonio Dont make the children cry Martin
  • George Fruits. Does this person deserve an article? It was created by someone named User:Fruits, which makes me think it's his/her ancestor. RickK 03:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • If George Fruits truly lived until 114 in the 19th Century, that's remarkable enough to justify an article (IMO). However, it does raise the probability of the article being nonsense. -- hike395 03:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Fruits did not make the list at centenarian. Considering 114 would qualify him for supercentenarian status and they are so rare, it is unlikely that he is an actual supercentenarian. I would, however, vote not to bin the article until further research supports this. --Ed Cormany 03:41, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Unless it's faked, there's a photo of George's headstone at http://www.geocities.com/sdf1778/fruigeor.html which substantiates the claim as to his age. RickK 03:52, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm going to withdraw my objections. Some Googling shows him in several places, and he apparently showed up in the Guiness Book of Records. The last survivor of the American Revolution rates an article. RickK 04:04, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • For your information, the person most often named as the last veteran of the American Revolutionary War is Daniel F. Bakeman. I can't find any article mentioning both Fruits and Bakeman, which I find suspicious. In any case I oppose mentioning either of them at the centenarian article, as it should be reserved for people who gained fame for a reason other than because they became a centenarian. 213.73.161.245 04:21, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This is easy to check. Death dates of possible candidate last veteran of American Revolutionary War:
      • Daniel F. Bakeman --- April 5, 1867
      • John Gray --- March 29, 1868
      • George Fruits --- August 6, 1876
    • So, it looks like Mr. Fruits has the others beat. Your opposition to Mr. Fruits in the centenarian list is not consistent with others on the list (e.g., Margaret Booth). Let's take this discussion to Talk:centenarian. -- hike395 05:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Most places seem to indicate Daniel F. Bakemen was the last Revolutionary War veteran. This site [10], "There was always some controversy that I heard (hearsay) that the George Fruits in Bunker Hill Cemetery is the son of George Fruit." I don't know exactly what to make of this make of this. Oldest ____ always seems to be a hard thing to prove. M123 08:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Many of them haven't been moved yet. I don't think this needs a separate vote here. Angela
  • James Packer - irrelevant, non-encyclopedic. Kosebamse 12:17, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I have fleshed it out a bit. Should be kept. -- Popsracer 01:29, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Rømer - copyvio. -- andy 12:34, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it. There's already an Ole Rømer entry with an external link to a web site containing the same information (and much more). Kaare 19:35, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
As well, get rid of Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León and redirect. Vancouverguy 17:00, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Sheperds this is a spelling mistake Samw 17:19, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • leave as a redirect as per normal
  • Man, Matter and Magic Squares -- page created by me when I just joined, its a published article by me[with permission to use] that is speculative/ interpretative and hence POV and is not likely to become NPOV,though quite interesting. I have deleted the article so page is empty now--KRS 18:06, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Someone seems to have reverted my change, so the article is still there.I leave the choice open--KRS 18:21, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • User talk:Nostrum/ban -- This is completely unnessary, this user is clearly not a vandal. マイカル (MB) 19:36, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Had Nostrum been an anonymous IP addresses persistently adding that illiterate POV rant to Catholicism he would have been banned without hesitation. Anonymous IP addresses get banned everyday for similar conduct. Not only did his conduct on the Catholicism page warrant a ban, his recent defacement of the Holocaust article after his reappearance warranted a ban in itself, even without considering his past obnoxious behavior. I favor a ban and most of the literate users who endured the torment of reading his fourth grade-level, bigoted anti-Catholic garbage probably agree with a ban, or at least agree that his conduct needs to be monitored. I favor a ban and I will not have my stance on Nostrum censored. 172 00:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wheather a user is a vandal should be discussed on the ban page, not here. Efghij 02:21, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • To 172: "censored"? That's just a bit rich after you removed a comment by Nostrum on a page discussing his own banning. Please reform your ways. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
      • Shame on you for slandering me! I didn't intentionally delete anything that vandal said; it might have just been an edit conflict. I have no reason to hide his inane drivel. Quit budding in every time you find a dispute and coming to ill-informed conclusions. 172 03:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • I cordially request you do not allege that I have slandered you. If one peruses the page history, there is not the slightest possibility that the removal of the text by Nostrum was due to an "edit conflict". If you say that you did remove the text by some form of unintentional action, I would find no grounds to dispute that, but I would still feel bound to admonish you to not do it again!!! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:14, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • It is patiently absurd to have this page is listed here. This user has done nothing but vandalise every page he has touched, writing in such nonsense as that Pat Robertson's penis is small, Mormons are Catholics, etc. People have been banned for less and all the evidence is that this is another kooky vandal. There is a lot of support for his banning on the page. For MB to try to get the page deleted is a gross abuse of this page, which should be about dealing with vandalism, not protecting vandals. FearÉIREANN 03:28, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Wik 05:05, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we decide to ban Nostrum, we should have a record of why. If we decide not to ban Nostrum, we should likewise have a record. Please do not repeat the arguments made on that page here, however. Martin


