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 AstroNomer (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 12 September 2002. 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. 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. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made.

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 page titles of stubs that at least have a decent defintion and might in the future become articles. There's no reason to delete those (see Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub). 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 b e 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
See also : Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
See also : Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub
  • Image:Krra.JPG
  • Image:Mulak Odocoileus hemionus.jpg
  • Image:Front Elev.jpg
    • See image pages for reasons. -phma
  • Flag of Belgium
    • Can anyone explain me why this needs a separate page rather than using an :Image link?
  • United States of America/OldPage
    • Jeronimo 00:26 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)
      • Before it is deleted some version control needs to take place -- that page and the various CIA pages were being edited at the same time by different people. In some places the "old" page is more currently edited and in others the former CIA subpages are. --mav
  • Gioacchino Rossini Anecdotes
  • Meaningfulness
    • Looks to be some kind of essayish stuff, should probably go to meta. Jeronimo
  • MLCAD
    • Looks more like an ad than an article. -- April 13:27 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)
  • Consequentialist justifications of the state
    • Some kind of personal essay, should probably go meta. Jeronimo
  • Patrick Adams
    • Copyright infringement.
  • Fall of Jerusalem, AD 70
    • The text of this poorly-titled article was already moved to the talk because it was - apparently - hopelessly biased. Should we remove it, or put the text back and hope somebody edits it? Jeronimo 08:25 Sep 7, 2002 *Joseph C. Yates
    • Copyright violation.
  • Period of the Five Dynasties and the Ten Kindoms - This appeared only on a talk page and included obvious spelling error; should have been deleted instead of redirected in first place. Eclecticology 02:26 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia arranged by topic + Talk
    • An old (?) and incomplete (page truncated) topic scheme. I think we already have several similar pages, and this one's obsolete. If we keep it, it should at least go to the Wikipedia: namespace. Jeronimo 11:06 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
  • Ironman Triathlon
  • ChristianityTalk
    • Page claims not to be the talk of the Christianity page, but for general discussion - should therefore be removed or moved to Meta. Jeronimo
  • DD
    • Copyright violation. --mav
  • Careware
    • Copyright violation from same as above. --mav
  • WLAN
    • Copyright violation from same as above. --mav
  • ADSL Lite
    • Copyright violation from same as above. --mav
  • Kabul River
    • Copyright violation
  • Michael Asher
    • Personal page
  • Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam/Introduction
    • Although part of the (no longer present) original text, this introduction contains some useful information. Should we remove it and wait for original text to come by, or put it as the main article (with some editing)? Jeronimo 10:22 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
  • Free On-line Dictionary of Computing/Status and subpages
    • These pages list all topics from FOLDOC, no matter whether they are articles or not. Therefore, like the old "List of Encyclopedia articles", it possibly hides orphans and clutters the most wanted page. Since the lists themselves are of no interest, I vote to delete them. Jeronimo
    • If someone chooses to delete this (and I would not be against that), I would like to ask them to first move the last of the notes to the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing page - it would be worth keeping, I think Andre Engels 12:16 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
    • Please contact Ellmist first - according to the history, he might be using the pages Andre Engels 12:18 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
    • I would suggest manually removing done articles and useless entries and unlinking everything else until they are mostly empty. In the meantime I believe the whole lot should be moved to the wikipedia namespace as a utility. Aldie 13:38 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
  • Bonneville Apartments
  • John Kevin McAvoy
    • personal tribute, not an article. Robert Merkel 13:21 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a personal tribute, but one that we (well, at least cunc) asked for. It should stay, until we decide were are we going to put them (an special apart maybe?)AN
  • Man Rated
    • dictionary entry, (as yet unwritten) discussion of higher safety requirements for manned craft would be better elsewhere. Robert Merkel 13:25 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
  • Camp
    • dreadful, badly written, mis-spelled stub.
  • Wikipedia commentary/Simple View of Ethics and Morals
    • No content, not even a redirect, and the article has lived at meta since well before Phase II. -- April
  • September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Personal experiences
    • Not encyclopedia content, should probably be moved to Meta. Jeronimo 15:14 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
      • What to do with many of the non-encyclopedic 9/11 pages is the type of thing that should be brought up and debated on the list (do expect scores of emails though...). BTW, I vote that much of this stuff should be moved to metapedia - which is a traditional wiki that does not pretend to be an encyclopedia (therefore the non-article 9/11 pages will not seem odd there at all). --mav
      • Agree, but I already tried bringing it up to the list, but Cunctator seems personally hurt by such proposals and does everything to prevent this. Jeronimo
      • Agree these would be more appropriate for meta, but these pages are definately not candidates for outright deletion - their history needs to be preserved. Enchanter
      • True, these should not be deleted, but this is the general forum to bring up such problems inside Wikipedia, also for articles that should be on meta. Jeronimo
        • On that note, the meta wiki ought to be upgraded to the current software and we should have a way of cleanly moving (non-)articles to it. I'll bring this up on the list. --Brion 08:03 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)
      • I would say it should be deleted. Why does NPOV not apply in these cases when it does in the whole rest of Wikipedia? And rather than throwing it onto meta, I would prefer giving it its own Wiki. Andre Engels
      • Hmm...tough call. I'd say that "throwing it onto meta" would not be a good idea. Giving them their own wiki sounds more like it. Any ideas as for the name? could be something like sep11.wikipedia.org, or something like it? In any case, I'd say we wait a few months to discuss the matter further. Then we can also use the other site also to post tribute to the thousands that will die if Bush has its way. --AN 21:38 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)
  • Clair Clairmont
    • Looks like a genealogical entry, should it be removed? Jeronimo 06:49 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)
      • Apparently her claim to fame is that she was a buddy of the Shelleys and was present at the shindig that resulted in the writing of Frankenstein (see John William Polidori). Unless there's more than that, it's not a very useful entry. --Brion 08:03 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)
  • Louie
    • Not necessary, and misleading. It's Louis Armstrong - Zoe
    • Seconded. We really don't need to start entries for every given name in the world, full of cross-references to extremely minor comic book characters. Vicki Rosenzweig
  • Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr.
    • He may be a great guy, but this info certainly doesn't rate a 'pedia article. -- Zoe
    • I think that one was put in because of similar tribute articles. See here.
    • Ah. The article doesn't make it clear this person was part of the Cantor Fitzgerald victims. Maybe some more words explaining that? -- Zoe
  • Paul Wiegert
    • Talk about NPOV! -- Zoe
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=214639"