Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

Add links to stupid, incorrect, or otherwise unwanted page titles to the list below (or use the Vote feature) so an admin can find them, check to see that they are indeed not legitimate pages, and delete them. If the content of a page-to-be-deleted exists on some different page, please indicate that, somehow, on the page-to-be-deleted (either by redirecting it to the correctly titled page, or, better for our purposes, putting in a link to it). To facilitate checking that a "page title to be deleted" really ought to be deleted, please don't redirect such pages to page titles to be deleted.

Please review Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages before adding to this page. In the past, about half of the titles added to this page were not deleted. In particular, do not add article names to this list that might in the future become articles. There's no reason to delete those. Also, please don't list pages on this page that can easily and sensibly be redirected to another page. E.g., a page called Hume can be easily and sensibly redirected to David Hume; presidant (a misspelling) can be redirected to president; etc. (Even misspellings can be caught by search engines and provide Wikipedia perfectly relevant traffic!) Similarly, 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.

Discussion about the merits of deleting a page listed here should take place on wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.

NOTE to Wiki Administrators: 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 if from this list as well.

See also : Wikipedia utilities

Volks-Deutsche
- Andre Engels July 16, 2002, because : orphan stub
  - Then fix it!
    - What would 'fixing' mean? Add the word on some page just so this stub is not orphaned any more?
Short words
- July 23, 2002: a "list of encyclopedia articles" like article that may only be hiding orphans and isn't really of any use (as far as I can see) - Jheijmans
  - I always assumed that the purpose of this list had something to do with the limitations of our search feature, although I didn't see exactly how it could be put to use. I suggest that the people modifying the search feature to allow it to search for certain words (at least in titles) use this list as a guide and then (assuming that no objections appear to Jheijmans' vote) delete it. — Toby 14:23 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
Eisenhower and German POWs
- The information is not supported by the facts. Zoe 22:29 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)~
Obituary and its sub-pages
- As a group these form an orphan; information is also on the normal year pages. Andre Engels
Non-English Wikipedias/OldTextToTranslate
- Looks like this stuff is no longer of any use, or is it? Jeronimo
Image:Talab.jpg (scan of an Arabic email or webpage)
- Might this perhaps be used in the Arab version; does anyone know how to check that?
Image:Krra.JPG
Image:RQ-3 Dark Star.png
Image:Mulak Odocoileus hemionus.jpg
Image:Front Elev.jpg
- See image pages for reasons. -phma
  - I de-linked two images that were incorrectly linked from their article. Please at least do a wikipedia Google search on the file names before listing them here -- There are many images that are linked via a hyperlink only and therefore they appear to be orphans when they are not. Some of the above may also be used in a different language wikipedia so that must also be checked. --mav
    - Mav, why'd you get rid of that search form? It worked just fine for me! I typed in "Beachsub.jpg", and bazam! — Toby 00:02 Aug 5, 2002 (PDT)
    - Would it perhaps be a good idea to have a version of 'Orphaned pictures' that only lists pictures that are not used on any of the international Wikipedias? (keeping the current page is a good idea nevertheless; I have created links to several pictures that were originally intended for the French or Polish versions, which I probably would not have found without it)Andre Engels
Manat
- Newbie experiment with copyright violation in history. However the text there is good enough that it could be rewritten to remove the obvious parentage. --mav
- Looks to me like it ought to be a double article or a disambig. The word means an Azeri money as well as an Arabic god. -phma
Sea of Tiberias: No useful information - just what word is used in the various parts of the Bible Andre Engels
Blackridge: Orphan, no indication on why this subject would warrant encyclopedia entry Andre Engels
Britannica Public Domain/Status: List of subjects from the EB1911, volume 1. As far as I can see this has no useful function, and is does tend to hide orphans. Andre Engels
Music lesson as child development tool
- Should probably be rewritten and moved, but I don't know where Andre Engels
- Isn't this comment really a vote for rewrite? — Toby 01:07 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
TimShell/Date010127
- WTF? Anyhow, doesn't look like a useful article. -- April 17:56 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)
  - This is an old user subpage. There were a bunch more like it. I've moved them all. — Toby 00:12 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
    - Yes, they have been moved, but imo removing the redirect in the main namespace would be a good idea as well. Andre Engels
    - Why? What purpose would it serve? A harmless enough deletion, I admit, but a waste of effort; the page does nobody any harm. To avoid mistakes, I don't think that we should ever delete something for convenience, but only for a reason. Toby 02:35 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
Flag of Sweden
- 'In detail' view of the Swedish flag, but since the flag is a simple gold cross on a blue ground with no detail why do we need a 600pixel version as well as the 100pixel thumbnail? KJ 18:30 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)
  - Hmm, because that would be a great place to describe the flag's history, the symbolism of the cross and the particular colors, when it was introduced, what previous flags have been used in Sweden's history, etc? --Brion
    - Maybe, except that all it has at the moment is a very large image of the flag and no other contents.KJ
      - Not any more. I filled it up a bit. Without the stub, i certainly wouldn't have created any content...Hmmm. -Ato
Pluto (god)
- Food for thought: This was a vandal's nonsense, which was removed and replaced with a stub. But it's an awful stub. It's a single sentence that serves only as a definition. There's actually more content on the redirect page Pluto! This isn't the fault of the person that wrote the stub, really, because I wouldn't expect every vandal's nonsense to be replaced with a functioning stub. But I say that it's better to delete the page outright than put something that's worthless in. Yes, if you really write an article, then that's even better. But deleting is better than a mere definition. — Toby 02:08 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
- The short version of this vote is: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Toby
- I vote against deleting it. There's no need to delete stubs. See also my note at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages - Jeronimo.
  - The reason is that seeing a live link to [A] in the article [B] gives the impression that [A] has been written, which in this case was not true. (Well, it was written at Hades, so I redirected it there. But the principle remains.) [A] should also appear on Special:Wantedpages, which can't happen if a worthless stub is there. A page can definitely do more harm than good if it makes readers more likely to follow a useless link, or makes writers less likely to write a new needed page. If I can't write a good stub (see point 5 in particular), then I'd rather not have one at all, for these reasons — Toby 02:35 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)
- Don't delete it, but I don't think it needs to be much more than a redirect to Hades; I started trying to add content and then realised that I was just trying to rewrite that page with Greek->Roman name changes. --Bth