Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthony (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 23 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:Communitypage Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy polls for polls on current deletion issues.

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{subst:vfd}} at the top of the page adds one automatically.)

Subpages

copyright violations -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- Cleanup -- translations

Deletion guidelines -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- Votes for undeletion -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- maintaining this page -- inclusion dispute -- Deletion policy polls

Interested Parties

Should any vote (which is approaching termination) be sufficiently close, such that there is not a 75% majority; feel free to contact these users, and request their vote: Anjouli, Lir

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

February 12

  • How to make Biodiesel Not an encylopaedic subject. Wikibooks? Bmills 12:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic subject. Anthony DiPierro 14:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to appropriate location unless it is updated to be more than the mere recipe it is now. - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • m:transwiki this and all how-tos to wikibooks. Gentgeen 14:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikibooks and delete. --Jiang
    • Delete -keep, put under Biodiesel.or make sure to link to from biodiesel. This is an extemely relevant item for present day and historical existence. sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikibooks. Elf-friend 00:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but fold whatever information we can into Biodiesel. --UserGoogol 00:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ars (no giggling at the back, please) Dictionary def of a Latin word. Bmills 13:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: a word with a lot of peculiar uses. Not many Latin words deserve WP articles; this is one of them. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to dictionary. Andre Engels 00:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Conditional keep/delete. If it is still a dicdef, delete. If fleshed out, keep. I know there is atleast one artistic institution/event with that name. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:12, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary and delete -- Graham  :) 16:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary and delete. Elf-friend 00:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary (that's what it's there for) and delete. Oberiko 17:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and move to Wiktionary. Herbee 03:49, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

February 13

  • How_to_cook_dandelions Another recipe. Mrdice 17:58, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
    • Delete - recipe - Texture 18:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Transwiki to recipes. Elf 22:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete "how to" recipe, move to wikibooks -- Graham  :) 16:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 15

  • Diego Marani - hopelessly POV. Each sentence portrays Marani and Europanto as an attack on Esperanto and Esperantists. I really can't see anything in there to salvage except "Diego Marani...is the inventor of...Europanto". At least part of the article looks like it was created by one of the parties involved in the edit war at Europanto. --cprompt 17:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub. Anthony DiPierro 00:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Too stubby; having both this stub and Europanto amounts to doing the same thing twice. Delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: redundant with Europanto. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub version (should say he invented Europanto, but not duplicate the material in that article). --Delirium 07:05, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid stub. BL 07:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the current stub. Herbee 03:58, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Catherine Loguidice - move to 9-11 wiki. andy 21:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Nothing there to move, but one might want to move the talk page. Whether or not, as a Wikipedia article, delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to 9-11 wiki. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. 9/11 victims are encyclopedic. BL 07:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless more information is added. Anthony DiPierro 20:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. 9-11 is encyclopedic, murder victims are not. Herbee 04:00, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Tenet just a dictionary entry Bob Palin 23:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Transwiki and delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary if not there already. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto to what 'Wile E. Heresiarch' (now THERE'S a name) said. Brequinda
    • Delete. Herbee 04:01, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 16

  • Zappos.com -- yet another dot-com? Mikkalai 08:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Zappos? Zap it. Delete orthogonal 09:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's an ad. Vespristiano seems to have a good record as a Wikipedian. --UserGoogol 01:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 01:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Alexa rank 1500. Keep it, I suppose. Meelar 07:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Leave it... for now. But if nothing interesting gets added after "a while," dump it. --UserGoogol 01:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What Meelar said, Keep. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dated -- wiktionary entry ? Mikkalai 08:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: related to fashion history; can grow. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Mariusz 19:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The current definition belongs in a dictionary more than a encyclopedia, but there are atleast two or three more usages for the word so I'd rather err on the side of caution. Keep. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Bearcat 10:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chestnut Crescent, Aylesbury - orphaned article about a minor road on a housing estate in Aylesbury. Hardly encyclopedia material. -- Graham  :) 16:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Secretlondon 22:29, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed delete:
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've BEEN to Aylesbury. Delete! Hilarious, but please delete. Brequinda
    • Keep. Roads are encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 01:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • (Not a vote) Its author argues on the talk page to keep. --Delirium 05:57, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. A road is not encyclopedic just because it's a road; it has to have some historical or social significance beyond its immediate environs. For example, Yonge Street in Toronto, Ontario is encyclopedic, as it's in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's longest street. The street I live on in Toronto, however, is not encyclopedic. Bearcat 10:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Scotchtoberfest - doesn't merit its own article IMO. Dori | Talk 18:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but needs cleaning up. Apparently this has become a real event since invention by the makers of the Simpsons... -- Graham  :) 18:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If this information can be added to it and thus it is not just a duplication of information which can be better dealt with by being merged into some Simpsons article, I vote to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even close to being some central concept in The Simpsons, let alone outside. Andre Engels 16:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Simpsons and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 01:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. 378 Google hits. The Simpsons are so popular that every little detail in the show deserves an article. Atleast every episode. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Mishac 12:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Pulchritudinous - dictdef, nothing more. Fuzheado 23:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Somebody has now turned this into a redirect to Beauty, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, since anybody presented with "Beauty (redirected from Pulchritudinous)" would be none the wiser as to its meaning. If it were likely to come up in other articles, it should be left as a stub. Given that I doubt that, I vote delete. - IMSoP 00:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I have a problem with the redirect. 'Pulchitrude' may be defined as 'physical beauty and appeal,' but in the last few decades it has taken on a connotation of, shall we say, a much earthier kind of appeal. There are some, me for instance, who while not criticising the fleshier, more sensual message the word now carries, may not necessarily see it as pertaining to beauty. Best bet - send it off to Wikt & delete Denni 20:31, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Merge with beauty then redirect, or keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with beauty & redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge, redirect, AND transwiki? Fennec 03:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Transwiki to wiktionary, but do not merge with "beauty". There is no encyclopedic content in here at all, just a definition. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a thesaurus, so beauty does not need this. --Delirium 05:57, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 17

