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 Montrealais (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 7 March 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 an administrator can find them and check whether or not they should be deleted.

Please review Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages before adding to this page. If the page should be deleted, an admin 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.

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.

In many cases, a page does not need to be deleted. In particular, do not add page titles of stubs that at least have a decent definition 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 that can easily and sensibly be redirected to another page. E.g., a page called Hume can be 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.

Please sign any suggestion for deletion (use four tildes, ~~~~, to sign with your user name and the current date).

If you wish to delete subpages in your own user space, use Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted

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 it from this list as well.

If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item.


See also:

  • Lilo & Stitch
    • The article reads like it was copied from another location. I've asked Zanimum twice now to let us know where he/she got the information from, but Zanimum hasn't bothered to reply. -- Zoe
    • Is a slightly reworded version of [http://starbulletin.com/2002/06/23/features/story4.html].
    • Zanimum here-- I am planning to add on to my article, but I have since responded to Zoe's query. It is a compilation of about six articles worth of information, but in my own words, nethertheless. I can go at it some more to change it, but just let me expand it to it's full size before you consider the possiblities.

Note: people misunderstand the difference between tribute pages and Wikipedia pages. The tribute pages are where people can put in personal comments. The Wikipedia pages are for biographical content.--The Cunctator

(among others) If we're going to allow stuff like this, we may as well go the whole hog and import electoral registers directly into the 'pedia. - Khendon 12:15 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I Agree - the S11 victim stuff is tasteless and pointless
These entries have more information and detail than exist in electoral registers. --The Cunctator
They are neither tasteless nor pointless, but they are not encyclopedic. They should be transferred to http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ before being deleted here. The Anome 12:47 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
I think it might be considered tasteless in that we don't highlight the victims of other terrorist incidents, the bomb in Bali springs to mind, or perhaps a different kind of incident on a similar scale the victims of the Titanic disaster, unless noteworthy for other reasons. Mintguy
Who's "we"? There's nothing stopping you from writing up such entries on the victims of the Titanic disaster, or the bomb in Bali springs. This is a specious argument.--The Cunctator
There is a much more complete listing of people who might need to be moved here: Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Memorial wiki pages Martin
  • Bush League, Dubya Dubya Three, Bush Knew, October Surprise
    • dubious contributions of a banned ex-user The Anome 07:26 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
      • Bush League: Don't care who started it( besides, the 142 IP address is ambiguous), others have contributed, it is linked to, it is a used term. It should stay. October Surprise: Valid article about a book, should stay. Bush Knew - unneeded redirect, can be deleted. Dubya Dubya Three: more a slang article, content should be moved to one of the Bush criticism articles. I am strongly opposed to deleting articles because the authors are banned, that is not a valid argument. If our bans are ineffective, that is another matter, but valid content should stay. --Eloquence 09:17 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
It is poorly written paranoid rubbish that would hardly get into your average tabloid, let alone a serious encyclopædia. (PS, I hate Bush so I find myself squirming having to defend him, but this stuff is pure conspiracy-theory nutsville stuff)
  • Dinah Webster
    • zero content article; Text of article "This article was moved to m:Dinah Webster". Text of meta-article "A victim of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack". Martin
  • Oomoto
    • possibly a copyright violation. please see the talk page. Tomos 04:24 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
Do we need the Supreme Court for this one? --&#35918&#30505
Good god, what is rubbish like this doing here. Delete. Delete. Delete. . .
Authorities differ on whether to use a butane lighter or the old-fashioned wick-and-lighter-fluid Zippo. I didn't realize that there were authorities on the matter. I doubt that this is necessary. Brian Sayrs 18:48 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
Now a not-unserious article on the topic -- dangers, setting, problems in operating room, cultural references, cross reference to flatulence under the new title Lighting farts. Leave it alone. Ortolan88 04:12 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • Homophobic hate speech - after a lot of discussion, there was almost unanimous agreement to move 'AIDS kills Fags dead' to 'Homophobic hate speech'. However The Cunctator took it upon himself to rename the page (twice!) before creating a new page with that title, so it could not be moved back to where the entire talk page but him thinks it should be. So could someone immediately
