Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of many pages.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The results of these debates were to delete the relevant articles.

Please do not edit this page.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring cast[edit]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers cast
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King cast

This applies to the pages for the sequels as well: Obviously, a ton of work went into the tables, but the pages are only exact copies of the cast/crew lists on IMDb, and all the names are external links to the IMDb pages for those people. There's only a few active links to other Wikipedia pages (generally for the main cast members and character names), along with a lot of ghost links, but these can all generally be covered in the main articles for the films. If the article for each film simply has an external link to the IMDb crew list (they're already linked to the main IMDb pages for the films), precisely the same thing is accomplished. I also note that the list for the first film is over 150K, nearly 4 times what usually leads to splitting up a page - this would make it tough to edit, or to add to the areas which the creator of the page seems to want (such as quotes). I just think it's unnecessarily cumbersome. MisfitToys 00:34, May 22, 2004 (UTC) Correction: apparently very little work went into this; it's all just automatically generated from IMDb pages by a software program. Is there any rational reason for doing this? Or are we just duplicating pages of formatted data from other sites? MisfitToys 00:47, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Possible violation of IMDb's copyright on the data compilation. The page for the movie itself has all the notable credits on it already. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:33, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Definitely delete. RickK 02:21, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's cool that there is a program that converts pages to a format suitable for posting on Wikipedia, I question the need to duplicate a page that already exists (as MisfitToys has suggested) and if this is allowed I would recommend to the writer of the program that he comes up with a format that is more pleasing to the eye. Large tables are not. Delete. tslack2000 06:57, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Probable copyright violation. I'll flag & list the pages as such. --Zigger 18:24, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. The formatting is utterly unsuccessful. Ugly, unreadable, screen-real-estate-wasting, bandwidth-wasting. Not appropriate for separate article (as opposed to cutting down to reasonable size and including in the article about the film). And probable copyright violation. archive.org has its hands full being a copy of the entire web, Wikipedia does not need to be a reformatted copy of the entire web. Dpbsmith 18:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say we already have a reasonable sized version of the credits in the article about the film. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:14, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for copyvio and other reasons. There is no need to duplicate data that is easily accessible elsewhere on the web. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Facts are not copyrightable, and the use is the same as that of other lists of people. anthony (see warning) 21:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Cohn[edit]

More like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, and it also stinks of copyvio. DO'Neil 02:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Seite bearbeiten[edit]

wrong language and wrong namespace -- 141.40.169.148 18:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Space Science Board[edit]

multiple copyvios (Copyright notices copied right into the article!), strictly a cut-and-paste job, probably more wrong with it by I didn't keep looking. Delete. -- Jmabel 18:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvios belong on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not here. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:10, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if there were no copyright violations the article is just some alternative physics theories, which probably don't have merit.Thue 20:10, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some sort of vanity article? - no merit in science - Tεxτurε 02:27, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention of the Space Science Board in the article, so the title may be completely bogus which is not a good start. Contents appear to be copyrighted original research at best, crankery most likely, or possibly just a joke. No useful material so far as I can tell. Andrewa 04:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

AberSeeSaw[edit]

Three-line article states in part, these are old terms that can't be found anywhere else on the web, and that no one remembers. Smells like "I just made this word up, and it's fun to say". Even if it were a real phrase/word (which I'm not convinced of), the article would belong over at wiktionary. grendelkhan|(blather) 09:32, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

  • Delete - David Gerard 10:40, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Once previously deleted, when created with similar content by the same IP who has edited this page. Andrewa 11:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:35, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense - Tεxτurε 02:58, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wilson[edit]

A nobody, or a fictional character, one of a long series of nonsense articles that User:Sexyfoxboy has been creating. No useful content. —Morven 12:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • This person exists and is 100 % accurate. [This was added to the main VfD page by User:Sexyfoxboy, and was moved here to be with the rest of the discussion].
    • Those are not sufficient qualities to be included in an encyclopedia. Relevance and importance are also required. I could write articles about my cats, for example, and swear that everything in the articles was true. Even if it were, it would still not be anything anyone else in the world who doesn't know me would care about knowing. —Morven 12:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you please? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:32, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Non-famous. Delete. Morwen
  • Delete - David Gerard 13:13, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • This person may exist, and there's a 99% chance he's Sexyfoxboy. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:32, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason to think this is encyclopedic. Andrewa 04:06, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Insignif. --Jerzy(t) 04:19, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Johnleemk 11:43, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Metarmorphosis[edit]

A supposed band that the above mentioned Ben Wilson is supposedly involved with. Non notable, or fiction. —Morven 12:32, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - David Gerard 13:13, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Duncharris 14:00, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not listed on Allmusic.com, google can't find it. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:30, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Status unknown? Delete. RickK 22:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. unfamous. --Jerzy(t) 04:19, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Johnleemk 11:43, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

College Road[edit]

Street in the English town of Oswestry. Whether fiction or not, the content is unencyclopedic and uninformative. —Morven 12:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Roads that are notable for some reason are fine (e.g. Akeman Street or Icknield Way) but this is simply not encyclopedic. If you want to know where a road is go to streetmap or some such. -- Graham  :) | Talk 13:03, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some remarkable justification can be added - David Gerard 13:12, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Penny Lane yes, CollegeRoad, no. Wyllium 16:47, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:18, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. -- jaredwf 20:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nutty Norman[edit]

