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 JohnOwens (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 20 May 2003 (reply Uwe; restore my deleted text *again*). 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 one of the Wikipedia:Administrators can find them and check whether or not they should be deleted. Please review our policy on permanent deletion before adding to this page.

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

  • 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.

Don't list here...

  • 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
  • pages that need editing - see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • subpages in your own user space, use Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted

Note to admins

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

Please put new items at the bottom of the page


  • Bead artists and the articles of the artists listed on the page. This seems more like a series of promotional pages. Kingturtle 17:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Cheicon.jpg I know this will bring debate but this photo is not clearly in the public domain. Ericd 23:34 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • A, it's not a photo, and B, that image is most certainly in the public domain. Why do you think it is reproduced so often? user:J.J.
    • A, it's a photo taken by The Cuban photographer Alberto Korda and printed with strong contrast, B Cuba didn't sign the Berne convention thus the right status is unclear, C Alberto Korda sued some users of this photo and they were condemned, D even if a photo is PD I think it's fair to credit the photographer if it's possible. Ericd
    • The photographer is now credited, btw. Martin 13:00 18 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Chautauqua contains two paragraphs lifted from other sources, and a link to the history of Chautauqua. Such content does not a wiki-article make. Kingturtle 23:18 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Chautauqua definitely is something that should be an article. Please don't delete it, just make it a stub. jaknouse 07:00 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Nimrod
    • Possible copyvio. --mav 21:43 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Neoist - not clear what this article is about. -- Minesweeper 22:10 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Fucking U.S.A. 2 - what is wikipedia policy on something like this. If this is an English language wikipedia, are items with no English translations suitable for an article? Kingturtle 23:14 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • On the article: the song could be merged with the band, if that band actually had an article. On the policy: just because there's no English translation doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. Is the Welsh Wikipedia] limited to Welsh topics? -- Tim Starling 14:22 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Aris Estobar - sounds like a very nice guy, but the article is a first-person narrative of sorts. Aris Estobar is retrieved twice in google, and i can't tell if it is of this same person.
  • Alexander Skantze - unless someone can gleen enough information to create a decent stub and to de-orphan this article, it should be deleted. Kingturtle 05:13 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Fonda -- seems to be an external link to some kind of advert. Deb 21:40 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • Qingdao
    • Possible copyright infringement -- JeLuF 08:28 18 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Bryleigh's Theorem has zero Google hits. But I'm no mathematician, so if it's for real I'm happy to be corrected. Evercat 18:49 18 May 2003 (UTC)
    • No articles link here, and no Google hits on "Bryleigh's Theorem", "Bryleigh-Mayfield Theorem", or "Jayne Bryleigh". Implausible date (1665) quoted for theorem about differential equations: Isaac Newton only received his degree in 1665. Looks like a deliberate prank. I vote for deletion. -- Anon.
      • I fixed the date. It's 1765. Sorry, Bob
        • Even so Bob it must be a pretty obscure theorem to have no google hits. I managed to go through 5 years of undergraduate physics without ever having herd of it {which doen't necessarily prove anything}. Can you improve the page by providing a proof of the theorem? I'm not against having obscure maths, but I am against having obscure maths whose validlty cannot be checked.Theresa knott 14:58 19 May 2003 (UTC)
          • Bryleigh's Theorem in Diff EQ is almost too obvious to prove. For example, say you are solving the differential equation y'=y. You guess y=Ce^x. You plug the solution into the differential equation and it works. Then by Bryleigh's Theorem, y=Ce^x MUST be A solution (might be a UNIQUE solution) to the diff eq y'=y. Now the Bryleigh-Mayfield Theorem--well, I just remember hearing it in E&M in third-year physics related to the Magnetic Vector Potential and its series expansion. I'm not the best physicist in the world, so maybe someone else can jump in here... Bob
    • I vote to delete it. The current content is ridiculous. See also the Talk page. --Zundark 21:48 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete this. At least one of "Bob's" offline sources isn't panning out as discussed on talk. -- Minesweeper 03:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)


  • Operation Ivy - badly-written article by presumably the banned user Michael. -- Zoe
  • Geronimo Jones - "Apparently the name of a 1960s U.S. film we might want a brief article on." Andre Engels 21:39 19 May 2003 (UTC)
  • All the subpages of Internet humor which are pure source texts should be removed or replaced with external links to the content. In any case, the subpages must go. --Eloquence 00:09 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. -- Minesweeper 04:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • No. (If we're going to use absolute language.) You do realize the "all subpages must go" phrase is a parody of people being unreasonable, right? --The Cunctator 04:57 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Uwe: a dictionary entry on the personal name. Not anyone by the name, the name itself. -- John Owens 16:19 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • User:The Cunctator seems to vote against deletion, thinking it's "a useful stub", and that that's enough reason to remove it from VfD immediately and *cough* unilaterally. I disagree. -- John Owens 00:15 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a useful stub. --The Cunctator
    • I disagree. -- John Owens 00:15 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, credit where it's due: that's half right. It is a stub, albeit a microscopic one. It's not useful in its current form, however, and difficult to imagine how it could ever become so. I vote to delete it. Tannin 04:00 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it's a useful stub. You disagree. Does that mean it should be deleted? I think a much healthier policy is to not delete entries that people reasonably disagree on whether it should be deleted. But hey, if you prefer killing information to keeping it, then maybe that should be the Wikipedia Way. --The Cunctator
      • It would be useful as part of an article on Etymology of names or something like that, yes. But Wikipedia entries should be about Uwe himself (if there were one that stood out), not about the word "Uwe". That's what http://wiktionary.org/ is for. -- John Owens 05:07 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • inherently funny word
    • This is just a list of words that the reader is told are funny. It's highly POV and less factual than a copy of The Sun (and about as funny as the latter). CGS 13:02 18 May 2003 (UTC). User:Mintguy also agrees.
    • User:Tannin suggests it is moved to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
    • I disagree. It (or at belief in it) is a real concept. Kind of like God, except not so much. --The Cunctator
    • I disagree also. The article does focus on a longstanding debate in comedy. Is something inherently funny? Most comedians certainly believe that certain words, particularly in terms of their pronounciation and cultural context, are funny. This article needs a lot of work but it does have a basis behind it. But it needs to define context, comedic, traditional and cultural resonnances, etc. In some cultures, 'cack' means marbles and has no humour. Cack is also used as a colloquial meaning as 'fæces', which in some contexts touches on scatological humour and reduce an audience to hysterics. So this article definitely should not be deleted. FearÉÍREANN 05:34 19 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above two comments. There is a real issue that this article discusses. It should not be deleted. --Dante Alighieri 04:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Alternative TV - is this original work? Even if it is, it needs serious NPOVing. -- Zoe
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=941386"