  • Michael Shankle, orphan, name gets 92 hits on google, on first page for several different people of the name. Any fame, use? -- Infrogmation 05:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge content into Manowar (band) and delete Andre Engels 00:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge w/ Manowar and delete. IIRC there are several such pages -- one for everybody who's ever been the band. Same for all of them. Sorry, I'm too lazy to go find them now. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If it is done as Wile and I propose, I'm willing to do the search for these pages. Andre Engels 15:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. famous. (not EVERYthing is on google) BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Famous. Not everything is on google. Unorphan with link from band. Anthony DiPierro 04:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • RSSOwl - self promotional, yet another program Fuzheado 14:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Perhaps mention somewhere as an example RSS reader, but doesn't deserve its own article (yet). [Note: you forgot to put the VfD notice on. I've added it now.] - IMSoP 17:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Robert Happelberg 19:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: just another RSS reader which is already listed as an external link on Really Simple Syndication. Not significant enough to warrant its own article. RedWolf 03:41, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: I don't agree it's self-promotional, but it shouldn't be in an article - maybe move to the dictionary?
    • Keep! I google for RSSOwl and get 3,700 hits. RSSOwl +java get 2,620 hits. Definitely significant enough to warrant its own article. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • List of relational topics -- not a single topic since the article's start in Aug, 2003. Morever the article has a vague purpose. Jay 14:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Could be an article, but not this. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't a comparison of people be POV? Delete either way. -- user:zanimum
    • Keep. As I understand it, relational topics are all topics named "X and Y" and WP has a lot of those. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

