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 RickK (talk | contribs) at 04:58, 1 March 2004 (Most visited websites). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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.

Cleanup

Use Wikipedia:Cleanup for articles needing work, as per Wikipedia:Cleanup process.

Boilerplate

Please do not forget to add a boilerplate deletion notice, to any candidate page that does not already have one. (Putting {{msg: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 -- Old cases

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

February 22

February 23

  • Quattuordecillion - dictionary definition Anthony DiPierro 06:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Could improve. Delete if not improve in 7 days -- Graham  :) 11:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Relocate to Wiktionary. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or Redirect. Being out of context, this doesn't make much sense. Would make much more sense as part of a numbers table (like in Webster's Dict). Main difference is the usage of "milliard" in Europe opposite to "billion" in the States to begin with. --Palapala 20:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Numbers table is at List of numbers. Anthony DiPierro 22:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Anthony. Both entries are there, in the context, where they belong. So why a seperate article? --Palapala 08:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yea, could improve?!! AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary if not there already. Wile E. Heresiarch 12:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 24

  • Tenths digit-doesn't make any sense. See above discussion of List of numbers that are always odd. Saul Taylor 01:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Rename the article (e.g. Tenths digit (radio) and/or have it re-direct to FM Radio, which has this exact tidbit of information down towards the end of the article. The article is correct but a) misleading as titled, since there are plenty of other things that use the number immediately after the decimal point in a specific way and b) a one-trick pony, since all the author wants to point out is that FM stations in the US are given a 0.2MHz bandwidth assigned by some obscure channel number system by the FCC. If it were fleshed out more (with explanations of how this works in Europe, on AM Radio, whatever) I'd be more inclined to keep it around. Rev3rend 15:15, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. (BTW, the reason why FM Radio now has the exact tidbit of information is that I put it yesterday...) The phrase "tenths digit" is not any kind of meme, is not associated with FM radio or anything else, and the fact that in the Atlanta area and/or the U.S. it is always an odd number is not worth an entire article. Dpbsmith 15:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 16:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Poorly named and should just have information in article on FM radio, or specifically FM radio in the US. Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Minesweeper 02:29, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with FM Radio and redirect. Don't delete, as you will lose the edit history. Anthony DiPierro 03:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Public exchange - advert - link to page it advertizes doesn't even work - Texture 17:16, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The concept of a public exchange is valid, but the content here is not. Delete or stub. - DropDeadGorgias 22:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. VfD is not cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 17:47, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Consequentialist justifications of the state - Was this deleted once already? The only google hits I can find are cached wikipedia mirrors or cites and the current pages don't exist - as if it was deleted from those sites after being deleted here. What is this? - Texture 18:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless improved. This doesn't contain clear consequentialist (that is, moral) justifications of state. It furthermore seems like original research. I think the title is an important enough topic, but the article doesn't seem to be on it as written. Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I wrote this one, under the inspiration of Larry. One of the Larry's text articles is on "the justification of the state" and he included a link to "consequentialist etc." But that link was the dreaded color red. Whether it was red because some earlier effort to create such an article had been deleted, as texture suggests, or not I don't know. Still, I wrote an article to fill this logical space. I'd be curious to hear from Larry on the subject!
    • Keep: valid topic, OK as it stands. Naturally it could benefit from attention, like 99.99% of WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Charting application - dictionary definition - Texture 18:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - DropDeadGorgias 22:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded. Keep. Dysprosia 13:38, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant, orphan. Once you've said "charting application", you've pretty much exhausted the topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • An orphan no longer. Dysprosia 02:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Accounting cost - dictionary definition - Texture 18:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if you can find formulas. - DropDeadGorgias 22:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes this is a dictionary definition and probably won't be expanded much further. No there are no formulas. Move to Wiktionary but keep a redirect in WP space for the articles that currently link to it. mydogategodshat 07:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary and delete. (No, there are no relevant formulae. It's too general a concept.) Unless there is objection, I will clean up the links and cross-reference them to Wiktionary:Accounting cost. Rossami 18:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Clinton Recession - POV article with links to two POV MSNBC articles that won't exist in two months - (Numbered articles are archived after a time) - Texture 18:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Recession and redirect -- Graham  :) 19:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Clinton (under ecomonomic policies) and delete
    • Keep: recognizable phrase -- shows up in political web sites. Remove external links that will certainly go stale soon. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten somewhat. I vote keep by the way--I've heard this phrase, and political slogans are encyclopedic. Someone look over my edits? Meelar 05:22, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as currently written. Long enough to be more than a dictionary definition, NPOV enough. Now, who's going to write the article on Golden Age of Clinton Prosperity? Dpbsmith 14:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. That last was a joke. folks.
    • Redirect to Bush Recession;-) Doovinator 20:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • KPPP - advert for someone programming in KDE - check out the rinky-dink user's home page linked - Texture 21:47, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - DropDeadGorgias 22:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Oberiko 22:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 07:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've heard of it. 172,000 google hits. Anthony DiPierro 02:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Cleanup instead. 129.240.69.213 05:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The "rinky-dinky user's home page" is actually a KDE sub-project page and this is the PPP dialer program for KDE, just as DUN is for Windows. Jamesday 16:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 25

