Encyclopedia > Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

  Article Content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

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)

  • 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 (http://hk.yahoo.com/):
      • 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

  • 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)
    • Google confirms that there are no links to these URLs anywhere on the visible web. Delete. The Anome 08:16 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Google only indexes parts of the Internet. It doesn't index my "private" pages. It doesn't index my bookmarks. Policy is to keep those. -- JeLuF 23:13 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • 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.
      • The matter deserves an article, but not this one. Childish and useless. Kosebamse 16:11 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Dhagberg - supposed to be in the User namespace. No pages link to this page. —seav 03:28 28 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.

  • 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 always c&p'd, when I moved. Guess so. You might want to leave it as a cross-wiki redirect (though personally I hate those) Martin 18:15 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should move the Talk, it's copyvio. --Menchi 16:10 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok, done. It didn't need deletion after all, like Martin suggested. --Menchi 23:23 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Bob and George: Is this a popular cartoon? Otherwise, this is just an article about someone's website, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- The Anome 08:08 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Now correct me if I am wrong, but did not both this and the David Anez pages already go through this process several weeks ago. To me they at least appear familiar titles from this page. Is there a long term archive on what article titles have already passed through Vfd? I mean theoretically someone could just resubmit the same stuff over and over again, and we would debate it here each time ab novo. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick
    • It was David Anez before (resolution: merge into cartoon page), now it's the cartoon page itself being offered for deletion. The scope is wider, so it's a new topic. The Anome 08:45 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • No, you misread me totally. I am talking ancient history here, several weeks ago. I recollect distinctly that both these pages were posted here, and the discussion went much the same way as this time. Except that people went around a couple of extra hoops to verify these subjects were not indeed a vital part of everyones cultural education. I may misremember, but... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:58 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Did they vote to delete the cartoon page too? The Anome
    • I honestly don't remember. But it shouldn't be too hard to check out. If the page is an old one, then it probably wasn't deleted, eh? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 09:30 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Theoretically, you should be able to find out things like this by searching the edit summaries. I just did so for the past 1500 edits (back to May 21), and the word "george" has not appeared in an edit summary in that time except in connection with this entry. There has also been only one listing for David Anez back to May 21. -- Tim Starling 13:59 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Um. I am going to eschew pointing out that I joined WikiPedia a full five weeks before May 21; instead I will go for the "misremembered" escape clause. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 16:32 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Belay that. I scanned the summaries to the end of time, and I was fully and totally mistaken. The nearest name to David Anez was Daniel Evans. Maybe that was the source of my mistake. I fully retract my allegation that David Anez was a repeat. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:23 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It is NOT a "cartoon", it is a web comic, and Wikipedia does list webcomics. Ergo, I don't favor deletion. Otherwise, Megatokyo and Tsunami Channel are also fair game. Emperorbma 06:06 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Additionally, it is critical to the definition of Sprite comic, since it was the one very first sprite comics, if not the first. Emperorbma

  • Hatem Elmohandis - no Google hits, article seems to say that this person studied Islam and works in I.T. - nothing more interesting than that. Evercat 00:28 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Verboten - Dictionary definition. Can't think of any conceivable encyclopedic content that could go under that name. Delirium 04:44 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Axe It! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 12:09 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • This is linked from List of German expressions in English, which encourages the creation of such pages, and coexists with many similar ones. Arguably, the entire list is more a thing for Wiktionary than for Wikipedia, but while it exists, I see no reason why this individual page should be removed. --Eloquence 16:53 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Ah, didn't notice that. Perhaps the list has some place in Wikipedia, as a documentation of German influence on the English language through contemporary word-borrowing (rather than common heritage). However, I don't think there need to be separate pages for these words, since that'd degenerate into a dictionary. So I'd support deleting essentially all the pages linked from that list. -- Delirium 02:21 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't delete them. We should move them to Wiktionary instead. Emperorbma 07:47 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Allwiki -- this hasn't really been touched since February, and I see no point in keeping it. Thoughts? --bdesham 02:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree - and it do'nt pass the goggle test Jensp 11:56 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Friendship in Islam - contains long religious sermon posted by User:Scyrous. While having an article about friendship in Islam is not a redundant topic, the nature of this particular text is not Wikipedia suitable. It appears to have been copy & pasted from a www website (http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000138.php) . Crusadeonilliteracy[?] 06:59 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Adopting a dog - not a 'pedia article. 212 09:23 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • The article as it stands, is a bit rubbishy. But in the fullness of time, with an almost complete rewrite, it could make a decent article. I think we should keep it. Theresa knott 10:38 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Radical individualism - Not wikified, maybe if someone can make any sense of it, it could be fixed somehow. Perhaps someone could e-mail them, telling them, if and why the page is deleted, since they left their e-mail address... كسيپ Cyp

