Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 June 6

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.

Deleted[edit]

Bhak Jonghwa[edit]

Only 51 Google results, most of which seem to be Wikipedia copies or things posted by this person elsewhere. Eurleif 03:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I can't anything on google indicating he is notable. Delete. Thue 14:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Jong Park is about the same person. This one doesn't look notable either. Thue 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • .mpfa is a format that is used in his lab, also doesn't seem notable. I will just list Jong Park and .mpfa seperatly. Thue 14:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It says UN is helpless and controlled by superpowers.
  • Delete. Not notable. Andris 01:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) 01:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like vanity. Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Murder Contest[edit]

All three speedily deleted. Guanaco 01:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Pardon me for sticking my nose in here--I know I'm new around here--but isn't it proper procedure to wait for the voting period to expire before deleting articles? (BTW, I would have appreciated being consulted before you speedy deleted my White cliffs of dover, too... though I guess all's well that ends well.)  :-o -- Wikisux 07:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Where the Magic Begins[edit]

  • Another fictional thing. (as in, made up by the user) Morwen 21:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like more disinformation from our friends at http://voices.fuzzy.com Delete and ban the user, it's the same IP addresses as the others. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I only found this referencing http://voices.fuzzy.com . Whats the deal with the edit history? It looks like he was trying to get attention by making the article show up on RC? Thue 23:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many newbies have a pathological inability to use the preview button. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the creator of these articles doesn't show up with a good explanation for all this, I agree that his IP addresses should be banned. Deliberately adding false content is worse than vandalism, because it's harder to detect. Everyking 23:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. imdb knows of no such movie with that title, by any studio at any year. Dpbsmith 00:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete is right. The date given is the opening of Disneyland, not the creation of a non-existent presentation. - Lucky 6.9 18:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Car Crashing Channel[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a notable website. Tom- 20:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just one google hit, that being for the site itself. Delete. Meelar 21:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Website ad. Non-notable. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Tseng[edit]

Where to begin? He is widely regarded as the most important mathematicians of the 21st century, but "Jimmy Tseng" mathematician gets 4 hits. The article is written by himself, and referred from his user page User:Drjt87. A leader in Neurological research, but "Jimmy Tseng" Neurology gets 1 google hit. Thue 17:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons you've stated. Vanity, non-notable. I believe it is possible to say, with a fully neutral point of view, that as of 2004 he is not widely regarded as the most important mathematician of the 21st century. I wonder whether he and Shawn Mikula have ever met? Dpbsmith 18:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke, vanity or possibly both. Andrewa 18:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his other vanity page Quadranomial expansion as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, page does not look credible and google does not find any evidence. Andris 22:58, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the claims of the article, other similar claims found by Google suggest that the kid is in reality about 17, and therefore won't even have got to Melbourne, let alone his other claims. This is a vain attempt to write their history in advance. Average Earthman 10:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I am really at University of Melbourne, (I do not try to bring a bad reputation to the Univeristy though) this page was a crude attempt at a joke, and possibly a desire for Harvard University in the future... The quadrinomial expansion article (see below) however, is true to my knowledge. By the way, University of Melbourne does not have a medicine/law course. The only University in Australia to have that course in Monash University. Jimmy Tseng

Lynsey De Paul and Mike Moran[edit]

Content moved to separate pages on each individual instead of this joint page. All links to page changed to new locations as appropriate. --VampWillow 14:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Dunc Harris | Talk 15:40, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's a weird title for an article. Delete, it's not even linked to (any more?). -- Cyrius|✎ 17:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've copied the significant history to the talk pages. A simple one for a change. Andrewa 18:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Long Future[edit]

As above this does not seem like an established concept. While their Long Future Research Group may deserve an article in wikipedia, the concepts they are trying to promote seems not to be well established, and it would be false to present them in wikipedia as established concepts. Like Flag of Solar System some of the text on the page is a cut'n'paste from their web page. Thue 14:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Not an established concept. As noted before, Long Future Research Group gets only four Google hits, they are not yet notable enough to be encyclopedic either. Dpbsmith 18:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The creator has blanket the page and removed all the references he had inserted in other articles. Thue 23:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the first to note that entries on these pages go missing? This is the third time I've left this same comment. In any case, this is a vote to delete. It's been thrity years since humanity last set foot on the moon, and it'll be at least thirty before we get to Mars. Maybe then we can consider a flag for the Solar System. In the meantime, there is already a damn fine flag for Mars. Denni 23:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Flag of Solar System[edit]