    • remove the current HOMOPHOBIC HATE SPEECH page (Cunctator's version), and
    • reinstate AIDS kills Fags dead to that page as was universally agreed to by everyone but him. JtdIrL 03:31 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the honorable member's position. Zoe brought the issue to Jimbo's attention and to the mailing list, so there is much discussion and a resolution to be found in due course. --The Cunctator
No. Another falsehood. There was a discussion and a solution which Cunctator deliberately destroyed by (a) renaming the page after most people had agreed on a replacement name suggested by Stevertigo and were adding to its contents, (b) creating a dodgy replacement POV article so that the page could not be restored to its agreed location. Zoe and everyone else isn't looking for a discussion - there was one. And a solution. They are complaining about Cunctator's outrageous and deliberate scrapping of the agreed solution so he can use his 'pet name', one which Jimbo has suggested is in clear breach of Wiki naming conventions. In restoring the pages to the agreed format through the delete mentioned above, you'll simply be restoring the pages to the consensus state and location agreed after days of debate. So please delete Homophobic hate speech to allow 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan to be put where it was agreed to be put. JtdIrL 05:17 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • Ben Hajioff
    • I don't really want this deleted, but I would like other people's opinions on whether it could be allowed to stay or not. Please see Talk:Ben Hajioff, and reply there. No need to fill up this page with messages telling me how silly I am. :) -- Oliver P. 16:53 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
      • The originator of the article and I have now agreed that this article is best taken out of the Wikipedia. However, since I have developed quite a sentimental attachment to it, I was wondering if I could just move it to my user area, e.g. as User:Oliver Pereira/and0rod...? The resulting redirect in the article space would still have to be deleted, of course. -- Oliver P. 01:00 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
        • I've moved the article and its talk page to my user space. I hope this is all right. The redirects in the article space should probably be deleted, though, to prevent Wikipedia articles from linking to it. Incidentally, if The Cunctator is reading this, I would be genuinely interested to hear more about his point of view regarding what makes a valid Wikipedia article, and I would welcome him to my talk page to discuss the matter. :) -- Oliver P. 22:10 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • EucliD
    • I did not post this one here. Should not be deleted. olivier 00:31 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that was me. Euclid is valuable; do we need the CamelCase EucliD, with no links to it? Catherine
  • Valley of the Kings
    • empty, after nonsense was removed. Nevertheless, there should be an entry under this title. I suggest the deletion of this entry until someone writes something decent about it. olivier 00:28 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • Willie O'Ree
    • Empty, after vandalism was removed. Contains no substantive history. --Minesweeper 01:25 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • List of songs where the title does not appear in the lyrics (and related)
    • This is Everything2ish. While it might be fun, it's trivia and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Also, these lists will necessarily become overwhelmingly long when it's more than the pet bands of a few contributors; if people started adding in all of the songs from many different musical genres and locations. It's not like these songs are a rare occurence, anyway. DanKeshet 21:28 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • Who says trivia has no place in an encyclopedia, and who are you proposing should be the judege of what's trivial and what isn't? If you just have a look at the edit history of this article, you will see that a great many Wikipedians consider this a very interesting topic. Mkweise 21:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm going by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #11: "List repository of loosely associated topics". As for who should be the judge, I'm not going to propose any new decision-making policy; I followed normal procedures and put it on votes for deletion for discussion. As for the fact that many people find it interesting, that is not and has never been one of the criteria for whether something stays in Wikipedia. Many people on Wikipedia find long, drawn-out debates interesting, but we try to discourage that stuff anyway, because this is an encyclopedia and not a debate forum. DanKeshet 22:08 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not - do not delete this list. It has seen ample contributors and is as suitable for an encylopedia as any other "list of" article.
    • I agree that this should be deleted. The moment I saw this article I burst out laughing. Some lists are useful but this is one step too far. It is irrelevant trivia that hardly belongs in an encyclopædia but some music magazine. What next? A list of left-handed rock stars? People with six toes? World leaders who dye their hair? JtdIrL 21:45 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • I see nothing wrong with the article. Im sure Jtdirl and Stevertigo-Zoe will soon reach a consensus. Susan Mason
