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 Oliver Pereira (talk | contribs) at 10:49, 21 May 2003 (Krishna Saraswat is worthy of note!). 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)
  • Function (mathematics) to rename it to Function since there is no function (something) article now. Thanks
    • I moved the contents to Function, and changed this page into a redirect (moved by hand to not lose history information). I think that makes it okay now. Andre Engels 09:51 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Qingdao
    • Possible copyright infringement -- JeLuF 08:28 18 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Operation Ivy - badly-written article by presumably the banned user Michael. -- Zoe
    • Who cares who wrote it? It seems to be pretty much accurate. If you have a problem with the way it is written then re-write it, why don't you? GrahamN 06:10 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Because policy is to revert and delete all entries made by banned users under other names. -- Zoe
    • There's no evidence to show that 198.81.26.241 (5 edits) or User:Diftong (7 edits) are in fact Michael, witch hunts not withstanding. Further, there's no generally agreed policy on what to do with articles created by banned users. You are cordially invited to help edit meta:bans and blocks if you wish to create such a policy. Martin 20:59 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Have you ever met a vandal that you didn't want to keep around? -- Zoe 01:40 21 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Have you any evidence to suggest that this user is a vandal? Martin 09:16 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I vote no to the removal of source texts. If you replace the pages with links then you can be certain that at some time in the future the link will break. Why do want to lose them? As far as sub pages go, I vote yes. Let them have a proper page. Theresa knott 08:04 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not mere collections of public domain or other source material. This is a well-established policy. Possibly future broken links is the trade-off we accept in using this policy. -- Minesweeper 10:37 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I propose we move them to meta. This gives us the benefit of making it clear that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, while avoiding the potential downside of broken links. Then the internet humor page can reference the pages on meta as examples. Btw, the two cows page, at least, has been edited on Wikipedia a bit, so it's probably GFDL, not public domain. Martin
      • Meta is not a place to dump articles that are unrelated to Wikipedia itself. What you are looking for is something like the mythical Project Sourceberg, a place to store source material. An official, maintained site for this purpose does not yet exist. --Eloquence 23:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)
        • These articles are related to the Wikipedia article on internet humor, and therefore to Wikipedia. Martin
  • I disagree too. Subpages are sure against our policy then we just need to move them. Certainly we need some kind of repository system to keep some important text but since we don't have one, it is our compromise that we keep certain text. We cannot rely on the sites outside wikipedia keep those texts. -- Taku 03:03 21 May 2003 (UTC)
    • That is not "our compromise", it is against our policy. I see no reason to make an exception for the George W. Bush lexicon but not for the US constitution -- see arguments below. In fact, making such an exception could be interpreted as a POV choice on our part: Making fun of Dubya is so important that we need to preserve all source material that does so, whereas Shakespeare, Goethe, national laws and constitutions, historical speeches, free manuals and so forth all pale in comparison to the infinite wisdom of Internet humorists. --Eloquence 06:04 21 May 2003 (UTC)
    • OK you've made a fair point minesweeper. I don't think it would be right to discuss these pages as a group ss I'm listing them individually. Some of the pages are not just source material but contain some original text as well. So lets do 'em one at a time.Theresa knott 10:59 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Admissions Essay
  • Classified ads
  • Girlfriend software
  • Goodtimes Virus Warning
  • Honor System Virus
    • "Apparently this actually fooled a lot of people into thinking they actually got a virus" If this statement is true then the page should be rewritten and kept Theresa knott 12:19 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • How Hot is it in Hell?
    • Letter from R Shambaugh starts"In many versions of this story, the correct course number and title are given (CHE 3123 -Heat, Mass,and Momentum Transfer -- yes, I do teach this course), " I vote the page shoud be kept because the story purports to be factual. This reply from the professor who is supposed to have set the exam question should therefore be kept.