Is it possible to make it a redirect? Once the language is deciphered (if possible), this article will be useful. wshun 00:41, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 15

  • 1726 in science and 1796 in science. Each contain one link to a page that does not exist. (Do things like this need to be listed or could I have just deleted it?) Angela 00:35, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Know-Nothing movement seems to be a copyvio of the The Columbia Encyclopedia: http://www.bartleby.com/65/kn/KnowNoth.html, every other sentence or phrase has been paraphrased somewhat, but it goes far beyond fair use. So, unless there is some public-domain source that both are derived from (seems unlikely given how close the original article was to the Columbia version), it should be deleted. Daniel Quinlan 01:11, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Nostrum/White board - stupid rant page. Vancouverguy 02:10, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • A User is allowed to put whatever they want in there user space. Quit being dumb. マイカル (MB) 02:38, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
      • No they're not. This isn't a comment on whether Nostrum should be doing what he's doing, just saying that you can not put whatever you like in your user page. Angela
Shouldn't that go in Personal subpages to be deleted? Angela
No, that is only used for deleting your own pages Ark30inf 02:30, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't know where it should go, just get rid of it. 172 is trying to prove he is smarter by adding *'s to all the misspelled words on it, which is quite annoying. Vancouverguy 02:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The whole thing is annoying. I would humbly suggest everyone going and actually writing some articles to cool off for awhile. Ark30inf 02:30, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Love-Hate relationship - the article makes very little sense and has no real info to offer
    • This is poorly written and more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I am not saying it is impossible, but I am hard-pressed to see how any article on this subject could be an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary definition. Perhaps famous or infamous love-hate relationships (such as in Krazy Kat?) throughout history could be mentioned. I am leaning towards voting for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Universe (mathematics)
    • I am a mathematician, and I agree. I believe it was written in good faith and that it took real effort but that it doesn't belong in the wikipedia. Michael Larsen 10:36, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • A mathematician should look at this - it seems like oddball city to me. --mav 04:56, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • makes absolutely no sense to me. seems like disinformation --Alex.tan 06:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Typical quackpot ramble. Andre Engels 10:47, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Klosterquelle - not encylopedic, and orphaned as well. -- andy 13:06, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Shit sandwich and HUA quotient - I don't think these articles add much to the sum of human knowlege. Mintguy 16:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Without considerable expansion or revision, which I am at a loss to see how it would happen, the former should be gone. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't know, I've heard this typically southern expression all my life. It might be better off as a wikidictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia article.Ark30inf 17:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Abram in the 1911 Encyclopedia - I don't see a reason to keep this after Abram was rewritten (by User:Jonadab, which then created this article to archive the previous version). The text is still available from the 1911 encyclopedia itself, and in the history of the Abram article. If at all, it should be a subpage. uriber 17:25, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici is now just a redirect page, using the Microsoft character ’ instead of the common keyboard '; the article was moved to use the ordinary ', like the rest of the Medici pages. Nothing refers to this page now, and no other Medici page uses this character. I would further argue against a whole series of redirect pages (one for each Medici page) using this character instead of the normal one. So this is an orphan, and should go. Noel 20:39, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • 16 words nonsensical detail aspect of the Iraq disarmament crisis article. --戴&#30505sv 22:27, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • OK, I admit, the detail was too small to create an extra article. Probably in America this was not so much in the news as it was in Europe. But the reason for a war to be called "nonsensical", I have a different opinion on that. Just delete it, history will tell... Fantasy 22:43, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I replaced this image with Image:Cayenne.png Image:French_guiana_sm02.jpg because it looks better. Image:Cayenne.png can be deleted, it isn't used anywhere anymore -- Pascal 23:50, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • In the future please upload the new Image with the same name the old one has. The new version will replace the old and the old version is kept in the version history. -- JeLuF 05:00, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

August 16

  • Mozougly
    • Unknown painter trying to become famous by having his own Wikipedia article. Google finds nothing for 'Mozougly painting' or 'Mozougly artist'. The images have to go as well (no copyright info anyway). --mav 04:27, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Cuzco - only a redirect. -- Viajero 08:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1297848"