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. If the page should be deleted, an admin will, and the link removed from this page (it will show up on the Wikipedia:Deletion log). If the page should not be deleted, an admin will remove the link from this page.

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.

As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.

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

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
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)
Enchiridion -- Andre Engels
- Adds nothing to the information that is already under Epictetus
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?
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
- I do think so, the uploader seems to be someone from the Polish Wikipedia at least.
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
  - I agree with Dan. Wikipedia is not a link repository, let alone a dead link repository -- GWO
- A random selection of the links showed that they worked. They're certainly not all dead. The dead claim is false. I'd say in general Wikipedia is not a link repository, but I genuinely believe this is useful information.--The Cunctator
- Although not all links are dead, they are quite useless. Having a list of articles (all from the same paper as well) this big does not give good background information. The articles are news articles and make no sense without proper context, and most have not even got value for an encyclopedia. We can start linking every news article in every newspaper that has a connection with any topic in Wikipedia, but that's a bad idea. I say delete! Jeronimo
- They're not useless to me, so they're not useless. For it to be useless, it would have to be useless to everyone. Have you made any major contributions to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack pages? Would you like to? Having links to references is extremely helpful in adding to, improving, and checking the entries. And this list does not exist elsewhere on the Net. It's a unique resource that doesn't harm anyone for being on Wikipedia and has plenty of potentially useful purposes.

And why is it a bad idea to link to every news article (or at least a representative sample)? That seems like a good idea.--The Cunctator

Stabilisation of the Western Territories
- The text has already been removed because it was extremely POV, probably irrepairably so. The only link to the page has also been removed because of POV. Andre Engels
Ununennium
- Only text 'Element 119 has not yet been discovered.' Andre Engels
  - That's the purpose of the name, to serve as a placeholder until the element is discovered and then it can be named after a scientist. I imagine Unununium will someday be named for a scientist too. Ortolan88
Wikipedia:Manual of Style
- It's not about style at all and this collection of links can already be found on a big number of pages. Jeronimo
  - How about we replace it with a Wikipedia:Manual of Style? We sure need one. I'm ready to work on it. I'm sick of italicizing book, movie, magazine, tv show titles, bolding the topic in articles, etc. Ortolan88 15:36 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
  - I second Ortolan. -- Tarquin 15:54 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
  - And I third... especially if he wants to get the ball rolling. :) --Stephen Gilbert (23 Aug 2002)
  - Sounds great to me. I'm tired of de-italicizing family and other higher taxon names from biology articles and then italicizing genus and species names. --mav
Quotations
- Deals with Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament. I'd be happy to keep it when someone finds a better title to put this under, but in my opinion it's not worth it. Andre Engels
Jeremiah (biblical) - Immediately after setting this up in disambiguation I thought better and renamed it Jeremiah (prophet). Eclecticology
Degrees of freedom
- Unless this ultimate stub is fixed, I vote for deletion. All it was was the title and an external link. --mav