  • How to measure the height of a building with a Barometer
  • Letter from the Smithsonian Institute
  • Lightbulb jokes
    • I'm not sure, It doesn't seem to have very much meritTheresa knott 12:19 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Number of the beast
  • Standard Disclaimer
  • System Qual
  • You have two cows
  • George W. Bush lexicon
    • Lose it
  • Of these, the only ones I see worth saving (and moving) are Goodtimes Virus Warning, Lightbulb jokes, and You have two cows (although those last two could be trimmed down). -- Minesweeper 11:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • I've indicated my thoughts above, but I would say that the contensts should be copied to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense rather than lost.Theresa knott 12:19 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I see no good reason to delete just about any of these. Better entries should be written, based off of the content (e.g. You have two cows), but they are all useful and interesting starting points. --The Cunctator 22:50 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • No, there's no reason to delete them, if you ignore our policies on source texts and subpages. However, since these policies are established, any argument that ignores them without successfully changing the policies first is null and void. --Eloquence 23:05 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • The What Wikipedia is not guidelines are just that: guidelines, subordinate to the goal of creating a good, complete, and consistent encyclopedia. They are not gospel (like the principles of neutrality, self-identification as an encyclopedia, and open content are). Thus individual cases should be viewed within that context. What purpose does having these entries serve? In the case of the Internet humor pages, they are distinguished primarily by the fact that this is an area of knowledge in which traditional paper encyclopedias are particularly deficient. Although Wikipedia should not be a repository of source documents, Wikipedians should not feel constrained by ex cathedra laws to use their judgment to determine the degree that including source material is useful and necessary. Wikipedia is a living document, and the guidelines are meant to reflect best practices as much as they are to shape them. --The Cunctator 23:19 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • The guidelines are not subordinate to the goal, they are a reflection thereof. They have been formulated and agreed upon with the specific idea that following these guidelines will improve our encyclopedia. Without justification calling into question these principles for each individual case is not only counter-productive, it is also annoying. If we are to make an exception to any individual rule, such an exception needs to be well qualified, and the qualification itself should then become part of our guidelines. For the case at hand, there is no particular reason to ignore or amend our established policies. It is true that Wikipedia knows more about Internet humor than the Britannica; it also knows more about Linux, yet we do not import the entire set of Linux HOWTOs, arguably much more factual information and readily available under compatible licenses. We do not even import relevant political speeches or essays. Why have we formed this policy? Simply because an openly editable encyclopedia is not particularly useful for mirroring static content, where authenticity is of very high importance. This is also the case for these humor articles, because if the source texts are collaboratively edited we diverge from the goal of documenting what is known to the separate goal of creating new "knowledge", which is not what an encyclopedia is meant to do. I am a supporter of the Sourceberg idea (though I dislike the name), but Wikipedia is not such a source repository. If we don't store crucial political texts or literary works that are freely available, the rationale for including George W. Bush jokes and chain letters is much weaker still. Your argument thus has no merit whatsoever. --Eloquence 23:39 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)
    • It's a useful stub. --The Cunctator (from the edit summary when removing entry from page)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • I agree that it's not a finished article, but I think it's a good start. If you think it belongs on wiktionary.org, I'd hope you think you have an obligation to put that content there before you delete it. Part of my bias is that I want Wikipedia to end up being a true encyclopedia, not an emulation of a paper one. I see that you feel it's necessary to leave the ad hominem commentary in. Pity, that.--The Cunctator
    • What harm is this inoffensive stub doing to anybody? Why shouldn't there be enyclopaedia articles about names and their provenance, history, meaning, etc? I'm with The Cunctator on this. GrahamN 05:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with John in that I think information on the provenance, history, meaning, etc. of words or names belongs in Wiktionary. Articles such as Timothy or John should continue to talk about people with that name, not the name itself. I vote for moving this page to wiktionary:Uwe and replacing the current page with an interwiki redirect. -- Tim Starling 06:23 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Is there a policy supporting the presence of interwiki redirects? I don't like them. If someone clicks on an internal link in the Wikipedia, they expect to stay in the Wikipedia. To redirect them out of it without their approval is just confusing. -- Oliver P. 17:17 20 May 2003 (UTC)
        • I don't like them either, not least because they are difficult to edit. I won't mind if someone deletes it altogether. But it is only an orphan, so internal links are rare. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest we move to Wikipedia talk:How to use redirect pages. -- Tim Starling 00:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)
        • If there isn't, you get my vote for creating a policy to disallow them. They are difficult to edit, and they take someone out of Wikipedia without a warning. They also blur the boundaries of what is Wikipedia and what is not. Andre Engels 10:18 21 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)
    • Me, too. This is a good article. Anybody who has ever played Cheddar Gorge knows that this is a real phenomenon. GrahamN 05:30 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't delete it. The concept is well worth discussing. It's just that the current article needs to be replaced with something better. -- Derek Ross 20:06 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this can stay. It's highly POV right now, but has potential to become a good article. It needs an expanded introduction and more on the psychology of the phenomenon, and hopefully someone will add that eventually. -- Minesweeper 21:49 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I would be against deletion; however, I do doubt about the list of words, which seems POV to me.