February 18

  • Hsp70. Does this mean anything? RickK 03:34, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain. It's a heat shock protein. -- anon, 05:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Put on Cleanup, delete if not improved after a reasonable time. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with heat shock protein and redirect. Or keep now that it's cleaned up a little. Anthony DiPierro 23:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Despite that I have no idea what heat shock proteins is, I managed to add a paragraph. :) I think that conclusively proves that someone who knows their stuff could add countless of more info to that article. Nine minutes is not giving an article a fair chance, narrow topics deserve some time to grow. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:References Used - Do we need this? Anthony DiPierro 03:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yet more needless overhead. Agree with Anthony, delete. →Raul654 03:56, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unnecessary, impossible to keep up to date. RickK 04:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: unnecessary, impossible maintenance task. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not useful. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Will you ever use this page? Denni 01:32, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Abromeitiella - This page has no purpose, it's a a deleted plant genus, and hasn't been edited since 2002. Flockmeal 04:19, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it existed as a taxonomic classification at one point, then it's probably encyclopedic. People who read references to it in older botany textbooks and aren't aware of the change might want to look it up here. I suggest moving the info on the taxonomical correction to deuterocohnia and then making this article a redirect. Psychonaut 12:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Would have voted to keep, but Psychonaut's move & redirect proposal sounds even better. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote keep atleast until someone has written the deuterocohnia article. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Claremont Resort Boycott - This page needs major revision or total deletion. Flockmeal 04:34, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If someone would like to write an article on the Claremont Resort, then this can be incoporated. Delete is not improved. --Jiang
    • Delete. Stub on a current affair never likely to be worthy of an article, written by an anonymous user probably connected to the dispute. If it ever becomes sufficiently famous, write the article then. Andrewa 09:26, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Probably not important; rewrite if it happens to become so (unlikely). Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Claremont Resort. Or is Wikipedia finished and we can stop accepting stubs? Anthony DiPierro 21:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for reasons given. The place is lousy, by the way, a bad joke on a respected local institution; and the long-running labor dispute may be directly related to its badness; but it's not Wikipedia material. Dandrake 23:14, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if it can be expanded, otherwise delete. But best bet if it cannot be expanded is to merge with the resort. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Verifiable and seems to be "big enough". BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Protein molecule - No useful content. Happy to reconsider if any info is added. -- Warofdreams 16:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Protein for now, not sure if they should be separate articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I see no reason whatsoever to do so. Anyway, keep as redirect. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, on the grounds that in general [[substance]]s don't have a redirect from [[substance molecule]]. Herbee 04:24, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Usenet troll - vanity article - this is a troll from someone and their college buddies to get a single web site linked. Zero google hits related to this college group that has "since dispersed". The topic may be ok but would need to be rebuilt without the vanity text - Texture 17:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I just redirected it to the article Internet troll that already covers Usenet trolling. Bevo 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep redirect -- Graham  :) 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of collectors - This "list" only contains two people. Either add more and revise the article, or delete. -Flockmeal 21:28, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - a list lacking a list - Texture 21:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dumb. Anthony DiPierro 23:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If there were actually a lot of collectors listed it could be worth keeping, but not with only 2 people. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless - Graham  :) 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with collecting before deleting. Jay 19:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are now five items and the page can grow endlessly. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Impossible list to maintain. Redirect to collecting or similar article. Rossami 04:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete because of no interest whatsoever. Herbee 04:30, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Abuse/old This is an old and ideosyncratic version of Abuse. It was listed on VfD, and then removed when the new version was written halfway through the process. Now it should probably be got rid of. DJ Clayworth 21:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Can any of it be merged into abuse? If not delete -- Graham  :) 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't know enough to merge, and no-one came forward to do it last time. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I've had a look through both articles and have included some of the content of the old article into the new one, particularly the bit about overt/covert abuse. Some content from the old article is so out of order it's scary. As a social worker if I started telling clients to "give him a taste of his own medicine" I'd be out of a job quicker than a speeding bullet, so kill the rest of the old page, it's not only out of date it's dangerous. -- Graham  :) 20:03, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans. This is just a list of the names of various advert campaigns. This information is of no use to anyone and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an advert for McDonalds. Astrotrain
    • Keep, unless you want to merge it with McDonalds. Anthony DiPierro 23:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I suggest keeping. It may be useful for Media / marketing students - and McDonalds advertising is quite hard to escape. Secretlondon 23:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep--or at least merge w/ McDonald's article. Material is somewhat interesting. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, decent little chunk of information. Merging with McDonald's would be OK. This information is potentially of use. Within the last year I personally was trying to find the approximate year in which a certain Coca-Cola slogan was current ("Coke is a natural—naturally!) and a list like this would have been exactly what I needed. And it isn't very promotional for McDonald's. Companies only want their current slogan publicized and rather dislike having old ones mentioned. Dpbsmith 00:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please note in which country these are the advertising slogans of McD's: other countries may have had different advertising slogans which can be added to make this into an article. Wikipedia is not American! -- Graham  :) 12:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Could be an article on McD's advertising eventually. DJ Clayworth 14:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Personally, I can't ever see this as useful information, but I think this falls under the "Wikipedia is not paper" rule. Reluctant keep. Rossami 04:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Paul Saelee a.k.a booda -- a 13-year-old with a high opinion of himself; unverifiable vanity. --No-One Jones 23:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity page. --zandperl 23:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ditto. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous, two Google hits, neither relevant. Dpbsmith 00:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Aww how sweet. Delete -- Graham  :) 12:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Why morons should not be allowed to breed. I mean, delete. ShaneKing 12:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. vanity. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unbelievable! Brequinda
    • I am afraid Wikipedia is not yet ripe for revelations of such magnificent splendour. Delete. Kosebamse 08:28, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I like rap, but that page is crap. Start the article funeral mass and bust a cap in its ass. -- DELETE. Davodd 09:54, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) a.k.a davooda
    • Delete. Elf-friend 23:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 19

