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 MartinHarper (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 18 April 2003 (+ Wikipedia:Vandalism/stop it). 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.

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:

  • Newb tests -- Notheruser 21:45 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Dobeles county
      • What's wrong with this page? Why did WojPob delete it? -- JeLuF 08:14 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what's wrong with the page (after reviewing it). I listed it because it had been blanked. -- Notheruser 01:31 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's been copied from http://www.dobele.lv. If that's why WojPob blanked it, it would have been nice of him to explain his reasoning somewhere. I'll put up a boilerplate copyright infringement notice, then we can wait for a week and delete it. -- Tim Starling 03:24 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Heisei emperor - The title of this redirect is rude, for in current convention the era name will be used as his posthumous name. Nanshu 02:17 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • If this is seriously offensive, it should be deleted. Would it be less offensive if it were a redirect to Heisei rather than Akihito? -- Tim Starling 07:46 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • I presume the 'rude' reference is because Akihito (who has cancer) will not be known as Heisei emperor until he dies (in whatever way). As his postumous name is already known, it makes sense to keep it. The Japanese emperors are already a virtual Bermuda Triangle on wiki given the number of conflicting versions of names and references used. One more won't make a difference and the name is already known. It could be turned into an article in its own right explaining why Akihito wil be known like this postumously, with a link to the Akihito page.STÓD/ÉÍRE
  • Images of Rachel Corrie
    • It was on here a while ago and removed unilaterally. The shrine still exists, the hagiography continues, and it's tiresome. Vote to delete. Danny 11:25 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • I vote to delete as well, we have a biography already. -◈¡◈
    • Again, detailed talk at Talk:Images of Rachel Corrie
    • According to our policy, if this page is deemed to be unnecessary it should be redirected to Rachel Corrie rather than deleted. Martin 11:32 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • The issue isn't the current name, it is the actual existence of this POV shrine. No renaming will solve that issue.
    • It would really help if we avoided rehashing the same arguments if people discussed this at Talk:Images of Rachel Corrie rather than cluttering up this page with the debate.
    • Actually, whenever that is done, the page mysteriously disappears of the Votes for deletion page and so nothing happens. We have discussed the issue to death there and still this page lingers on. So leave it here and please please make a decision to get rid of this nonsensical POV shrine. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:17 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • This page is now a redirect to Rachel Corrie so it is no longer the rather cringe-inducing shrine it once was. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:13 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Nothing mysterious - I removed it before because this page is called votes for deletion, not votes for redirection. Martin
    • We were actually voting on deletion. It was removed well before the content was removed and the page turned into a redirect.
    • I've already apologised for that at talk:Images of Rachel Corrie. Anyway, are we agreed that now this page is a redirect and not a "cringe-inducing shrine" that we don't need to delete it? Martin 08:32 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Laurent: created with a badly choosen name, now moved and disambiguated. -- looxix 19:17 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this would better be made into a disambiuation page; look at pages that link to it. -- Infrogmation 19:43 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • Now a disambiguation page. It can stay. (and be removed from this list.) Tannin
  • Image:Persepolis.jpg was labeled "With permission, only for personal usage from traveladventures"; I don't think Wikipedia counts as "personal usage", does it? Boilerplate in place. -- John Owens 21:54 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Wireless Valley Communications, Inc
    • Can somebody cast an eye over this article, to me it looks like advertising or at best a business directory entry, but maybe I'm wrong... quercus robur 12:19 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's poor now, but I'm about to salvage. An encyclopedia can include all the dirt^H^H^H^Hbackground that the company carefully avoids mentioning on its web page. Stan 12:56 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • Embezzlement