  • John Kahn - possible copyright violation -- JeLuF 19:22 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Spnak. Contains "SPNAK /sp&-nak/ n. The act of officially claiming that someone ducked out of an argument. IMPORTANT NOTE: The people still in the argument are the people who are eligible to claim a SPNAK. Claiming a SPNAK is basically a way for the remaining party to celebrate victory by default. v. To claim a SPNAK. interj. The cry (typed out) given when claiming a SPNAK. Not a good thing to be on the receiving end of; of course, if this is the case, you're probably gone anyway, so you'd never know. Oh, but they do." RickK 03:06 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Open Letter to Hobbyists
    • Source text. As present. Also defamatory. (even if deserved) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 20:16 4 Jul 2003 (UTC).
    • I'd prefer this to be fixed, with a summary of the argument and liberal use of quotations from it... I may try and do this myself. Evercat 20:33 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Martin 18:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Kentucky Colonels. Contains "The Colonels should return as an NBA team along with the a new franchise in Cincinnati to replace the Royals" RickK 22:19 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Cooking pan. It is hardly an encyclopædia topic, the article is a barely encyclopædic stub, the item in question is called a frying pan (or, if referring to something else (quite what he is referring to is unclear, a cooking pot.) Are we really going to have pages of cooking utensils now? It sound like it belongs in a cooking dictionary, not here. (This seems to be one of a number of cooking utensils entries this user seems to be creating, BTW) FearÉIREANN 00:43 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • And how is it that cooking pans are less important than, say, altar rails? There is actually quite a lot to say about cooking utensils, and they actually matter to me, unlike altar rails which are utterly irrelevant. And speaking as an amateur classicist, I can say that researchers today really really wish Varro and the Suda had seen fit to say more about the mundane items of everyday life in ancient times. Stan 04:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Your agenda as always is hilarious, Stan FearÉIREANN 06:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I support cooking utensils on Wikipedia (see Talk for reasons) Martin 18:21 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Cooking on a campfire - unencyclopædic POV stuff that belongs elsewhere, not on wiki. Delete. FearÉIREANN 01:22 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • What POV? Sounded like pretty good material to me. Do you actually have any camping experience? Stan 04:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • More than you can possibly imagine. FearÉIREANN 06:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • If it's POV, fix it. I admit that I wasn't entirely qualified to write it, but you sound like you are. It's not that big of an article; shouldn't take too long. If you think that the topic itself is unworthy of Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia talk:How-to articles. The fact that the article on How-tos is linked to from the Main Page as a categorization scheme speaks in my favor. -Smack 18:00 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Occupancy. Contains "Occupancy is the states when the call being in server. or in another words it's mean : the server that has call inside" RickK 06:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Natasha Bobo According to imdb.com, Together We Stand is the only project this actress has ever worked on. She was apparently six years old at the time. She hasn't acted since, in the last 17 years. Only 33 Google hits. jimfbleak 07:31 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Traffic load "for the telephony network, the load is mean the calls that generates by subscribers. so traffic load is amount of calls on the server." كسيپ Cyp 07:41 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Rabin automaton - one sentence, in German. (perhaps better to translate than delete - I'm not sure what's the policy on non-English pages). -- uriber[?] 07:58 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Why was this taken off the VFD list nanomedicine a collection of book listings and external links G-Man 14:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Anarchitecture - Can't understand a word of it, not wikified, exists at [1] (http://www.spacehijackers.co.uk/html/writing/anarchiwhat). Possible copyleft/up/down/whatever it's called violation? كسيپ Cyp

  • Ralph Waite. The beginning doesn't make sense and the end is just personal comments about his own name. Angela 19:32 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Lithuanian Airlines. I'm not sure if this belongs on this page or somewhere else. This article contains only recent news and a link to the official website. Unless this is rewritten to make it an encyclopedia article and not a news report, it's my feeling that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. RickK
    • I've replaced the pages and pages of useless newswire stuff with a stubbish article. It seems like a legitimate topic for an article though, so I'd say leave it. -- Delirium 23:29 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • That's fine. I thought there should be an article on the subject, but that wasn't it. :) RickK 23:35 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Anne Dudley. This appears to be somebody's resume. RickK 23:35 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Oddly User:BillBell[?] wrote a decent article and then decided to replace it with this resume. A resume that does not even mention her academy award in 1998. SimonP 14:00 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Bo Hammel Net is not in English.
    • German text about some online gamers group (?). Non-encyclopedic, can't see how this could become an article. Kosebamse 16:34 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Social War is already part of Roman Republic. Angela 16:39 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Urg. Roman Republic is monstrous and still incomplete - the Social War should get one sentence and a link to the separate article for details. I might get a chance to poke at it today. Stan 18:27 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • Cruftmanship ancient, stubby, slang. 12 Google hits, top three of which are from Wikipedia. Kosebamse 17:40 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Menchi 23:23 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • No Homers Club
    • While the article could be turned into a real one on the fictional entity from the television show, it probably shouldn't, as it appears only in one episode, and only in a peripheral usage. The article as it stands is just a bad joke. --Dante Alighieri 20:34 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Similarily, the Adam D. Montoya page, created by the same person. The page is amusing (to me anyway), but it's not an encyclopedia article, obviously. Adam Bishop 21:19 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • User:Mrityu kec. I'm not sure what the rules on deleting user pages are, but the page states "Permission is granted for unlimited noncommercial use. All other rights reserved." Doesn't this go against the GFDL? The user hasn't made any contributions other than this page and the page contains 165114 words. Angela 00:16 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  • 100 Worst Britons I am not going to argue the case. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:28 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I would also delete 100 Greatest Britons. There are thousands of polls like this and wikipedia should not be archiving them, they are primary source material. You may reference them, say mentioning that Winston Churchill was voted the Greatest Briton, but the lists should go. SimonP 01:15 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)



All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

 
  Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!
 
 
  
  Featured Article
Scientific theories

... Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that no consistent theory, with a finite number of axioms (in a language at least as strong as arithmetic), can include all ...