  • please delete whale songs.It's a copy one.
    • Notes: the above was written by Hli11, who is also responsible for the content in question. Also Whale songs is actually a redirect to Whales song, so both should be deleted. I know this isn't the best place for this - and it's already listed as a copyvio anyway, but I thought I'd gather the information into one place, so an admin can act appropriately. - IMSoP 02:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't delete based on vfd. Anthony DiPierro 04:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How to compute calendars - Article rehashes knowledge already available in detail on Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and Calendar itself, as well as being very centered on both of those calendars, but not giving details for either. If I have missed something, the missing content should be merged into one of those three and this page deleted; it does not provide additional value. Should the article instead be enhanced to encompass a "how to" guide for every calendar around, a lot of duplication would be neccessary (of the articles for the respective calendars) Eike 03:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Info needs correcting, but merge any useful content with calendar and redirect -- Graham  :) 12:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • merge and redirect Rossami 04:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Moai - Couldn't this just be added to the Easter Island article? --Flockmeal 04:46, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub, it could improve -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - needs work but legitimate and important article - Texture 16:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have done the opposite from what was proposed here: I replaced the half-sentence on the page by the two paragraphs that are on the Easter Island article, and shortened the piece on Moai on the Easter Island article. Andre Engels 15:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There is nothing wrong with the article as it is, and there is no reason why Moai must be discussed along with Easter Island. -- Dominus 15:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Montreal Canadiens Captains - No signifigant updates since 2002, no reference to what these captains "captain", but I'd guess an NHL team. Update or delete. --Flockmeal 04:55, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Just because it hasn't been updated, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. It does mention above, and have a link to the Montreal Canadien's NHL team entry. I'd suggust merging with the team article, if anything Lyellin 06:07, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • The 300 new captains in the last year or so have not been added to the list: Better delete right away. :) mydogategodshat 07:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Lyellin -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, this is one of the more ridiculous deletion requests I have seen in some time. - SimonP 14:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Isn't preceding vote nonNPOV? ;-) Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep ofcourse! BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Entirely legitimate content. Keep. Maybe move the title to "List of...", though. Bearcat 17:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • John Highway - Appears to be purely a vanity page. The only edits are by User:John Highway, and this is the only page he has ever edited on Wikipedia. Bryan 08:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete vanity page -- Graham  :) 11:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs substantial revision by someone else for POV and specificity if this can be found out. Very marginal, but if the revision cannot be done, I certainly vote to delete. I don't think we should be making a decision on this article based on what pages he's edited in Wikipedia, however. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Didn't intend that to be a reason why it should be deleted in itself, merely a piece of evidence to support my impression that this was created as a vanity page. Bryan 02:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete vanity page (not on the basis of pages having been edited by the user but simply the nature of the page in question -- an ad and vanity. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Elf-friend 23:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • move to USER PAGE then delete. Davodd 22:41, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unifying conjecture Empty theorising - nothing to save here in the big words. Charles Matthews 09:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems useful. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not useless. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Sounds familiar. Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely keep, and hope someone expands. Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem has been a Holy Grail of mathematics for hundreds of years - no empty theorizing here, but needs someone strong in math to tackle Denni 01:58, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
      • Really, I do have the background; and this says nothing on FMT. It is someone's fringe view, and splices unification (which happens) and conjectures (which are made) to support a bogus model. Adding in a prestigious allusion is throwing dust in people's eyes. Redirect to conjecture. Charles Matthews 09:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Looking at your userpage, I can only marvel. I withdraw my suggestion completely. Continue the good work, sir! Denni 21:14, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't really understand high level math, but it certainly seems that Charles Matthews does.
    • Delete: original research on the topic of unifying conjectures. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:59, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Indoor, dictionary definition - SimonP 16:14, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Mv to dictionary. Wish transwiki links were viable. ( "Vanity"? Are we reading the same page?) Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete bad dicdef -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Generative programming - vanity - just trying to sell a single book - Texture 16:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Is it a recognised programming style? If so turn into a stub, it could improve. Otherwise delete -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No, just a book - Texture 20:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not just a book. The article should be turned into a stub. ShaneKing 23:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Mrwojo 21:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I did not know of this style until now although I have probably used some of the techniques like it in the past. Google returns 10 pages of hits and the ACM Digital Library has 27 citations[2] on the book. Whenever an anon adds a page with a book reference that usually provokes suspicion on motive but I think in this case, the topic has sufficient merit to be kept. RedWolf 06:40, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Koehl - Wikipedia does not have articles on lastnames - SimonP 16:48, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with List of people by name: Ko before deleting. Jay 19:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - only listed entry is a user and links to a user page - Texture 20:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nonencyclopedic, vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Resaon for deletion is not adequate. WP does have other articles on surnamees.. Rousseau, Bach -- mostly as disambig pages.. but how would an article on a surname definition, origin, history and notable so-named individuals not be encyclopedic. Davodd 22:51, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Korova - a self described "not so well-known metal act" - SimonP 16:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Google came back with a few hits [3][4][5][6] so they appear to be better known than the article gives credit for. keep -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Injury - a dictionary definition and not a very good or complete one. Dpbsmith 17:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete dicdef -- Graham  :) 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 20:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Am I completely wrong, or is injury a legal concept? Maybe a lawyer could expand this...or maybe not. Just a thought. I'd have no problem with deletion in its current form. Meelar 03:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Elf-friend 23:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I object to the page being redirected to body since there are many other types of injury than just physical injury. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Triads in Hong Kong - about a less-than-relevant movie, looks rather like advertising. Kosebamse 20:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Created redirect to Triad but apart from a user page and this page it's an orphan anyway so might as well delete. -- Graham  :) 20:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep redirect - Texture 20:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, legitimate topic. Fuzheado 03:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • FYI if you look at the article at triad the subject is already covered there. -- Graham  :) 12:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Scartho Top - irrelevant. Kosebamse 20:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikified, deleted some content and turned into a stub. And I've never been there, how good is that? Keep. -- Graham  :) 20:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - why would this be considered irrelevant? - Texture 20:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, No harm in a little background info. I'll find some more info asap. Seraosha 23:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC
  • Maurice Bejart - I agree the article is a stub, but who cares? Who is this guy? Dude has a website, but that doesn't make him important (I have one--I don't have an entry). Needs to be deleted. —Frecklefoot 21:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - lots of google hits that make him look very famous in his part of the world (by content, not necessarily by quantity) - Texture 21:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to have won some prizes - however I know nothing about ballet. I've added a little bit of info. It's also not _his_ website - it's a listing of Kyoto prize laureates. His ballet company has a professional looking web site (in French). Secretlondon 22:00, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, could improve -- Graham  :) 22:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Famous for a pretty long time now. Mikkalai 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to Maurice Béjart and list on cleanup: there must be more to write about him. Maurice Béjart is famous — certainly more noteworthy than a lot of other people covered in Wikipedia. Lupo 09:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely to keep. European ballet dancer and later famous choreographer. --Palapala 00:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • USA PATRIOT Act, as it applies to citizens and non-citizens - Was on cleanup, but content has nothing to do with title. No significant activity since creation in July. Orphan. I don't see any way to clean up (or need). Rossami 22:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - rant - not even an attempt at an article (and not the right title for one) - Texture 22:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete rant -- Graham  :) 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The content contained in there should already be covered elsewhere. In which case, delete. Anthony DiPierro 02:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fuzheado 03:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Hopeless. Delete. Kosebamse 08:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Article with somewhat clumsy title. My tentative vote is to delete, but I could be persuaded to change this if the highly arguable POV text, off-topic by its own admission, were radically altered. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 20