    • Dictionary entry as is, unless someone (who isn't me ;) wants to rewrite it as an encyclopædia article. -- John Owens 22:30 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
Veliko Turnovo is a region and town of Bulgaria, and is as such relevant enough. I've made a standard stub ready for someone with more knowledge of the subject to complete; no need to delete the page. -- Egil 10:42 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • Chinise Democracy: Michael continues to vandalize Wikipedia, even after his banning. -- goatasaur
    • Sigh. I went through the banned addresses and cleaned up the ones I'd banned. I should have left Michael banned. -- Zoe
    • I dont hate anyone, but I seriously detest Michael. Who does he think he is? One sends him a letter telling him how he could improve and he erases it. He doesnt care, and since he doesnt care he needs to be put away every time he tries a comeback.--Antonio Bubble Gum Boy Martin
      • I have to agree. On several occasions he has flamed me (or attempted to anyway) for blanking content or reverting pages. You can see in Talk:Chinise Democracy that while I'm still being somewhat diplomatic it is seriously wearing thin. I basically revert everything he does on sight, but I look at it first. Just so happens he does nothing of substance. -- goatasaur
  • Portal Of Evil - not only incorrect capitalization, but the article contains little more than a link to an offsite website. Unless somebody can add more to it, it should go. -- Zoe
    • I agree that it should go, but I don't know whether you can cite incorrect capitalization, since the site itself consistently uses the capital O. -- Paul A
  • Image:Marymca.jpg
    • suspected copyright infringement -- Tim Starling 06:04 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • I spoke with the President of Ireland's office some months ago seeking permission to use this and other images on wiki. They refused. This is the official portrait from the President's site, which JJ downloaded (though he won't reply to queries as to whether it was from there or somewhere else, or if he got permission - which is highly unlikely - .) So this is almost certainly a copyright infringement from a source that already said 'no' to wiki and should be moved immediately. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:42 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • JJ has just received permission from Áras an Uachtaráin to use the Mary McAleese image so it can now be restored and used.ÉÍREman 23:08 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Uk liz2old.jpg
    • suspected copyright infringement -- Tim Starling 06:09 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • picture is allowed for public, non-commerical use. -- user:J.J.
    • I don't think so. See Image talk:Uk liz2old.jpg -- Tim Starling 06:38 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • According to Buckingham Palace (I spoke to them two months ago seeking use of images) all royal images are the property of the photographer and/or photographic agency. Hence unless their permission has been sought and received they cannot be used. This 'Golden Jubilee' official photograph was allowed to be used freely subject to three conditions; (1) The organisation using it is non-commercial; (2) the photographer is clearly credited; (3) the usage was to do with the Jubilee itself. We fulfil criteria number 1 but not 2 and most definitely not number 3. So this image is unambiguously copyright. However if properly credited, the agency might just allow an encyclopædic use. So we should give JJ a few days to check first. But unless they OK it is copyright and will have to be deleted. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:42 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • I accidentally deleted this image yesterday, because I misread the date in a fit of incompetence. :( It can be re-uploaded, I guess. One question - can it be used under fair use? Martin
  • censorship in the United States -- I wrote what I thought was a pretty good rundown on the stuff, and it was all deleted without being discussed here. I still think my article deserves to survive (edited perhaps) but not to be summarily deleted. It's neither vandalism nor Blogism, and is quite relevant to others such as Disinfopedia, Second Superpower, and Propaganda. It's also appropriately linked to all of these. Could someone please restore it and then have the usual discussion about why it should be deleted, if it should? Steverapaport 16:48 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Work on the distinction between deletion and blanking (and it wasn't even quite blanked, really) and editing. That has nothing to do with votes for deletion. -- John Owens 16:59 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yep yep. Consider moving this to wikipedia:pages needing attention.
