Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 30 June 2003 (Sonata Artica). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)
      • I know there was talk of some format I wasn't familiar with myself, I don't remember what it was called offhand. I'm pretty sure .mov doesn't qualify no matter how you cut it, though. -- John Owens 08:53 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        • Are you talking about Theora? -- goatasaur 05:39 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
          • Hmm, Theora doesn't sound familiar, but the associated Xiph.org Foundation seems to ring a bell, could be. -- John Owens 05:43 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure, then; there aren't a lot of cross-platform non-proprietary video formats around. Certainly (and unfortunately) none of exceeding popularity. -- goatasaur 05:46 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • If you can supply a transparent equivalent as well as the .mov version, then I believe that's sufficient - add dual links... Martin 10:48 30 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)
  • 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)
      • Still voting for deletion Andre Engels
  • 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)
  • 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)
          • I just gave it some content based on the link. scc 04:19 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Ha Wing Ho, and Ho Fuk Yan - not too sure that these gentlemen should have an entry in the 'pedia. olivier 13:46 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Not sure about Ho Fuk Yan, but Ha Wing Ho at least should go in my opinion. -- Schnee 20:25 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Entries amount from Hong Kong Yahoo:
      • 30 entries for Professor 何福仁 (Ho Fuk-yan), some aren't even about this "renowned author in Chinese literature".
      • Principal 夏永豪 (Timothy Ha Wing-ho) has 20 entries. --Menchi 03:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Schnee - Ho Fuk Yan seems valid, but if Ha Wing Ho has a reason to be in, it is not mentioned in the article yet. Andre Engels
  • Ballard Power Systems - looks like an advert. Viajero 22:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • How about now? I recently edited it (today). Also, what would prevent people from editing it to include criticisms? It wouldn't be the first company listed in wikipedia. Silver Maple
  • image:Rvalcore.gif plus it's talk page. Appears to be self promotion for some sort of club. Does it deserve an encylopedia entry? Theresa knott 08:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Non-encyclopedic, in my opinion. The Anome 08:55 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. I'd be for deletion. -- Schnee 12:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • William, complete contents: "A First Name" Bill 15:41 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Though I agree that this article is a stub, I think it shouldn't be deleted, just better furnished. I believe that "William" does mean something like courageous, and this is based upon meaningful roots, as seen in this external link here. There is definitely encyclopedic value to name meanings, as well as a sort of disambiguation among famous, common names (as seen in the wikipedia article for Mary). - DropDeadGorgias 18:30 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete it, we've been over this before with some Scandinavian name that meant "sword" a while back. -- John Owens 22:16 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete--jimfbleak 09:24 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I've turned it into a disambiguation page - Efghij
  • Van der Waals - possible copyright violation. -- Minesweeper 00:00 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • "HyperPhysics (©C.R. Nave, 2003) is a continually developing base of instructional material in physics. It is not freeware or shareware. It must not be copied or mirrored without authorization." - delete. --Eloquence 00:12 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Christer Pettersson, may be salvageable, but unclear whether the two items are the same person, and only Olaf Palme actually means anything to me. jimfbleak 07:15 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • It's legit. I vouch for it. Could be spruced up though, that much is true. Keep it. Sorry, forgot to sign -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 19:40 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • If you vouch for it being legit, could you please answer the question whether it is the same person, or two persons with the same name? In the first case it should be changed to a disambiguation page; in the second case it should be rewritten for style. Andre Engels
    • Let me disambiguate myself. The first mentioned Christer Petterson (a substance abusing underworld lowlife) was indeed accused of killing Olof Palme in a court of law. The other gamer activist I know nothing of. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 19:07 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Also 1299 BC created by the same user which has evolved into a redirect but has no "what links here". -- SGBailey
    • No, this is part of the standard early-year redirects now, should definitely stay. Notice how that creation was back in February? -- John Owens 08:25 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Well its neighbours don't have redirects yet. -- SGB
        • Are you looking for WikiWork? ;) -- John Owens 11:24 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • keep - this'll save me some time when I get that far (I'm in the 15th century BC atm...) Martin 12:42 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Babylon dict, just a 3-word description and an external link. Looks like advertising to me. -- Wapcaplet 01:49 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not just an ad, it's a coporate ad. The dico has to be purchased. Pathetic attempt. --Menchi 04:53 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • SurJection, nothing links to it. Redirects to surjection. Looks like its only reason for being is that someone might accidentally type the word with a capital `J' in the middle of it in the searchbox. Which I think is highly unlikely -- hawthorn