  • List of people with six toes please delete. This list garbage is getting childish and ridiculous. JtdIrL 22:16 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • This is an excellent list. It should not be deleted. Susan Mason
    • Surprise, surprise, Sue approves!
    • It may be a new and undeveloped page, but how is it ridiculous? After a few revisions and edits it could turn into the heart of a new article on polydactlism. If nothing else, a list like this could help some poor teenager who is struggling with their six toes understand that it is "ok" and give them role models.
      • If it is written as a serious article on polydactlism, using serious sources, with credible evidence, keep it, but if like so many lists it is just a mixum-gatherum of names put in for the fun of it, then bin it. This isn't a scribble board for messing on, it is supposed to be a serious encyclopædia. JtdIrL
    • Keep this list. Its fascinating to know which famous people could count beyond 20. Gaz 02:44 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)~
    • Maybe Jtdirl doesn't like people with 6 toes? What serious article on polydactlism would not include a list of people with 6 toes on one foot?Susan Mason
    • I am sorry you do not like the wikipedia. You should remember that this is a work in progress. If you would like to contribute, feel free to add to the article regarding famous people with 6 toes. Susan Mason
    • Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I said, Sue. I love the wiki. I just hate seeing it making a laughing stock of itself with some people's play-acting. A serious article would contain a list. A joke of an article would just be a list with no content, explanation, etc. What we have here is a joke article, made up of a list of four names, offering no explanation, no evidence, nothing but four names, one spelt incorrectly (which I fixed). Some article. JtdIrL 05:27 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • While you've all been bickering, I've made a start on polydactyly. :) Please check it; I haven't studied biology formally since GCSE... Anyway, I think a waffly article and a straightforward list can easily co-exist, each linking to the other and providing complementary information. -- Oliver P. 06:47 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • Table of Derivatives and Indefinite Integrals orphan, title violates capitalization guidelines. Misleadinging redirects to Table of integrals, which, though it does have indefinite integrals, has no derivatives and has some definite integrals, too. Eric119 23:37 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • How does it 'violate capitalisation guidelines' given that correctly in a title it treats the words 'Derivatives' and 'Indefinite Integrals' as proper nouns? Proper nouns in wiki are given capitals in titles. JtdIrL
      • Neither 'derivative' nor 'indefinite integral' is a proper noun. Eric119 05:24 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
      • It depends on context of usage. In some contexts, in particular when used in titles, they are capitalised, particularly in some European textbooks when used as definitions.
  • User:JCWF This was my old userpage, that I thought had been deleted
  • User:Jcwf2 This is the one I have recently created. I do not wish to participate any longer. The reason is that wikipedia does not legally exist, which means that all liability for any possible breaches of copy rights lie with us all personally. Without any legal protection from a legally registered organization I deem that irresponsible.
If you are not breaking the law then why is this an issue? What does "legally registered" supposed to mean anyway? We will be a non-profit soon and until then we are owned by Jimbo Wales. --mav
I suppose the fear is that someone inadvertently might download something they understood' was available, then find it wasn't and find themselves personally in legal difficulties. JtdIrL 02:56 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

'NOTE: Page is now 31kb - needs to be cut or it will not be accessible

Done. --mav 03:56 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
Not sure what your browser's problem is, but mine (Mozilla/Phoenix) can access this page just fine, and it's currently 41.59 KB (42592 bytes). I view pages in the hundreds of kB all the time, and never have any trouble with that. Mkweise 05:32 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I browser (and I know some others have the same problem) cuts off at 32. If you open a page then save it, it automatically loses the end of the text. 32 is the upper limit for many browsers. JtdIrL 05:42 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

  • Nucular
    • pointless
    • Don't know who included this, but I agree with them. - Zoe
    • Also don't know who included this, but I do not agree with them. - Hephaestos
    • A superb page. Susan Mason
    • Don't think it should be in wiki -- SGB
  • Union County Magnet High School
    • Equally pointless. -- Zoe
    • Why? It's a moderately informative article about an educational institution. It could become very useful for someone looking for a school in the Scotch Plains, NJ area, when the article has grown a bit. -- Oliver P. 03:58 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
    • A great article. Susan Mason
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=728743"