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 Kingturtle (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 2 June 2003 (deleted Cha Bumkeun, Plum Village for copyright issues. deleted Political reason because it is "unnecessary two-sentence jargon article"). 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

  • User talk:Dewlaylomo
  • User:Dewlaylomo
  • User talk:Dewlaylomo/ban
    • Originally deleted with comment (Offensive user name, mostly vandal). I disagree with deletion, because we should have some record of why a user has been banned, etc. Please discuss :) Martin 18:32 25 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep it :-) Anthere
      • Please clarify which you're seconding? This is the "Votes for deletion" page, after all, not "Votes for undeletion". For my part, I'd say keep it for the reason given above. -- John Owens 20:41 25 May 2003 (UTC)
        • Apology, I was not clear. Ant
  • The Theo Wade Brown article was made about a month after he died. Google only picks up one hit on his name.....and that one hit is Theo Wade Brown. If Theo is significant, the article needs to explain how and why. Otherwise, it should be considered for deletion. Kingturtle 03:59 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • New World Negationism - idiosyncratic, unfixable--Eloquence 06:13 26 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Doesn't generate much in the way of Google hits, and the word "negationism" isn't English anyway. It seems to be one person's political agenda. -- Zoe
    • "Negationism may not be a very elegant word, but Google found 946 references to it. A random selection I looked at all seem to use it in the same sense - "the denial of historical crimes against humanity." This is a valid concept. Maybe the article needs a little NPOVing, but I don't think it should be deleted. GrahamN 23:10 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • War of the Pacific from Wikipedia:votes for undeletion
    • I vote for keeping it Anthere
    • same here. Martin 18:01 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • James Anthony was marked as a copyright violation long ago, but seems to have slipped through the cracks until now. -- John Owens 14:17 26 May 2003 (UTC)
    • The author, 152.163.xx.xx and 64.12.96.xx, seems to have taken it upon him/herself to restore the page content with the following on the talk page:
      Please note that some of the text on this page is the same as posted on the website http://www.paulstillarockin.com/bushpilot. That website is The James Anthony Band website, owned by the band's drummer, Paul McKinnon. The text shown is James Anthony's musical biography & Mr. Anthony has given Mr. McKinnon permission to use it for publication. His biography has been published worldwide for promotional purposes.
It doesn't seem to me that giving Mr. McKinnon permission implies giving us permission in any way. And "publish[ing] worldwide for promotional purposes" doesn't mean it's in the public domain, or GFDLed. Also, this brings up the issue of Paul McKinnon page itself, as well, with a similar note in place on the talk page. I don't want to be too heavy-handed, so if I'm right here, could someone restore the boilerplate, and perhaps add it to the latter? -- John Owens 15:28 27 May 2003 (UTC)
P.S. Forgot to mention, I did not, however, find any copyright notice on the external site above, for what it's worth. -- John Owens 15:33 27 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Open Campaign - from Wikipedia:votes for undeletion
    • I vote for deleting this, because it talks about a Greenpeace definition, and fails the google test. Martin 18:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it would be an error to delete an article named "open campaign". This concept clearly exist on the web. However, the current definition is only one definition among others. I think it should be shortened, and embedded in a list of alternate meanings and uses of the expression. Second, since this is a terminology used by Greenpeace, why not move a good part of the article in the Greenpeace article ? Last, I think the last part of the article belongs to metawikipedia, and as such could be moved there. User:anthere
    • Ok, anthere, I can accept that suggestion... make it so! :) Martin 23:44 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Isabel Preysler
  • Empty. I might get around to writing about her soon but if I dont or someone else doesnt, erase it. The girl's got a long biography, just not written on that page. But if Im gonna write about her I will need to search for details. She married Julio Iglesias but she also married some former president of Spain and so on you know. So if I dont get around or someone else does, to it, erase it.
    Antonio Tanya Martin
    • Ok I fixed it, no need to erase it now.
      Antonio I need help!!!!! Martin
    • Considering that Spain is a monarchy and last had a president during the shortlived Second Republic in the 1930s, is this woman the Spanish version of Anna Nicole Smith? If she married a former Spanish president, she would have been marrying someone 100+ years old!!! I hope you mean 'president of the government' (ie, prime minister). FearÉIREANN 01:43 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Cesu county - copyright infringement andy 10:51 28 May 2003 (UTC)
    • This same article with the same text was deleted about a week ago. -- Minesweeper 21:29 28 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Breatharian Diet: delete from List of diets, as this is not a serious diet, unlike the other diets. The author admits its not credible, but insists it remains here. I've duplicated it to List of notable eccentrics, and would like the other copy at List of diets deleted. I can't stomach all this... TonyClarke 22:38 28 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know about that... sure it's crazy, but there were people advocating it at one point... --Dante Alighieri 22:41 28 May 2003 (UTC)
      • People once argued, or maybe still argue for the notion that the earth was flat, but we don't see that in an article about astronomy... leaving this page takes away the seriousness of the other pages.TonyClarke 20:59 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Norteños
    • has been blanked, apparently some Northern California Gang -- JeLuF 07:57 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Majulah Singapura
    • Singapore's National Anthem, original material only, no text. Wikiepdia is not Sourceberg. -- JeLuF 08:00 29 May 2003 (UTC)
  • No-comply 180
    • Slightly incoherent, but may have useful info for skateboarders? Fix or scrap? ReversionOne 02:45 30 May 2003 (UTC)
    • There are lots of these: see Skateboarding trick. Some are better than others. Keep it -- it'll be fixed eventually. There's no case for deleting the entire category. -- Tim Starling 03:20 30 May 2003 (UTC)
    • How about line "5) War sucks" - I certainly agree with the sentiment, but should that be edited out as not relevant to the topic? ReversionOne 20:38 30 May 2003 (UTC)
      • I wikified it, and removed the POV. Kingturtle 17:12 31 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Dick Butkus - probably copyvio. Page it originated at contains a copyright notice. Evercat 13:49 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Erythrophobia - possible copyvio. Couldn't find exact original source, but appears to have been published in a periodical. -- Wapcaplet 16:03 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Aeschelminthe - a redir for an odd spelling that is long gone from wikipedia and seen nowhere else on the net. Stan 17:47 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Orphaned Image of ca-ab.gif - flag of Alberta (other exists and is being used).
