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 Menchi (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 24 June 2003 (WikiMoney: dumb, but fun (to some)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please review our policy on permanent deletion before adding to this page.

Add links to unwanted page titles to the list below so that other Wikipedians can have a chance to argue for and against the removal of the 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 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

  • Image:Glasseelu.mov: What are the feelings on use of .mov files with the GFDL? I'm not sure about format transparency here.... -- John Owens 22:31 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Does anyone have the necessary conversion software? I don't even know what we would convert it to. Last time I checked we didn't have a standard format. -- Tim Starling 15:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Goldtoken.com, little more than an advertisement. Also Turn-based gaming. -- goatasaur
    • Then you need to take down all things like Battle.net and stuff like that, or change it. -- Ilyanep
    • This belongs in the pages needing attention page
      • Battle.net is one of the largest gaming communities on the Internet. Wikipedia has no articles for game services such as Popcap, Playsite, Pogo and so forth. Goldtoken.com is no different. -- goatasaur
    • Some facts: 227,000 Googles for Battle.net. 4,900 for Goldtoken.com.
      • Okay, but we should still keep it, and build. Or at least keep Turn-based gaming, since it's a rather interesting 'technique'. ilyanep 23:20 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Knowledge frame. I don't know what to make of this. It looks like an out-of-place polemic, but I've been wrong before of course. - Hephaestos 21:15 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedians' favorites -- Martin
    • It seems to be a more liberal and therefore possibly will-be more active form of Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. But the screaming Header1 is horrible. --Menchi 10:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Nope, it's a list of Wikipedians' favorite (for eg) music, NOT a list of Wikipedians' favorite articles on music. Martin 11:22 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Interesting that it's pre-phase-III and this is the first time someone noticed it. I second deletion. -- Tim Starling 15:50 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Shi Fu - "Shi Fu" is just the Chinese translation for "master." And could mean the master of any art, not specifically Wushu. It's just a general Chinese term, nothing special to be noted about it. Jiang 01:56 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Liliuokalani of Hawaii seems to have been rubbish since it was created last 12th March -- Arwel 19:20 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Not entirely rubbish, although it was brief. I've expanded it a bit. -- Oliver P. 22:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Kaiô Michiru, Benburb - Both of these were created and subsequently blanked by anon. contributors. They both have info in their histories, but I don't know enough to determine whether they're newbie experiments or accidental blankings. -- Minesweeper 00:51 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • All the phobia articles created by this anonymous user
    • Most of these are probably non-existent. Outside of the top half-dozen most common, there are a few rare phobias and the rest that persist on Internet lists of phobias are linguistic exercises with no real world correlant. In any case, these are all dictionary definitions. Tuf-Kat
    • agree, most are clearly fictional, I've deleted one already. jimfbleak 06:50 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm no expert on phobias so I don't know if they are genuine, but the ones I looked at are more like dictionary entries than encyclopaedia articles. I vote to move them all (including the one jimfbleak deleted without listing it here first [tut tut]) to the Wiktionary, where the word experts can decide whether to keep them or not. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Paul Revere's Ride - just the poem. jimfbleak 06:50 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Not sure about this. It's surely out of copyright. Is it doing any harm? GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It's not encyclopedic. Do we really want articles that are just copies of text? How about an article The complete works of Shakespeare? jimfbleak 17:02 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You are right, of course. I would vote to move it to Project Sourceberg, if that was up and running, but as far as I can make out it is not. Oh, let's bin it then if you feel strongly about it. GrahamN 17:11 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Interstate 91, Interstate 95, Interstate 15, Interstate 5, Interstate 10, etc. -- Copyright. Anon, 18 Jun 2003
    • They are just lists of information. All that has to be done to remove any "creative expression" from the original writer is to rearrange the sections. Information, by itself, cannot be copyrighted but the unique and creative presentation of that information can. --mav 08:15 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep them. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The above have been fixed. The choice and organization of the lists IMO follows a highly logical order that cannot be considered to be a "creative expression" (just like a alphabetical listing in a telephone book). But the prose that is there should now pass the Google text. Any other copyvios Anon? --mav 05:36 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:La2.gif Looks like a newbie expt. Not intended for the encylopedia Theresa knott 09:06 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I think that if after a week or so no good reason emerges for this being on Wikipedia then it should be binned. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Zatre is an orphan talk page. The corresponding article appears to have been deleted, so let's delete this too. -- Timwi 09:47 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to bin it. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Talk:Dago - idem. Some interesting discussion, but with the subject page being deleted it's very hard to understand. Andre Engels 10:14 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to move it to the Wiktionary. GrahamN 15:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Debye length - just a link as of now, maybe someone can make a stub out of it -- Notheruser 17:11 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to bin it. GrahamN 15:14 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • WeakyWeaky - does such a thing really exist? Kingturtle 23:38 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded -- Timwi 23:43 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting example of an article falling through the cracks. Ericd commented on it back in January, but he didn't bother doing anything about it. -- Tim Starling 01:20 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to bin it. GrahamN 15:14 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The following images he lists as fair use but gives no indication of source, a requirement to protect wiki should any dispute arise over whether they are indeed covered by fair use.