  • Thegreyking -- a "review" of sorts of a book called The Grey King -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 00:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Only 3 minutes old before listing here. Has already been moved to The Grey King, give it time and if still no improvement list on cleanup -- Graham  :) 00:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 03:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep it, while not particularly well written there is some useful info there. List it on cleanup - for starters it needs spoiler warning, more plot synopsis, isbn link and general tidying. akaDruid 11:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - still a book review - Texture 15:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have plenty of pages devoted to individual short stories and books. As long as it's real and a famous book, I think it should stay; although maybe it could be made into a The Dark is Rising subject. - DropDeadGorgias 15:32, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Book descriptions are on topic for an encyclopedia and that's what this is. Jamesday 16:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tai Lam Country Park Directions to an obscure park. Perl 03:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • And yet I couldn't find my way there even if I studied it all day. Delete. Everyking 03:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete but the attempt at directions made me chuckle -- Graham  :) 07:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not even sure what country to start in, so the directions aren't a lot of use to me. Andrewa 08:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Copy title. Paste into Google. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky". Find out about this park and the government site covering it. It's really not hard to do that sort of thing prior to listing on VfD to find out whether a place merits coverage. Jamesday 16:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonsense. Mrdice 10:38, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)
    • Delete, not actual nonsense but useless out of context. It's also copyvio [1]. The park is in Hong Kong - may be worthy of a future article. akaDruid 11:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Change vote: Keep, in light of updates - article now useful, and copyvio issues are addressed. Good work done to rescue this.akaDruid 10:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - DropDeadGorgias 15:32, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Important place in Hong Kong. (If it where in the US it wouldn't made this page at all.) 129.240.69.213 05:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If it was as badly written as this one was when it was first listed here, I can assure you it would. Change vote to cleanup since page has improved -- Graham  :) 08:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Another comment: I agree with 129.240.69.213. Andrewa 16:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - has improved and can improve further. You can remove the directions if you do not like them. Besides, not a copyvio: see the notice at [2]. olivier 09:21, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: useful info, significant. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A fine example of why listing new pages here instead of at cleanup is a waste of time. Jamesday 16:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Offensive wand 1 line definition plus a link. Might be an advert - at the very least this needs expansion to be an article. I say delete it or merge it with Nethack, but open to suggestions. akaDruid 11:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert to user web page - likely won't be there in the future - Texture 15:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. —Frecklefoot 20:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, not worthy of article or even redirect. Andrewa 09:15, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignficant. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to wand or delete. -Sean 08:03, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirected. Meelar 02:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Bielefeld-Verschwörung not encyclopedic --217.81.148.235 15:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, interesting enough to warrant an article imho -- Graham  :) 16:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Definitely an important part of German Usenet culture. Just yesterday I was reading the de: version of that article! :-) -- Timwi 18:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. (Of course as original author). Popular in-joke in german usenet - might be comparable with the BOFH in the english usenet culture. andy 20:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's just a fun-article without a true statement.
    • Keep. It's not a fun article, but an article about s.th. seen from some as fun and at least a good example for a conspiracy theory --Spacey 09:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --217.81.146.231 21:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Integument moved to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Integument. Angela. 21:49, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The incoming links show that this is a disambiguation page and I've added the disambiguation message. for others who look at the links, note that the multiple links from VfD is a known problem. Jamesday 16:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 26

