Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 May 30

< Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions

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)
  • 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]
  • 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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

David Barker

edit

Irrelevant and inaccurate. (User:203.217.68.196)

Sean Flowers

edit

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 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]

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"