  • Reverse osmoisis -- This is a copyright violation of [1] (and also misspelled), I blanked the article, please delete. Rotem Dan
    • I put the copyright violation notice Boilerplate in place; you might want to look at that page to see what to do in the future. -- John Owens 17:58 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • The correct name is Reverse osmosis and that's a stub article, I remember something about Osmosis from high-school biology classes, but that's about it (I'm better with numbers and formulas :-) ) Rotem Dan 18:02 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • I dropped a note on the IP of the contributor, and changed it into a redirect to reverse osmosis. No need to delete. Martin
  • Securities Act Amendments, content "Securities Act Amendments Pl 88-467" (should be "PL"), but maybe someone could make a real article of it? Otherwise, delete. -- John Owens 17:56 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • List of non-fiction authors -- Although I'm as much a fan of lists as anyone, I can't see the value of this one. Being a non-fiction author myself, I'm only too aware that there is no such thing. There are lots of people who write books about their own specialist subject, eg. historians, scientists, but no one who writes "non-fiction" as their main occupation. It's like have a "List of writers who are not poets". I've asked the question on the article's talk page, and so far no one has responded with a reason for its continued existence. Deb 20:40 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've made a suggestion on the talk page. --Paul A 03:16 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • HEMANT KUMAR- new user created encyclopedia page rather than user page quercus robur 22:41 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a redirect to his user page. This is acceptable under Wikipedia T&C's. -- goatasaur
  • Electronics related books, seems to be advertising made by a annoying user: Hemant kumar. -- looxix 23:44 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • I removed the website link and added some of our ISBN links. Hemant just discovered that advertising on Wikipedia isn't very effective. The list is not very good (mostly Indian books), but can probably now stay. -- Tim Starling 00:19 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Btwashington.jpg - copyright status uncertain, but anyway it's 72k (HUGE!) and poor quality. -- Tarquin 10:36 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • The image is now smaller and (arguably) of higher quality.
    • Incidentally, the guy died in 1915 - doesn't that mean that the photo has now ascended into the public domain? Martin 14:09 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • It was uploaded by Black Widow, AKA DW, AKA JoanB, who has an announced policy of refusal to follow copyright concerns about pictures. -- Zoe
  • Drug culture
    • Subject deserves an article, but this isn't it. If I have the time later, I may replace it with something, but right now it's vague yet needlessly specific, POV and terrifically incomplete. Tuf-Kat
  • Fred Hampton
    • The contributor suggests that the material might be copyrighted. Could someone verify we have the right to post this material? --cprompt
  • Supermodel of the World
    • a new article by an anonymous user with meaningless content; I have no idea what it could be a stub for. Slrubenstein 17:17 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's the name of an album by RuPaul. (The trick is to look at the "What links here" page.) --Paul A 03:16 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • AC-47 and Gunship - text taken from two websites about the AC-119 and AC-47, probably copyright infringement andy 19:59 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Egyptian Lover - an uninformative, uninteresting self-adverstisement by a tiny garage band. It gives people the wrong idea as to what Wikipedia is. If it stays, it'll attract more and more garage bands of the same kind. And there's tons out there. This isn't mp3.com. --137.82.195.87 21:54 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree; this happens way too often. I remember the self-admitted unsigned band that created forty different pages for their band members and self-released albums. -- goatasaur