  • Honourable Ve'ehala Perl 02:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • See music of Tonga to understand who the subject is, but I'm not sure what the user was trying to say. In any case, vote to delete now, but I just may write a real article (or at least stub) later tonight Tuf-Kat 02:14, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unibrow - dictionary definition - Texture 03:24, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Have tried to add more content. Keep? San de Berg 10:16, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More info there now than in a dictionary definition. "Hirsute"–what a great word. :-) —Frecklefoot 17:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Heh, keep. Otherwise we'll just have to keep deleting worse versions. -- Infrogmation 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: joke, dictionary defn. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Topic worthy for inclusion in encyclopedia, if not really that interesting or significant. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary. Exploding Boy 16:43, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 02:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Pedantry dispute Unreadable nonsense. Might have a point, somewhere, but fails utterly in the task of making it. Almost worthy of immediate deletion under the patent nonsense rule, but maybe someone can rescue it. Tannin 03:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Even if it can be rescued I'm sure a better name can be found for it than this. Delete -- Graham  :) 07:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - unnecessary. --zandperl 14:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course, it became unreadable due to pedantry. It must go to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense - but part if not most of the joke is the pedantic edits. I don't know if there is a way of keeping the edit history. It was a magnet for pedants! Secretlondon 22:11, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tam Kung - directions to an obscure temple somewhere in Hong Kong I think. Even the article says that it's primarily frequented by locals. Darkcore 04:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Interesting. Andrewa 09:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Tam Kung is actually a South Chinese deity. I have added material to the article. More is obviously needed. olivier 09:27, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tics - Should be Tic, but has no useful content anyway. Warofdreams 16:09, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 16:53, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but rename. It should be moved to "List of tics" and should have a stub notice. One entry does not a list make. —Frecklefoot 18:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Just delete. -- Infrogmation 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yah, way to be rude to the noobs. You guys are just the coolest. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Keep: valid topic. Move to list of pages needing attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --217.81.146.231 21:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep.Valid topic; do not rename to list of tics. Study of tics as an overarching general topic is a real field of study in medicine. Just the other day listenened to a lecture on the subject. Don't remember more than a word here another there, though :-/ -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:16, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Coverage of medical conditions is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's not a single condition list any more either. Jamesday 16:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Lilo & Stitch: The Experiments - Contains a list with links to experiments, apparently some feature in the lilo and stitch tv series, user seems to be in progress making separate articles for exery experiment, should be merged with the lilo and stitch article or deleted --Obli 16:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete - Texture 16:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What's the harm? Fictional characters are valid encyclopedia topics, and as you noted, the list is getting filled out. Maybe move to "List of Experiments from Lilo & Stitch", or something of the sort. Meelar 16:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Subject is a little obscure, but linked articles are encyclopedic and, ergo, a list seems necessary. I'm a little unsure of the naming conventions though - possible future clashes? It seems work in progress for now - vote no delete till a future stage. akaDruid 17:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. This is of cultural note. Everyking 00:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: useless, insignificant. No need to clutter up WP with this. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The Lilo & Stitch experiments rock and they decidedly need to be recorded to keep straight. And if we get rid of this I vow a campaign to rid the pedia of every fictional Middle-Earth king ever, not to mention the phlanxes of frikkin' Pokemon. jengod 05:28, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • You're gonna clear out the Middle Earth crap? Right on. I'll be happy to vote "delete" on all that stuff too. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • you have my sword! --Obli 23:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but there should be an organised list of all of them for easy reference. --Johnleemk 08:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, no reason to delete. RickK 23:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Full_Circle_Temple Non famous temple of nonfamous sect + POV rant. Mrdice 19:05, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a bit POV, so cleanup. It might not be "famous", but probably noteworthy enough to have an entry in an electronic encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 20:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, list on cleanup. Places of worship are encyclopedic -- Graham  :) 22:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 00:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Assistant - definition. Darkcore 20:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is no dictionary. Mrdice 20:54, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • Delete. Useless Dmn 14:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 01:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • List of Europeans - offensively short and seemingly pointless. This does not represent europe and its history accurately Dmn 21:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - POV, first line says "This list is for important Europeans. For a more specific list covering people from the European Union, see List of EU people " - someone decided these were more important than the rest. (Heck, I'd vote with you just for being the one person who knows the difference between "it's" and "its"... ) - Texture 21:22, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. VfD is not cleanup. Anthony DiPierro 21:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge List of Europeans and List of people by EU state into one article, and redirect to it: there is no point having two articles on the same subject -- Graham  :) 21:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The topic is just too vast for a list to properly cover without becoming silly. Everyking 00:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • "List of [insert country name here]s" would be okay, although a little pointless, but this is 1) useless and 2) looks flamebait-ish, as it tickles some 30+ different flavours of patriotism. Delete. Kosebamse 07:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It does not duplicate List of EU people: not all European countries are in the EU. We're supposed to be selecting, not merely listing aevery European who ever lived: selection is not a POV concept, it's an encyclopedic one. Jamesday 17:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete, delete, delete! This list is offensive. In order to correct it, it would be ridiculously long; think about it, try naming all significant musicians europe has produced. If you can, I am in awe of you