The following image he lists with the questionable justification that it belongs to the Government of Canada as is as a result public property.

IMO we should delete the lot of them. Better to be safe than sorry plus it gives a clear message that coprighted material will not be tolerated.Theresa knott 09:02 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Remainder of discussion moved to Wikipedia:Copyright issues/Images

I vote against User:Jtdirl’s statement that these images should be deleted. And I give the following reasons:

Remainder of comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright Given the history of DW/Black Widow/Joe Canuck in returning to wikipedia even after banning, I think it is fair to presume that the banning of Joe Canuck will not mean an end to the danger that these images may still be used by him. The odds are that he will return in the near future and if the images still exist, reinsert them. To ensure he can't, I would suggest that the image be deleted immediately the seven day waiting period is over, which means that they should be deleted as soon as possible after the 26th of June. A question: given that the user who downloaded them and so knows their source is now banned (and it is unlikely anyone else on wiki will be able to trace their source), do wiki rules allow in such circumstances for their deletion ahead of the 7 day waiting period? As the person who put them here I will not be the person who deletes them in any case. FearÉIREANN 09:24 21 Jun 2003 (UTC) [I am reinstating this comment which User:ChuckM removed. It isn't about the images in detail but about their status following JC's banning. As such it belongs here, not in a page discussing the images in detail.] FearÉIREANN 02:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  • I'd be all for deleting these at any time; they were uploaded by a hard-banned user, and as such are subject to being reverted; additionally the only defense of them I've seen is by what is probably an illegitimate multiple account of the aforementioned user. Not to mention, if it's ever found that we can use any of these under copyright, they're easily found on Google images. - Hephaestos 16:36 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Amen to that. I'd say delete them now and get the "debate" over with. -- Wapcaplet 21:15 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Ken Mondschein
    • User:Someone else added him a few days ago, as a "query rather than a vote", but maybe we should have a proper vote about him. He's a writer, but I can't find much about him apart from in his own online writings. -- Oliver P. 16:48 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I'm not really voting for this to be deleted myself; I just thought other people might want to. It seems no-one's bothered by it, though... -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Don Imus
    • Possible copyvio. --mav
    • Mav, I apologize I was unaware that this violated copyright, The original text was given to me by a friend. I did not know that he copped it off the Internet. I though he wrote it himself.
  • Alexander III - material duplicated by the disambiguation page Alexander; any pages that pointed to this page I have already disambiguated. -- llywrch 04:30 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This should certainly remain as a disambiguation page. I suppose a case could be made to redirect it to Alexander, if the material is all there anyway, but I see no reason to make people wade through that list to find the subset that refer to the Alexander IIIs. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • SeaVIEW, at first I put this under Wikipedia:Pages needing attention but on consideration I feel this mistitled, badly written, largely off-topic article should be deleted. 212 09:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • If it's mistitled, it can be moved; if it's badly written, it can be rewritten; if some of the information is off-topic, it can be moved to an article where it is more on-topic. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Counter-Strike tips - we are not a gaming help site, Rmhermen 13:06 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. While an article about counterstrike (maybe even incorporating that into it) would be ok, this seperate article is not. Ilyanep 21:09 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • David Anez - useless as-is. - Hephaestos 19:39 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Doesn't seem to exist (already deleted?). -- Timwi 20:35 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, I deleted it. It contained graffitti only. -- JeLuF 20:43 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • It's back again, so I'm putting this back in as-was. Oh, and upholding its deletion. -- John Owens 23:08 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • Ulps. I deleted it again, and after checking, it was the slightly more credible version. I undeleted it (I think (and with apologies)). Nevertheless the original reasons for its deletion stand, in my view. Does someone have the original talk for deletion archived somewhere? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 16:00 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Gott straf England - A dead stub. If this was real, it was very unpopular. Not even German yahoo showed any page. Only 1 English Google link (an entry of a soldier's diary -- authenticity unascertained), except the two "WP" pages created by that banned person. --Menchi 04:53 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I actually would let that one stay; the English translation (God punish England) comes up with 91 hits, and the first page is all in that context. - Hephaestos 04:59 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The banned user named it wrong. It's "strafe". --Menchi 05:11 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Aha. My conjugation is lousy too. ;) - Hephaestos 05:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Fhqwhgads