  1. Please delete Afghanistan timeline 2002. It is an old orphan created from edits I made. The information that was there now appears elsewhere. Kingturtle 01:29 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  2. Please delete Anomalous energy. It is empty. Kingturtle 01:47 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  3. Is Annular really necessary? Kingturtle 01:50 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  4. Anniekat is not a bird. But it is an User:AnnieKat. Kingturtle 01:51 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  5. Anna-Leena Härkönen reads like a personal profile page. Is it? Kingturtle 01:52 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Try a google search of the name. 583 hits. Looks real to me. --Infrogmation 02:10 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
She is real. I've wikified the article. -- Jniemenmaa 09:03 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
  1. Anibal Verón is an orphan article about an innocent bystander. Although his death is tragic, is he historically significant. Kingturtle 02:01 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  2. Angela reads like a dictionary entry. Kingturtle 02:06 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  3. Alanna speaks for itself when you see it. Kingturtle 02:18 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  4. Adelbert of Mainz, an orphan, with no content, has not been touched for months. Kingturtle 02:24 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  5. ADIVAC is blank. Kingturtle 02:29 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  6. Vito Acconci is blank after deleting newbie experiment nonsense. andy 19:46 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg
  • Image:Rachelcorriemar.jpg
    • possible copyright infringement. Boilerplate copyright notice in place. For details, see talk page of image. Also, various wikipedians oppose the existence of this photo because it is either not needed, or biased (see talk:Images of Rachel Corrie). These twin reasons seem sufficient to delete the image, though I think we should wait a week as for textual copyright violations. Martin
    • I object to the deletion of these photos, see Image talk:Rachelcorrie01.jpg and my talk page. They complement the article nicely and there is no reason to remove them, as we have a policy to allow fair use of photos, especially of persons in the public interest. --Eloquence 22:59 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
    • I wasn't expecting anyone to object - the only person I wondered about was Ed Poor, but he only said the photo "looked nice", which wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement! Given Eloquence's objection, I withdraw my vote for deletion. Martin 00:09 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • The wikipedia has express permission from the International Solidarity Movement to use this photo. How is this possibly a biased photo? Peter Chamberlain
      • please give details of the "express permission" that the ISM has granted. Martin 13:09 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
        • I sent emails to all the ones listed on their site, and they responded back. I explained what the wiki was and they liked the idea and said we could use the images. They also wished us luck. Peter Chamberlain
      • Perhaps you could quote the full email you sent and the response you received on Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg? Or on talk:International Solidarity Movement? That would help clarify the situation. The reason I'm asking is because there are many photos on the ISM website I would like to use on wikipedia, but I cannot do so until the copyright situation is clarified. Martin
  • User:RachelCorrie Yet more of the Rachel industry on wiki. This time, it is an "anonymous user" we are told. This page should be deleted because
    • it is in extremely bad taste to name a user page after a recently dead person and so have a dead person's name potentially cropping up all over wiki as a 'contributor';
    • their user contributions give no indication whatsoever that this is a valid anonymous user. Its contributions are all devoted to loading and moving images of the real Rachel Corrie around the place. Specifically piles of Rachel images plonked on the "anonymous" user's page, producing yet another wiki shrine to Corrie. This is becoming a sick joke in very poor taste and blatently POV
    • If this is a genuine user, they should be instructed to immediately change the name of the page. Using a recently dead person's name whether as a joke or as propaganda is so outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour it beggars belief. ÉÍREman 02:35 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Is this a request for user:RachelCorrie to be banned? btw, user:RachelCorrie made a number of edits on 18 March, but hasn't edited anything since. There is some discussion of the question on user talk:Rachel Corrie (on a similar time frame) If the name is considered a violation of wikipedia:no offensive usernames, we should pick a new name and move content there. see user:TMC for an example of how we've done this in the past. Martin