  • Small Molecule. Improperly capitalized title, plus nothing there but links to other pages. RickK 03:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Capitalisation is irrelevant, but the other criterion is enough for deletion. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - but redirect to molecule. Jargon. Any (potential) real content can live in "molecule" article instead. Same for Small molecule.
    • Redirect to molecule -- Graham  :) 18:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of geophysicists - one geophysicist does not a list make. --Mishac 03:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. From little things big things grow. ShaneKing 03:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Important subdiscipline. -- Decumanus 03:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - when you have more than one, you can make a list - Texture 05:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You mean like now, when there are four on it? ShaneKing 06:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I change my vote, keep now. 4 geophysicists does a list make. --Mishac 07:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: impossible maintenance task. It's going to be comprehensive, right? (Because otherwise it should be titled List of geophysicists filtered in some way.) There's no way WP can keep up; they make a lot of new geophysicists every year, you know. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but move to geophysicist, 5 would make a list. -- User:Docu
    • Hey, Wily one -- check out this occupation list list. Please explain what you would like done with those lists...
    • Keep. First the argument was that there was to few geophysicists, now it is that there is to many? :) BL 10:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep list -- Graham  :) 18:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • FileMaker Pro POV review of obscure software. Mrdice 08:34, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Delete. FileMaker already exists. Maybe a redirect, as this product is often referred to both FileMaker and FileMaker Pro? --Vikingstad 09:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I am pretty sure filemaker and filemaker pro are distinct, and both are very common software.
      • As a matter of fact, FileMaker and FileMaker Pro are, when people talk about them, the same product. Just take a look at the FileMaker page. I am still for a redirect. --Vikingstad 09:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I stand corrected. I'll vote for a redirect too.
    • Keep as redirect. Not of great importance but the redirect is helpful. Andrewa 09:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect. As a power-user of FM/Pro: Yes they are the same. No it's not that obscure! :-/ Elf 21:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to FileMaker. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's definitely not an obscure software. BL 10:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Stratocracy - dictionary definition that is already included in the only article referencing it. - Texture 17:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definition was wrong. Fixed. New article, but recommend Wiktionary if it's not substantially expanded. Rossami 18:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs content, otherwise wiktionary and delete -- Graham  :) 18:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 1931 in sports - No record of Josh Robbins performing any of this in 1931. Can anyone verify this is real? - Texture 18:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Given that the user who posted this info posted "i fucked your mom" three minutes later at 1933 in sports, I'd lean towards it's being false info. Jwrosenzweig 18:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep as amended -- Kingturtle, you rock! Jwrosenzweig 04:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I just packed this baby with mucho info. I think it can stay now. Kingturtle 04:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow! Definitely keep -- Graham  :) 18:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The Roxie Advert. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not even a very good advert. - DropDeadGorgias 19:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless it is significant or historical in some manner. —Frecklefoot 19:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep this stub. Davodd 19:38, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well-known in San Francisco Bay Area history & current culture. Elf 21:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • New info on page provides rationale to keep. Denni 21:25, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Keep. : ) Kingturtle 03:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - "The oldest continuously-operating movie theatre in San Francisco" BL 10:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks good, keep -- Graham  :) 18:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This is where VfD scores! In light of new information I withdraw nomination. DJ Clayworth 03:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • John Talignani - September 11th victim. →Raul654 19:33, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 20:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 21:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Denni 21:23, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sir Paul 21:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Transfer to 9/11 wiki Secretlondon 22:13, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Wik 01:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Transfer to 9/11 wiki. Elf 01:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 02:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to 9/11 wiki. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 10:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Transwiki and delete. Bearcat 10:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 9/11 wiki -- Graham  :) 18:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless it can be verified he did something more notable than dying. Davodd 22:56, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonfamous, but move to 9/11 "wikimorial". Fuzheado