    • we're not a dictionary, much less a dictionary of obscure slang known only by fans of one obscure site -- Tarquin 08:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I looked this up in Google when it was first posted, and I thought it seemed widespread enough (and the article well written enough) to keep it. 1,870 hits, and 1,300 still show up with the terms "homestar", "strong bad" and "the cheat" excluded [2]. The hits come from many different sites. -- Tim Starling 16:02 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Martin's moved the content to Homestar Runner and redirected Fhqwhgads to that article. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Someone vandalised AIDS Kills Fags Dead (which previously was a redirect). Then someone deleted it. I restored it as a valid redirect (and will list on VfuD. Martin 08:48 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This is indeed a valid redirect. No need for it to be deleted. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Doing searches I keep finding this turning up on AIds links and it makes wiki look like a bigoted homophobic site. Given its sensitivity we should have no redirects that do not explicitly include the word 'slogan' to make it clear to the world that this isn't some repulsive attack on gay people but a proper encyclopædic article. As far as I am concerned, this link should be binned as soon as possible. FearÉIREANN 20:06 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Media in China is bizarre. Reads like the last two paragraphs of a longer article. Bill 16:32 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, it seems it was snipped from one of the main China pages. Perhaps it needs to be re-integrated or re-written where it is... Evercat 20:10 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Repetition is a bore, and the repeted sections should be changed, but there's a lot to be said a bout the current media control methods in China, as well as a history. --Menchi 00:09 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Maybe it could be merged with Internet in China until the subjects get more robust. (After all the Internet is part of the media.) - Hephaestos
  • Trollkore - zero Google hits, their IRC channel had a single person in it... Evercat 20:48 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • United Pentecostal Church - this page came up when I clicked on "Random page". There's nothing there but two links to external websites. RickK
    • Delete the ad. --Menchi 05:15 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't understand. What ad? RickK
        • An article with nothing but external links is considered equivalent to an advertisment for those websites. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I'm quite happy for it to be deleted. -- Tim Starling 02:30 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • 45 or 46 Songs That Weren't Good Enough to Go on Our Other Records - it only contains "i believe that this cd was very good and stuff is good and nofx is good and music is good and other stuff is good and drums are good and guitars are good and bass is good and singing is good and other stuff.And i do believe that nofx is the best band in the world and then comes other bands.by me" RickK
    • Did someone just delete this? I agree that it ought to be deleted, although our policy is to wait a week. I removed the contents to talk. If we delete this page, we need to delete the talk page as well. Slrubenstein 05:11 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Taz-Mania - Evercat states page was deleted long ago.... I just checked this wiki and it is still there with the text "I wanna picture of the tasmanian devil!" please delete this page. Thank you.
    • It's really not there, anon. Have you cleared your browser cache? - Hephaestos 05:23 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Whoops my mistake I meant to post Taz-mania this is the one that should be deleted.
      • Also not there. --Menchi 05:30 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • List of highest-grossing films - I don't see the value of having this on the wikipedia, considering that this will always just be an outdated list of a list provided easily by IMDB. The actual list will always be out of date, and it doesn't provide the information that the imdb link does. It just seems unnecessary. A similar argument for Top-grossing movies in the United States.-- DropDeadGorgias 16:25 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • So? IMDB isn't free, and the articles are more or less encyclopedic. I say keep 'em. -- Wapcaplet 21:20 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. IMDB is free. Yes, it has a sister site that requires payment, but the information linked to from these pages is, indeed, free. RickK
    • We've been through this before, see Wikipedia:Village pump/June 2003 archive. Believe it or not, there is very little support for scrapping our movie section because "IMDB is better". Nor are we going to scrap our mathematics section in favour of Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics, and we're not going to drop all our history articles because Encyclopaedia Britannica is better. If IMDB is public domain then import it. -- Tim Starling 02:35 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiMoney - Delete! Dumb, Dead, Distracting, Discuss! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:08 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Take a look at the history of the page. It's obviously not dead. This is admittedly a silly way to give people incentives for fixing up various parts of Wikipedia, but it works, and people use it. I don't see why it should go. -- goatasaur
  • You take a look at it! Most if not all late edits are just people like me wanking off! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:30 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Leave it here; I don't see any reason why it should go away. -- Schnee 20:25 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Yeah, leave it alone. Yes it's silly, but it falls in the same category as the other silly distractions we've had votes for deletion on. It's harmless. -- Wapcaplet 21:20 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't use it, but some people find it fun (at least for a month). If it makes WP a bit more entertaining, I think we can accept the cost of making us looking a bit dumb too. :-) --Menchi 02:40 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1075057"