  • Orphaned Image of ca-pq.gif - flag of Quebec (other exists and is being used).
  • Orphaned Image of Gm-map.jpg - map of Germany (png version exists and is being used).
I made Atatürk and Kreml redirect to the correct pages. For the record, Atatürk is not German. The Turkish have umlauts too. As a result, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk should actually be moved to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. -- Djmutex 20:40 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I moved the article. I also fixed all the double-redirects that got broken. ;) --Dante Alighieri 22:01 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • PQF filter parameter....is what I see in this article some sort of code? Does it make sense to the experts out there? Kingturtle 22:21 30 May 2003 (UTC)
    • It might also be a copyvio, if the parameters are from a copyrighted work. In any case, Wikipedia is not a source document repository, so it should be deleted. The Anome 17:20 31 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Badly named, orphan, not in English, HTML hell. --mav 07:43 31 May 2003 (UTC)
      • And damn hard to link to, I've fixed it so at least it doesn't appear as an interlanguage link for the VfD page, and can even be followed. -- John Owens 08:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)
      • I've furthered perfected it so that it doesn't look like an external link. Eric119 22:12 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • 666 and the movie 2001 A joke, maybe? some set of mental acrobatics to "explain" irrelevancies and coincidences? Koyaanis Qatsi 16:19 31 May 2003 (UTC)
    • It was originally added to the 2001: A Space Odyssey article itself, and I was just about to simply revert it there as useless nonsense when Mav beat me to it and chopped it off into its own article. I'll happily second a deletion. -- John Owens 18:52 31 May 2003 (UTC)
      • I would have reverted it myself but I'm getting soft in my old age. Check out this odd addition to my talk page by the same person. I vote for deletion too. --mav
        • Agreed. The problem is you can do this with just about any subject. There are always weird co-incidences if you look hard enough. Evercat 21:38 31 May 2003 (UTC)
          • From an agnostic point of view, it would be hilarious if it weren't so disheartening. From a logical point of view, the theory holds as much water as the colander in my kitchen. I could as easily come up with a [[42 and the movie 2001]] page. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:46 31 May 2003 (UTC)
            • Totally pathetic. There is some real gematry in Kubricks works, but this is not it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 22:02 31 May 2003 (UTC)


  • How to get rich - This was already listed on VfD and deleted on 18 May. Someone seems to have restored it without comment. Are we ever going to draw the line on POV how-to articles? -- Minesweeper 22:14 31 May 2003 (UTC)
  • OffByOne - text lifted from page with clear copyright notice -- Infrogmation 23:42 31 May 2003 (UTC)
I refactored it a bit. Anthere
  • Gorman bechard (yes, with a lowercase 'b'). Possible copyright infringement, taken verbatim from another site, or simply advertising (since it was posted by User:GormanBechard, either a big fan or the person himself; in either case, qualified to write a real stub rather than plagiarizing). -- Wapcaplet 21:47 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia: Wikipedians by religion How can this possibly help us write an encyclopaedia? It is a distraction and a waste of time. GrahamN 22:42 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it hurts anything, though. It's totally voluntary (nobody will be categorized unless they want to be) and it's no more a waste of time than any other Wikipedian meta-page. Call it harmless amusement. Who knows, maybe it will help people some people make connections for collaborating on articles with religious themes, say if "This article is rather Christian-centric... we could use a Jewish perspective" ever comes up. I vote to keep it. -- Wapcaplet 22:50 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I object to deletion too. If it is a distraction and a waste of time, so is wikipedia:wikiholic or even any sort of list of wikipedians. -- Taku
  • user:Viking
  • user talk:Viking
  • user talk:Viking/ban) Martin 00:28 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • please delete - chief viking Viking 00:42 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I strongly believe that the page User talk:Viking/ban is unacceptable and demeaning. Each time someone makes it appear on the Recent Changes page it is a negative message about someone who has not been convicted of anything. There is a proper procedure in place for an annoying user or banning. To me, this type of action appears to be in clear violation of the legal rights of User:Viking, the consequences of which could jeopardize the future of Wikipedia, and it most certainly violates Article 7. of User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. Triton 00:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I thought this was the proper procedure. Anyway, I'm sceptical that it violates anyone's legal rights. As for the message it sends, all it says is that there is discussion of a ban. In fact, as this is an important discussion, there's an argument for making it well known that there's such a discussion. Evercat 02:49 31 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Conflict (band)
    • It's been suggested that this should be deleted, and then Quercus should recreate the article, thus erasing Michael's name from the edit history. Discuss? Martin 01:10 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • If that's what people want to spend their time doing, then I'm not going to stop them, but it certainly isn't a process that should be required. Michael's name - along with the name of other banned users - is in the history of hundreds of articles. Removing them from the history doesn't acheive anything. The article can stay as it is - time is better spent on other things. --Camembert
  • Pete Liddle - Content ripped from www.flamenco.com with the name Miguelita replaced by 'Pete Liddle'. Someone's little joke, I think.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=989707"