This is about a concept which were created on April 16th, 2004. Google shows no hits for Flag of the Solar System, not even their home page (guess it has not been crawled yet). The text it copied from the linked page. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new ideas, wikipedia is for things that is already established. Thue 13:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, Wik is no place for nonsense. Delete. Wyllium 14:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic, but the Long Future Research Group gets only 3 google hits, whereas by comparison The Long Now Foundation [1] gets 16,000. The flag currently has no recognition and the Long Future Research Group is not currently notable. Dpbsmith 15:19, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Silly stuff, vanity page, not 'pedia material. Delete. --VampWillow 15:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Looks copied. Delete either way. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User (an IP) has blanked the page and has removed the link they put in list of flags. Andrewa 20:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Toon Adventures: The Baby-Sitters Club[edit]

As above. Does this count as 'patent nonsense'? Morwen 12:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google doesn't think so. keep. Dunc Harris | Talk 15:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't put quotes around the phrase, so it turned up a lot of fanfiction sites; with quotes, all you get are Wikipedia and mirrors. IMDB has never heard of this, I'd say it's nonsense and delete. Meelar 17:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own search agrees with Meelar. More nonsense from a user with a history of posting nonsense. Delete article, ban user as he has been previously warned. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost certainly nonsense. Whoever writes this stuff has a very active imagination. He should be writing for Tiny Toons himself. Everyking 21:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely fake. Delete! Eric42 17:19, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Many Adventures of Tintin[edit]

As above. Morwen 12:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again looks like junk. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keith C. McCormic[edit]

Vanity -- Jmabel 06:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vanity indeed. Delete - TB 10:04, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Yep, vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. The statement that "McCormic likes to brag about his boring life" may be factual, but it is not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 23:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 02:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Egalocracy, Egalocratic[edit]

Two more in what appear to be a series of tributes by one Keith C. McCormic to his own ego. -- Jmabel 06:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

delete: egalocracy is not a word. It is not even a plausible word. If such a political neologism were to be derived from the relevant stem, it would be 'egalitocracy', not 'egalocracy', and would not mean "equal power", as the article claims, but 'rule by those who are equal', which is something very, very different. There are strict conventions for this sort of coinage. "Equal power" is already described by the word "equipotence". User:No_logo11:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal neologism. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedily deleted Egalocratic, since it basically just said it was the adjective form of "Egalocracy." Delete Egalocracy. Guanaco 21:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, original research, vanity. Egalocracy is not in AHD4. Does get a couple of Google hits, both to a forum by that name on LiveJournal; forum currently has four members. Dpbsmith 00:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The appropriate term is egalitarian democracy, which has some 900 variously sourced Google hits. A quick (and therefore possibly inaccurate) read of several of these hits leads me to suspect (especially since the term is used to describe this political entity more than once) that this is another label for totalitarian democracy. Denni 06:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a valid term. --Starx 01:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David Elms[edit]

A critique of a high school teacher. Maximus Rex 05:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable. Google turns up one hit for '"david elms" "york mills"'. Delete. Johnleemk 05:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the article does say that he's now teaching at a college, which would seem notable, I think the article's total garbage. "Overall, Elms is a fine person with a very sick sense of humor." What a riot. Delete. blankfaze | ♫ 05:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely obvious. Delete. Wyllium 06:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, but remove name of subject. Dunc Harris | Talk 08:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for complaining about teachers. Andris 20:10, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Tan-Hauser Gate[edit]

Article gives no clue why they are notable. Doesn't exist on allmusic.com. A google search on the name of the band+head singer gives 1 hit. Thue 00:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable. Delete. Johnleemk 03:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name's from Blade Runner. The band's done little though, delete - TB 10:11, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

OnLine Gamers Anonymous[edit]

Blatent advertisement. PlatinumX 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Delete. Johnleemk 05:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa says .. minor web site. Delete - TB 10:07, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • I added this website to Addiction ages ago, and will add it to the 12 step article as well. IMO, it's no more "blatent" an advertisement than one for Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, but I do agree it does not require its own article. 24.65.177.33 18:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Started as a blatant ad. Intresting concept, however. -Gamera2 20:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Poof and Pouffe[edit]