  • BiJection, the same. -- hawthorn
    • CamelCase artifact. It's useless in my view. Just clutter up search results and quite distracting at that. I realize that there are CamelCase Wikilinks actually wikilinked out there, but those 2 apparently aren't. I recommend deletion, although it's not urgent. --Menchi 04:53 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Looking at the page histories, both the above are remnants of the CamelCase days. What's the policy on those? —Paul A 04:49 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I used to favour keeping these redirects, but apathy has struck, so I can't be bothered to oppose their deletion any more. Apathy - the great enabler :) Martin 16:10 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • How to learn lines - not a wikipedia article. Bill 18:29 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with wikipedia containing procedural information. If recipes are fine, then so should be drama tips. SimonP 04:32 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Which is exactly the reason I'm against recipes on Wikipedia. This kind of information is not even nearly encyclopedic. Andre Engels 18:42 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I dont have a problem with an article on this topic, many books have been written on this topic, it is encylopedic. But I don't think much of the article itself, the suggested memorization aid appears harder to memorize (and understand) then the text being memorized. Pizza Puzzle
  • Abstract thought - basic definitions are suspect, to say the least. Bill 18:29 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There is not even a real "definition" of what the article is about.
  • Dhagberg - supposed to be in the User namespace. No pages link to this page. —seav 03:28 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Enemy
    • Dictionary definition Tuf-Kat
    • It's slightly longer than dict def. --Menchi 05:53 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Please delete Image:LocMap Purnululu.PNG Kununurra incorrect. Map has been replaced. Tiles 05:15 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • !!Stark Tobak!! - Doesn't contain any information, description of first (and only) edit was "!!Stark Tobak!! start of ranking project", no pages link to this. - Tobin Richard 07:01 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This appears to be part of an attempt to label material as "parental advisory", see Stark Tobak.Why the label is in some Scandinavian language, I can't imagine. -- The Anome 07:06 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • This and Stark Tobak should be deleted. This is not even grammatically correct in any way; the German phrase is "Starker Tobak", and the Norwegian/Danish phrase would be something else entirely. --Eloquence 03:23 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • 2003 in sports.
    • Jtdirl wishes to delete the history of this article.
    • Martin opposes, as history-only deletions of articles:
      • are a possible violation of the GFDL
      • are dishonest - we should cite our sources for text, just as for images
      • are disrespectful to the people who have edited the page
      • make it harder to peer review recent edits to the page
      • make it harder for people to evaluate the reliability of the page
      • are not authorised on our policy on permanent deletion of pages.
  • Wikicide - Jargon. -- goatasaur 18:29 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Agenda-driven junk. Delete. Evercat 18:35 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Google shows that the original contributor is just mad because some admins tried to ban him. --Menchi 13:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep it but to re-name it "Wikipedia:Wikicide". I think this could become a very handy term for the labours of those who work tirelessly in various ways to make the Wikipedia project fail. For example, somebody might say "I wonder who's funding the concerted campaign of wikicidal vandalism that we have labelled "Michaelism"?. Or they might say "Somebody tried to ban Harry Potter? Blimey. The wikicidal thought police are really getting into gear now." GrahamN 03:35 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Lazarevac, which contains "Lazarevac, grad 60 km juzno od Beograda. Veci deo stanovnistva zaposlen je u JP RB Kolubara. Detaljnije informacije na http://www.lazarevac.co.yu". I think this must be Serbo-Croatian? Anyway, does something like this in a non-English language belong on this version of Wikipedia? RickK 00:28 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The ext-link is to a "Caffe". Maybe it's not Café but Serbo-Croatian for "government-owned publicity operation". --Menchi 00:31 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • talk:Dago - fascinating discussion that is now incomprehensible, at least to me, since Dago was deleted. Can this go too? Martin 16:11 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Bilderberg Conference - possible copyright infringement. And if that is sorted, I think this still needs deletion (or massive editing) for POV -- sannse 09:05 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Anthony Starita and Talk:Anthony Starita - someone please move this to the september11 wiki before I get someone mad again for deleting it. Andre Engels 12:40 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I'll move then delete. But how do I move interwikily? Just c-&-p? --Menchi 16:07 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should move the Talk, it's copyvio. --Menchi 16:10 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1096801"