I agree with ÉÍREman, this is highly inappropriate. Olga Bityerkokoff

And the above "person" should also be deleted because not only is he a troll, but his name violates the obscene user name dictum. -- Zoe
PLEASE NOTE: I have twice, politely asked User:Zoe to remove this unwarranted attack on me and my name. She has ignored both of these requests. Olga Bityerkokoff
PLEASE NOTE: I have never asked for the deletion of Olga Bityerkokoff, but I am asking now, politely. Kingturtle 03:53 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, please. -- Zoe
Seconded. Tannin 03:59 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Or at least a name change, and an attitude change. As for User:RachelCorrie, I posted this before on the mailing list. The taste is debatable and the content of the user page is just a bunch of pictures and links to articles, but other than that, they aren't really violating any policy.
---cprompt
Agree with above jimfbleak 12:51 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Agree with above Peter Chamberlain
I think my agreement should be obvious. -- John Owens 19:54 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Rachel fractured.jpeg - copyright violation. -- Zoe
    • This is not a copyright violation, the International Solidarity Movement has given the wikipedia permission to use this. Peter Chamberlain
    • I've emailed the ISM (several times) in an attempt to confirm this permission grant, and have yet to receive a response. I have however heard various wikipedians make this assertion:
      1. Susan Mason was the first, saying The ISM response to, "On behalf of the www.wikipedia.org; I am requestion permission to use images on your website." was, "Help yourself and good luck!" (see talk:Images of Rachel Corrie).
      2. Stevertigo was the second, but failed to respond when I asked for details on hir talk page
      3. "User:RachelCorrie" was the third, but again failed to respond when I asked for details on hir talk page
      4. Next came Dietary Fibre, who on talk:Rachel Corrie said "We have permission from the ISM to use everything on their site", but provided no details. Sie suggested emailing Marissa of the ISM, which I did (twice) and got no response.
      5. And now of course Peter Chamberlain states that we've been given permission. The same question applies - what were the exact details of the permission grant? Did you use the boilerplate request for permission? Martin
    • The photo is from the International Solidarity Movement (photo by Joseph Smith), Reuters is using it with their permission. Peter Chamberlain
      • Isn't this a moot point anyway, since the photo is not used anywhere but on a personal vanity page? I think we all agree that User:RachelCorrie should be deleted. --Eloquence 12:45 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • What Zoe doesn't understand is that when a Reuters photo is credited with (Reuters, Handout) which this photo is, that means that somebody (the ISM) had a press release and handed out photos to anybody that bothered to show up.
  • Do you think as Rachel was lying there in pain, with blood streaming from her nose, she knew that moment's copyright status would one day be debated? Peter Chamberlain
    • Since she was the model and not the photographer, it doesn't matter what she thought. She doesn't hold the copyright on the photograph. -◈¡◈

cafe and ginger snaps trivial dictionary definitions jimfbleak

The Stanley Stairs should be deleted. Here are reasons for deletion:

  1. The article claimed Stairs was a foreign policy expert, but a google search for Stanley Stairs "Foreign policy" came up with zero results;
  2. The article claimed Stairs was an author, but an amazon.com search came up with zero results;
  3. By removing foreign policy expert and author from the article, Stairs is left with being an attorney and a humanitarian. This can be said of 10,000s. Nothing explained in the article gives a clear reason of his particular importance;
  4. I have made an exact copy of this article and posted it in disinfopedia.org, because the style of the article closer resembles the disinfopedia format and cause. Users are free to continue building the article there, where it fits more closely.
  5. The article was created by a user with a substantial history of harassing other users, see: [2]
  6. The motive for creating the article came out of attempts of User:Olga Bityerkokoff to intimidate other users: "Your derogatory comments are inappropriate and libelous. Any further comment of this nature by you directed at me stated herein or elsewhere will result in my proceding immediately with all legal remedies available to me in accordance with the laws of the United States."

Can anyone who

  1. does not have a login name that is a play on parts of the body or a play on allusions to prostitutes, and
  2. has posted or edited in wikipedia prior to User:Olga Bityerkokoff's first contribution (22:08 Apr 15, 2003)

give substantial reason why said article should remain on Wikipedia? Kingturtle 19:34 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Seconded, obviously. -- John Owens 19:54 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the above, unless some substantial citations about Mr. Stairs appears. -◈¡◈
  • Media distraction This article presents a variety of so-called censorship techniques that are already covered at propaganda and creates the name Media distraction to label them. My searching has not shown that the literature at large uses this concept and this article appears to be not much more than a political essay masquerading as an article. Google searchs on "media distraction" returns very few hits, and google searches on the key phrases within the article receive zero. Finally, a Lexis-Nexis search on this phrase returns no usages in the sense that the article implies. -◈¡◈
    • It has useful content which is expressed poorly. It is certainly a candidate for revision, and I don't like article title, but there is no case for deletion. Tannin 00:08 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=840543"