February 20:2

  • Live sex show -- a one-liner with no activity since June, 2003. Jay 22:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Make it a redirect to Sex worker. RedWolf 06:28, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Redirect to Sex worker is not appropriate. Better would be to sex show but that article doesn't exist. Lets just wait until someone knowledgeable about live sex shows comes around. BL 10:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Don't move to Wiktionary. Herbee 04:36, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Spliceome - a freshly invented term, as far a I can tell. (44 google hits, of which most are misspellings of spliceosome or about a database named SpliceOme) Stewart Adcock 22:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have heard it used in the bioinformatics literature. I suggest that spliceome redirect to spliceosome, and incorporate that material into a new section in spliceosome. --Lexor|Talk 23:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Biot-Savart law - text has nothing to do with the Biot-Savart law]] Fuzheado 23:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I've redirected it to Biot-Savart's Law. Maximus Rex 23:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I switched them the other way, since the preferred usage is tends to be without the apostrophe. -- Decumanus 08:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • List on redirects for deletion as copy/paste move which needs to be fixed. Anthony DiPierro 16:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • ThinkGeek - nothing more than an advert. David Johnson 23:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I recognize that name! My brother ordered some caffeine pep pills from them once. I haven't looked at the article yet, but it is a real company. - Arthur George Carrick 01:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I've heard of them - they sell all kinds of nerd-related merchandise. Name recognition = encyclopedic →Raul654 01:59, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article could be more detailed, but Thinkgeek is a pretty well known company within the geek community. You could say they are part of internet culture. Seems encyclopedic to me. Flockmeal 02:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've looked at it now, and I still say keep. - Arthur George Carrick 02:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course! I wouldn't believe that a person who owns a computer hasn't heard of ThinkGeek. Optim 04:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep!!!! Perl 15:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Much more than an advert. Anthony DiPierro 16:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not much more than an advert, but it's a reasonably notable company and something of a cultural phenomenon. Would be nice if someone would expand it a bit and make it less like an advert, though. Dpbsmith 00:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 21