Dictionary definitions. Thue 13:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And offensive ones at that. Possibility of poof being a redirect to gay man or something, although it's offensive it is somewhat mild. Pouffe is both a chair and a feminised version of puff, and has possibility as a disambig page. You could have a history of pouffes if you like furniture Dunc Harris | Talk 14:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Poof is an extremely common term for a gay man and should be a redirect to it. — Chameleon 22:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This presents a dilemma. While poof doesn't deserve an entry of its own, the first thing readers should see is that this is a derogatory word for a gay man. Is there a mechanism for this? --Atemperman 03:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No. Therefore, Keep. Preferably with some etymological notes. Snowspinner 00:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; there have also been occasional attempts to reclaim the word. The thing is that if you start with the etymology you are recreating a dictionary definition rather than adding something useful. :: sites on fence :: --VampWillow 11:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyanne[edit]

Is it really all that famous, and is it in the right place? I would have thought wiktionary would be the place for name meanings -- Graham  :) | Talk 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedily deleted this a week or so ago. Meelar 00:23, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Gonzalez[edit]

Graduate student writes guest column for his school newspaper. If anything, a vanity page would be more relevant. - Hephaestos|§ 18:42, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Pat Tillman and delete. RickK 19:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with RickK. There's already some mention of Gonzalez in the Pat Tillman article. Acegikmo1 20:07, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the original poster, but it seems to me that this is vanity. Wyllium 01:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy did recieve some media attention. Keep. Rhymeless 03:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be of some note. Deserves more info than would be appropriate in the Tillman article. Everyking 06:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonzalez's article is not notable in the grander scheme of Pat Tillman's relevance. Delete. Coberly 23:44 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Andris 23:23, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not vanity, but neither is it encyclopedic. Delete. Rossami 04:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 17:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The two lines in Pat Tillman are all the mention he needs until he actually does something more than shoot his mouth off. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Check and double-check; merge and purge. DS 00:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bank Street, Wollongong[edit]

Note: Crown Street and Church Street were also up for deletion but kept after a strong consensus to keep.

Unnotable streets. RickK 23:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a street. Delete. Wyllium 00:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fennec (さばくのきつね) 03:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crown Street in any case. It is the main street of a city of 181,000 and a major area of a centre of region of several hundred thousand. A google search on Crown Street Wollongong comes up with over 4,000 entries. [2] I can assure you it is very well known in the Illawarra region of NSW. The others might be merged into an article on the Wollongong as leading streets if they are to be deleted. Seaeagle04
  • Keep Crown Street, after Seaeagle's comment. As far as the others go, kill them, kill them now, before they breed. Ambivalenthysteria 12:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Crown Street and Church Street -- Popsracer 14:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crown Street, keep Church Street, both far more notable than (wait for it) King Street Wharf which we kept. No vote on Bank Street, I know of no significance but someone seems to think there is some. Andrewa 03:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three. Perhaps upon seeing the Bank Street stub, someone who knows more than us will expand and fill with interesting facts. -- Wikisux 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Atomius 23:23 , ! june @004 (UTC) i believe if this is to be an encyclopaedia with all subjects, streets are items which should be included. if you wish to expand wikipedia, then why not include streets, or in any case make a "streets of wollongong" articel.

  • Keep Crown street, merge the rest into Wollongong. Andris 17:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Redirected[edit]

A.'.A.'.[edit]

More Hollywood Jam nonsense, but is this real? Dunc Harris | Talk 23:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • May or may not be for real, but it is historical; it's one of Uncle Al's magickal clubhouses. Keep. Smerdis of Tlön 03:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - PS. There's also a minimal stub at Argentinum Astrum, and one of the other should be merged. This one is actually better. Argenteum Astrum is the spelling used at least in the index of Crowley's autobiography, and strikes me as the best Latin. All three spellings are "out there," with argenteum probably commonest, and the A.'.A.'. with the three dots in a pyramid shape, or an ASCII art approximation, is actually the most common of them all. Smerdis of Tlön 03:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a historical society. Do not delete. Nixdorf 10:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There really was such an organization. MK 07:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


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_June_6&oldid=1174357045"