Alleged resident of the above street (College Road -also for deletion, Duncharris 13:39, May 23, 2004 (UTC)). Nothing encyclopedic. —Morven 12:38, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • All my articles are 100 % accurate and none are of fictional places or characters. (this was added to VfD by User:Sexyfoxboy and was moved here)
    • This individual is non-famous and is not therefore encyclopedic here —Morven 12:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promptly. See if clues can be introduced to User:Sexyfoxboy. - David Gerard 13:10, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Also Oswestry School, perhaps worthy of inclusion (founded 1407), and thus one of the oldest in the country, and probably had some spiffing old boys, but content is presently copyvio. The rest of 'em, delete. but don't bite the newcomers Duncharris 13:39, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is even worse than College Road. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:19, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic at all. -- jaredwf 20:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether true or not, slanderous. RickK 22:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant quibbles, for the record, as noted in the article whose link i added above: slander is spoken, not written as here. There is also no such thing as a true slander or a true libel. --Jerzy(t) 04:33, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

David Barker[edit]

Irrelevant and inaccurate. (User:203.217.68.196)

  • Move to Bad Jokes and delete - David Gerard 13:11, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • He is now working on a cure for cancer however as yet has been unsuccessful. -Hahaha. That's so stupid! LOL. blankfaze | &#9835 03:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't move to BJAODN - not funny. btw, He's not even 25, so how could he have performed an operation at that age? Duncharris 13:32, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - don't move to BJAODN - not worthwile - Tεxτurε 16:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wyllium 16:58, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • Should have been tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:15, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter nonsense. -- jaredwf 20:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfunny fiction. Denni 01:15, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

Sean Flowers[edit]

  • Delete. Doesn't look like something appropriate for Wikipedia. 66.32.71.239 18:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anonymous votes aren't given much weight. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:02, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. Thue 19:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite the vanity, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:02, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity... -- jaredwf 20:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - David Gerard 20:59, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, man, some of the best vanity I've ever seen. Delete. RickK 22:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick, delete. Wyllium 23:49, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • Del. Unfamous vanity. --Jerzy(t) 04:39, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

CheShA[edit]

Not notable. No hits for Vintage Gramofone Company, some hits for chesha, but none seem to be this person, and certainly none use the odd capitalization. Niteowlneils 17:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not even appear on Allmusic.com and reads like vanity. Wyllium 17:19, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:09, May 23, 2004
  • If it could be verified, and made more encyclopaedic, keep. Otherwise delete. - David Gerard 21:26, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Social surplus[edit]

Entire current content is:

"Social surplus is when there are more people in a country then there are in the world and taxes imposed are greater then exported goods revenue resulting in high prices and competition and also loss of skills."

More people in a country than there are in the world? I think this is arrant nonsense, but I'm not quite confident enough to just delete it. I think there is a real term "social surplus" in economics, but I don't think this is the definition. Dpbsmith 01:26, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so either. Delete, unless a genuine article can be worked up. blankfaze | ♫ 02:01, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article links from political economy which has a stub definition which at least makes sense. (It still sounds like hooey, but that's probably because, in that article's terms, I was trained in the libertarian school of economics.) Move to Clean-up so someone more familar with the term can fix it. Rossami 03:02, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If somebody wants to write an article about this then they might as well start over. The current contents are not usable as a starting point.Thue 12:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social surplus is a legitimate and well-defined economic term. [1] However, this article is patent nonsense. Delete. Denni 01:44, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

French Region[edit]

No reference of "French Region" as defined in the article could be found elsewhere. The content of the article is just a repeat of information from the France and Monaco articles. olivier 10:51, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

  • See talk page for further arguments. I agree that we need proof that this term is actually in use. Otherwise, get rid of it as quickly as possible. Possibly this should be a redirect to List of regions in France in stead. -- Jao 10:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a term made up for the purpose of grouping countries together in the Europe article. Agreed w/ comments of David Monniaux on the talk page. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Talk:French Region

Childe Harold's Pilgrimage and Hymn to Intellectual Beauty[edit]

Two poems, in full. From Project Gutenberg, so copyright isn't a problem, but these should be moved to wikisource or wikibooks or wherever such things live, and deleted from wikipedia. --Stormie 03:51, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm a Byron fan, but the entire text of Childe Harold is a bit much for an encyclopedia article. Satori 22:47, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiSource. That's where these things live. Ambivalenthysteria 13:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not transwiki to wikisource. There's no need to duplicate Project Gutenberg's archives in a piecemeal fashion. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:34, May 24, 2004 (UTC)


VP3.2 Public License[edit]

Contains only the text of the licence. -- Jim Regan 05:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless rewritten to be a useful stub. We probably should have an article about this, but maybe this can be moved to Wikisource? Or we could have a link to a website, as this is not an OSI approved-license(because then we could link there). Burgundavia 07:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copied from [2]. No need for us to have the license text. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:29, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yuen Fong Lum[edit]

Article about a not-especially noteworthy person. The author seems to have a history of genuine edits, so I put this here instead of speedy deletion. Thue 19:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline Delete. If an article on this person is really merited, then this could be cleaned up/wikified, but right now it's a crappy article about someone that doesn't really seem encyclopædia-worthy. blankfaze | &#9835 00:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Legislative Councel's opinion on gay marriage[edit]

This is another source text dump. I doubt Wikisource would want it. Guanaco 16:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought this was on VfD already. Transwiki if possible, but delete even if not. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:42, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I know it's been here before--I remember the misspelling of "councel". Delete (transwiki optional). Niteowlneils 19:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It had been listen on the copyvio page for several months with no action. Texture removed the copyvio notice and restored the source text. Move to Wikisource and delete from here. If Wikisource doesn't want it, just delete it. It doesn't belong here. RickK 19:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In my personal opinion, I can't see this belonging at Wikisource either (not important). Ambivalenthysteria 01:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Recyclopedia[edit]

Debate moved to: Talk:Recyclopedia/Delete

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debates and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issues or the deletions should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Archived_articles_for_deletion_discussions/2004_May_30&oldid=1174355762"