  • Confrontation - dictionary definition, nothing more. Fuzheado 00:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be redirected to conflict or argument or something similar. Mintguy (T) 00:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too ambiguous to redirect. Anthony DiPierro 16:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only a (useless) definition. Jacob1207 21:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; this could be revised into an article on human response to conflict. -Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What branddobbe said + how other species react to confrontations + witness confrontations. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Dictionary definition. Animals that have unique confrontational displays will have them listed in the animals site. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Mildcompetence - Gibberish KJ 03:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless heres a space on Wikitonary for made up rubish, in which case move there. Saul Taylor 03:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: no such term. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition of some runtogether words. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Interestingly, the user who created it did it with the edit summary "keep" -- sounds to me like he knew it'd be posted here. Bearcat 18:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Every google hit on the word comes from the address of one website. Average Earthman 19:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is nonsensical. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense word. Rossami 04:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • ONW a fictional world known only to a small group of friends. Only google hit is for a blog entry [7]. Maximus Rex 03:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, irrelevant to anyone not in that group of frineds.--Mishac 08:49, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, is known to a community of about 300 and they are planning on publishing their work. Has many Google hits when "ONW" is searched, but it takes some filtering to find them. Could provide additional information for others interested in conworlding. J. Antley 12:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What J. Antley said. Anthony DiPierro 20:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, same as J. Antley. Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • J. Antley (User:DarkFantasy) is the original author of the piece. Of course he wants to keep it. This only "exists" between a few people on a bulletin board. Maximus Rex 03:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • What does that have to do with anything? Just because I created it doesn't disregard my reasons for keeping it. J. Antley 19:15, 22 Feb 2004 CST
    • Delete, vanity. --Wik 03:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What J. Antley said. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, vanity page. If and when J. Antley's web community's work is actually published, then maybe it'll be worth including. Until then, it's only one or two steps above being a private joke. Bearcat 17:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've got friends with D&D characters, worlds and so on. This is a private matter that has no bearing on the larger world. If this book actually is published at some point, then, perhaps, it could get a page (and maybe more depending on popularity). Until then it's strictly vanity. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What J. Antley said. pastoralist 19:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • This 'vote' was made by User:12.106.247.131, who, based upon their other edits, is probably User:DarkFantasy/J. Antley. Maximus Rex 01:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • That is untrue. pastoralist 1:24, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree. You have no evidence or reason to even suspect us to be the same person. J. Antley 19:31, Feb 22 2004 CST
        • Definitely a not-even-subtle sock puppet. The least you could have done would have been to have created a login, not a fake ID edited from an anonymous account. RickK 01:55, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • What you say is not true. I solemnly swear I am not J. Antley. How does it benefit you to attack him? pastoralist 1:58, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • I really resent that! Do I have to show my IP for you people to believe me?! J. Antley 20:01, Feb 22 2004 (CST)
    • Keep. This group is attempting to write and conworld as a group entirely over the internet. As far as I know this has not been done before. This is a good experiment and worth seeing how it turns out. Yahiisa
      • Another sock pupper heard from. RickK 02:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Y'all are hopeless. Check the IPs!!! J. Antley 20:13, 23 Feb 2004 (CST)
        • I didn't even realize this whole argument was going on as I tried to post my edit (well until I had to resubmit it three times I didn't). I simply saw an entry I find interesting was up for deletion and voted to save it. I am wondring why you felt the need to accuse me (and pastoralist) of being puppets.Yahiisa
        • This is J. Antley not logged in. Check my IP and compare. User:J. Antley 20:19, 23 Feb 2004 (CST)
    • Delete. Not famous. Not encyclopedic. Once they are famous, someone can come back and write the right article. Rossami 04:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Didiot - derogatory name for one obscure Windows advocate. Pakaran. 04:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Edit and move to "Laura DiDio". she exists and is somewhat famous/infamous in some geek circles--Mishac 08:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Laura DiDio. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Laura Didio (who still has a blank page :) --Palapala 10:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Started page and merged. --Palapala 13:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Laura DiDio and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 4futureengineers.com - seems to be self-promotion.... was an advertisement. removed contact information. --Hemanshu 10:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete both this page and the redirect page Ragini Communications Inc. Cedars 12:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Anthony DiPierro 16:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Neither is it the Yellow Pages advertising phone book. Delete. Tempshill 20:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, page and redirect. Sir Paul 18:22, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete page and redirect. Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete page and redirect. Elf-friend 23:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wikipeda is not paper. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. With the contact info stripped, it's now a blank article, and there's no remotely encyclopedic content that could conceivably be added. Bearcat 17:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No bearing on, well, anything.
    • Delete, Wiki is not an attic. Fuzheado 02:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • attoparsec - Mainly listed to prevent bad precedence from being created, I don't think this particular prefix/unit combination warrants its own article. The brief mention in parsec is enough IMO. -- Dissident 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. I just rewrote it, emphasizing its special status as a jocularity and therefore (hopefully) making it clear that it's not a precedent for individual article on yoctoparsecs, exaparsecs, etc. Assuming that it really is in jocular use by programmers--I just googled on it and The Jargon File and other sources aren't terribly convincing about this--it's worth preserving, though if there is a suitable article on nerd humor it could be moved there. I think I would argue that if it has an entry in FOLDOC and in the Jargon File, there's a prima facie case for it to have an entry in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 23:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. In its present form, a perfectly good item on a piece of nerd humor. Dandrake 00:09, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a joke with a long tradition (pre-web times...) --Palapala 09:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; it's got a long tradition. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Relocate, probably under the (as yet non-existant) nerd humour page. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Greenie Bus - is this something we need here? Even if we decide to keep it, do we need its schedule? RickK 22:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but drop the schedules -- just list the routes, maybe. -- Seth Ilys 22:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Saul Taylor 01:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems okay to me. Why not have schedules? They are useful to those who use these buses. Optim 02:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I can agree with Optim that bus schedules are useful, but Wikipedia isn't where anybody's going to go looking for one when they need it. Bearcat 10:03, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Awesome article. Keep. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, or at least trim significantly. This isn't encyclopedic in the sense that people are going to be looking for information on it here. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. we shouldnt penalize the article for being detailed.--Mishac 16:41, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No, we should penalize it for being absolutely irrelevant to anybody besides the students at one university. Bearcat 21:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Davodd 22:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Crotopo soup. Moved to Wikibooks. Angela. 23:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Recepies are encyclopedic. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete.--Jiang
    • Delete, unless encyclopedic background is added. Recipes belong at Wikibooks. -- Seth Ilys 16:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • One plus one not encyclopedic Anthony DiPierro 23:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but maybe retitle, move, or merge with something else. Does have some interesting info. -- J. Antley 17:48, 21 Feb 2004 (CST)
    • Keep; agree with DarkFantasy. The contents are worthy of the encyclopedia, but wouldn't suffer if integrated somewhere. Dandrake 00:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a phrase that everyone use with a long and proud history. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; this is inappropriately titled. Move/merge content to some article dealing with addition or uses of the plus sign. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless here. Everyking 20:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 22

