Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brooke Vibber (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 21 August 2002 (More personal photos: Lisa and alvin.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
See also : Wikipedia:Deletion log
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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)
          • In my opinion this is contrary to what you are writing below - there you argue for deleting something because it is only a definition. If "only a definition" is a reason then "contains no encyclopedic information whatsoever" is an even better one. Andre Engels 03:56 Aug 18, 2002 (PDT)~
  • 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
  • ASIN
    • Magnus Manske 06:53 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT), because : acronym used by amazon.com - they're not Microsoft, yet ;-)
    • This falls under "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." (and with a much stronger claim than my provacative Pluto bit). — Toby 01:30 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)
  • Various subpages to my personal page, sandos/quicklinks, sandos/hwo to build a dll, sandos/todo. Thank you. sandos
  • Enchiridion -- Andre Engels
    • Adds nothing to the information that is already under Epictetus
  • Nutritious soup -- Andre Engels
    • An old recepy that (probably) noone cooks today, in a way that they would not do it if they would, with a title under which it isn't known anymore (and probably never was)
  • Events leading up to the Marshal Plan -- Andre Engels
    • Not an encyclopedia article, but a completed one-sided look at just a small part of the events that are of importance, and that at a mis-spelled page title (should be Marshall). Should be heavily NPOV'ed, but is not worth the trouble IMO. Note: Page text has already been moved to Talk page
  • Flag of Belgium
    • Can anyone explain me why this needs a separate page rather than using an :Image link?
  • Jeff Harrison
    • Unpublished, yet "one of the foremost"? Please. "by finks everywhere"? Bah. Not only I recommend that this be deleted, I recommend that 150.208.189.32 undergo at least a temporary IP block as a persistent vandal. See vandalism in poetry, slam poetry, poem, list of poets. -- April
You are welcome to delete the page, April, but I was hoping I could teach the contributory how to participate in the Wikipedia community first -- using JH as an example. Your call. --Ed Poor
    • You're more patient than I am, Ed. :) Go for it, but if he persists in trying to insert one of many millions of obscure poets as if it were a historic figure, I'll go ahead and treat him as a vandal. (Are we to also add the other 100+ Moria poets to this site? And I read his text - I swear it looks like randomly generated words.) -- April
  • Image:Kon s.jpg
    • Picture of a horse with someone behind it. The uploader has not contributed anything else, but we do have horse articles. Does anyone recognize the breed? -phma
    • It just struck me: "Kon'" (that's a myagki znak at the end) is a Russian word for horse. Maybe this picture and Kon.jpg are used on the Polish wikipedia. -phma
  • Peter Gunz
  • St Georges Cross
  • Elijah Blue Allman
    • Was notthing but an external link and email address. --mav
    • Why delete it? It is a legitimate subject, being a rock musician and the son of Cher (as a quick Google search will learn). Jeronimo
    • Then write a stub for it and remove the entry from this page. The notification aspect of this page is one of the major reasons for having it. --mav
    • Hmmmm, the old "votes for rewrite" would be more appropriate for that, since most will indeed simply remove any empty page that shows up here; I don't really see why that's good. Jeronimo
  • September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/New York Times stories,
  • September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/New York Times articles, October 16-
    • Hopefully these will stay up here long enough to be discussed this time. These two pages are long lists of dead links to a registration-only website (makes you register before it tells you they're dead, though). Stripped of the URLs (which are now meaningless), the only info on these pages are the titles and dates of New York Times articles re: September 11. I don't think this is useful or encyclopaedic information. DanKeshet
  • image:Bern and spence.jpg, Image:Leon low.jpg, Image:Lisa and alvin.jpg
    • Appear to be personal photos, from a username with no prior history, not used in any articles, and really crappy image quality to boot. --Brion 20:09 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=167289"