  • Fighter Ace Video - simply a link to a video of some game. I can't imagine that the article could ever be anything useful. -- Ams80 08:10 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Fighter Ace - same as above. -- Minesweeper 09:52 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • I dunno, Fighter Ace could at least become an article about the game (hopefully soon, or I may come to support deletion). But the video one is useless; at best, add the link as a footnote to the game page, though I think just the link to the site's main page ought to be enough. -- John Owens 10:01 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Fighter Ace Video is now a redirect to Fighter Ace, which contains the former content of it - an external link only. We should have an expand or delete list that places ones like this on a watchlist of some kind: if no-one expands them into at least half-decent stubs within a certain length of time (a month, say, or three at most), out they go. As it stands, Fighter Ace contains nothing useful. Tannin 10:51 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Autograph collecting - bulletpoint style POV tutorial, similar to the deleted How to get rich. Note: Cunctator removed and renamed this. A new title does not change the fact that it is POV and non-encyclopedic. --Eloquence 10:43 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Sarah_Marple-Cantrell doesn't seem to be anyone who warrants an encyclopedia entry. Timo Honkasalo 15:49 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Apparently she was a twelve-year-old girl who shot herself. I suspect that's pretty unusual, even for Texas (although for some reason there seems to be a dearth of online news reports), and so therefore perhaps worthy of note. -- Oliver P. 16:53 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Oliver. If she was on the news, then she's worth noting. I mean lets face it, we've had people on the news for less important things (read: the woman who claims to have had an affair with President Kennedy). Now, to my business in this page....Antonio Unhibited Martin
    • As about 60% of suicides in US are done with firearms, I see no reason to assume that they are not used by girls. As for the news, only thing Google could come up with was five hits, three of them pointing to same article in dallasnews.com. Local news, that is. - Timo Honkasalo 17:26 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Local news for local people? Well, Wikipedia is for everyone (even local people), and Wiki is not paper so we have room. -- Oliver P. 18:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Paula - I just ran into this when I clicked Random Page. No links in it, hardly explanatory, I was left with the same knowledge about the subject that I had before reading it. Apparently a character of a television show or comic, but even the name of the story the character is at doesnt have a link. Antonio Rico Suave Martin
    • It has a few links now... -- Oliver P. 18:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks ok to me. Andre Engels 10:18 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Dawn of man - vague and confused stuff on evolution, non-encyclopedic, blanked. Kosebamse 20:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Rolf Josef Eibicht - blanked by John Owens, was a German non-encyclopedic article (political pamphlete) before -- JeLuF 21:38 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Educational issues - Lists some supposed "educational issues" in the united states. Except the temporary problem of US-only coverage, I don't think a concensus can be built about this kind of topic. For example, if I think X is an issue and you think Y is an issue, what would we do, write "Some people think big classes is an issue", "30 persons think not having a pool in each school is an issue", "5 people think schools are themselves useless" etc. etc. Focusing in an academic treatment of different teaching methods, or concentrating on controversial issues regarding education (as in the evolution example) sounds more encyclopedic than these newspaper-style contemporary-ministery-of-education-politics treatments, a more academic view is needed with another name -- Rotem Dan 02:05 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Roken1.jpg - can someone see if this orphaned image has any reason to stay? -- Minesweeper 08:00 21 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Quite the contrary, it looks like it only contains filthy sentences (e.g. you can find "anal sex" or "blowjob"), someone speaking dutch can tell more, I can only guess from the similarity with german. 100% agree to remove it. andy 08:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)
      • It is a number of mostly pro-smoking statements. I assume it is used as a reaction to a law last year that every cigarette package should have some large text warning of the dangers of smoking. I see no reason to keep it. Andre Engels 09:44 21 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Dr.Krishna Saraswat: Entire content is "Dr.Saraswat is a prof. at Stanford." Even if we know more about him, is he article-worthy? -- John Owens 09:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)
    • He might well be, but if he is, then it is the area he works in and the discoveries that he has made that make him such, not the place where he works. If we do keep it (and I am in favor of removing), it should be moved - The "Dr." should not be part of the page title, certainly not in an incorrect way (without a space after it). Andre Engels 10:18 21 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I say that people don't become professors at top universities unless they are notable in some way. Anyway, I've mentioned his area of work in the article, and moved it to a better ttile. -- Oliver P. 10:49 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=945934"