  • Kenneth_O'Keefe A self written article that is more about his personal political view then anything else. Also of note is the relative insignificance of this person (quick google search of the name displays several others with same name, didn't see this one). Oberiko 16:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, though it should be slightly rewritten. His organising the human shields (or part therein), whatever one might think of it, renders him significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. Everyking 20:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Israeli terrorism (see Talk:Palestinian terrorism)
    -- Added to list to make parallelism explicit. +sj+ 02:16, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • So what article does this one duplicate (which was the main reason for listing P.t.)? Keep, but the name needs changing. --Zero 02:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be moved to Violence against Palestinians in parallel with V. against Israel.
      • A separate discussion of terrorism in the Middle East over time can cover terrorism by Jewish groups before Israel was founded, against Britain and other occupying forces; by Arab groups throughout the century, against Britain, France, and other occupying forces; and by groups across the subcontinent against rival groups, neighboring nations, &c. -- probably the largest category of 'terrorist' violence (but the least likely to arounse international notice). +sj+ 09:06, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • Relocate Oberiko 17:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • William Ware Theiss Page about a person not notable for anything, presumably by a family member, user who created this has not made any other contributions. Saul Taylor 02:20, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's the same guy, he was the costume designer on Star Trek. Keep and add relevant data (no pun intended). Lee M 02:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep this version. RickK 03:03, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Now that the article has relevant content, I change my vote to Keep. Saul Taylor 03:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; he's famous within his field. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'd heard of him about 30 years ago, and his 3 Academy Award nominations show he's known within his field. -- Arwel 14:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This person's information could easily be added to a list of supporting people for the Star Trek series. Oberiko 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Famous enough. DJ Clayworth 03:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chuckles insginficant and obscure, can't grow.--Mishac 11:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope. Chuckles, like Lord British, is the pseudonym of an Origin Systems founder and programmer heavily involved with the Ultima series, and also the name of a character that has appeared in most of the games. I just expanded the article significantly, and vote to keep it. —Psychonaut 11:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Change my vote. Keep as rewritten by Psychonaut. Nice work psycho :)--Mishac 12:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and Move. Unless this article can be expanded further, it should be compiled with a list of other video game pseudonym's, or under the Ultima entry.Oberiko 17:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep -- Graham  :) 19:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • BOOK (magazine)-ad?
    • Delete: Surely this could be relocated to a list of published magazines. Unless greatly expanded, I don't see where it serves much purpose. Oberiko 16:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 19:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Top O'the Bruce - obscure saying about obscure hill in obscure place. Fuzheado 16:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if expandable, ootherwise delete.--Mishac 16:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Far too obscure, can't see how this can expand -- Graham  :) 19:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Lynn Marple - seems to have done nothing of note besides being a wife and mother. I don't see the potential for meaningful encyclopedic expansion. - Seth Ilys 16:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this and Sarah Marple-Cantrell too. IT's sad, but unless it's wel known news, its not encyclopaedic.--Mishac 16:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this and Sarah Marple-Cantrell. This is not a site for people to put up personal information and self-webpages, especially those who have little to make them noteworthy in the large-scheme of things.Oberiko 17:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've already made my feelings known about Sarah Marple-Cantrell. I'm ambivalent about Cyrus Cantrell, while we're at it, but there's enough information there that I could potentially be swayed by the argument that he's relevant beyond being the father of a girl who committed suicide, if anybody wants to make that case. Bearcat 17:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 19:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. -- Minesweeper 20:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More famous than 2147483647. Anthony DiPierro 20:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Sarah Marple-Cantrell and redirect. Optim 21:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Lime Juice - Orphan. I cannot find any evidence that this album exists. Google, Amazon, CDDB all turn up nothing.--Minesweeper 20:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless it can be linked to a particular band then delete. Even if it can it ought to go to Lime Juice (album) anyway to avoid confusion. Vfd tag added. -- Graham  :) 20:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verifiable. An idiot in his bathrobe? Anthony DiPierro 22:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Heart Lake Secondary School - has nothing of note besides the fact that it's a high school in a suburb of Toronto. I don't see how this stub can be turned into a non-trivial, non-stub, NPOV article. Darkcore 22:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Richard Genovese - irrelevant surrealist. --Wik 22:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is he irrelevant? Mark Richards 22:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Because I voted for the pages undeletion and Wik doesn't like me. Anthony DiPierro 22:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Google search finds no evidence of serious recognition. Just self-promotion, and even much less of that than, for example, Daniel C. Boyer, and we don't have an article on him either. --Wik 22:55, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-notable surrealist artist whose reason for having a page here is that he associated with prolific wikipedia contributor, Daniel C. Boyer. Maximus Rex 01:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kill all surrealists.—Eloquence
    • Keep. I guess we can just keep listing articles here until they finally get deleted? Anthony DiPierro 04:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 04:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Susan Finlayson - Nonfamous, possibly fictional. Google search ("Susan Finlayson" farming) turns up three hits, none related to this. Fuzheado 23:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I added the VfD header. Delete. I can't find anything when Googling "Murie Center" and Finlayson. RickK 00:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Susan Finlayson was a real Stanford student. She worked at the Murie Center one summer. Could be a professor. IP is in Pleasanton, California. Possibly an autobiography, or biography by a student. Web page at http://www.susfin.com/. Seems to be checking out. Keep and list on cleanup first. Anthony DiPierro 01:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • "Temp - TMS" does not seem to be "professor." Why should any university student get an article? --Jiang
        • Ah, you're right about the professor thing. As for why should any university student get an article, why not? Also, she most likely has graduated by now, so she isn't a university student at all. Anthony DiPierro 04:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Jiang

February 23

  • Hetto-Iberians. First there was an article called Hetto-Iberian (no ‘s’). This attracted much negative attention for two reasons. First, it stated as fact that Basque and Etruscan are related to certain other languages. It is well known that although numerous attempts have been made to link Basque and Etruscan to various languages, standard scholarship holds that neither is related to any known language. Second, many who knew something about linguistics had never encountered the term “Hetto-Iberian”, and a Google search for the term turns up almost nothing. The eventual outcome of this criticism was that the article was moved to Caucasian peoples and substantially modified. Progress. But now an article with all the original problems has been put at Hetto-Iberians. This should be deleted. Josh Cherry 03:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2492434"