  • Matrix (math) - just a redirect page to Matrix (mathematics). No links to it. Walt Pohl 09:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep valid redirects, even if they're not in use. Dysprosia 09:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • But it's a stupid redirect. -- Walt Pohl 09:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • The one you just added below (and I removed) was more stupid. The term "math" is rather common in the US, no? And it's in standard bracket disambiguation form, so it could be potentially used. Dysprosia 09:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Why did you remove matrix (mathematic)? What possible reason do we have for having a redirect page for a rare mispelling of mathematics? And why do we need matrix (math)? I don't get the logic here. -- Walt Pohl 09:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Duh, I just realized you meant you had removed the "matrix (mathematic)" page. Sorry about that.
          • Math is the American term for mathematics and is not a misspelling. The disambiguation form for articles is generally [[name (topic)]]. For example, Matrix (mathematics). It then, has the potential of being created by someone who is not quite sure about the system here. So it is a valid redirect, even if it is not being used, and should not be deleted. Take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion criteria, where this discussion should probably be moved... HTH Dysprosia 09:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • So, should there be a redirect for Matrix_(maths)? :-) Dpbsmith 02:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes, perhaps there should. Dysprosia 09:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
                • OK, now perhaps there is. Dpbsmith 11:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect to Matrix (mathematics). Wile E. Heresiarch 08:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete: cruft. I changed my mind about this one. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect. --Johnleemk 08:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Internet game - belongs to wikitionary, is short and the info probably exists on another article -- Obli 17:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Looks lame now, but let me try to improve it. If it duplicates info in other articles, then delete I guess. —Frecklefoot 17:46, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not speedy deletion, please don't list such entries here, try WP:VFD Dori | Talk 05:43, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This could be expanded on. --Johnleemk 08:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cultur - just a redirect page for a mispelling of culture. No links to it. -- Walt Pohl 07:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Agree with above Dmn 14:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Agree with above. --Johnleemk 08:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: cruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Mathematic - just a redirect page for a mispelling of mathematics. No links to it (other than Daniel Quinlan's redirect project list). -- Walt Pohl 07:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, it's the rarely used singlular form of mathematics. --Jiang
    • Delete, since I don't think it's ever used. Dysprosia 09:04, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Dmn 14:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. legitimate redirect. Optim 07:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've never seen this used before. --Johnleemk 08:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: cruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Commonly encountered. Google estimated "only" 120,000 uses. Jamesday 17:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Dark compact - Dark compact of literary fame.
    • Clearly has merit, no deletion warranted, and especially not a speedy one. - Plautus satire 05:31, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep -- Decumanus 05:38, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Vanity for Plautus -- SheikYerBooty 05:40, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not speedy deletion, please don't list such entries here, try WP:VFD Dori | Talk 05:43, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Isn't WP:VFD the same as this page ? I tried it and got redirected to here. Jay 13:51, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete with extreme prejudice :) -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Texture 22:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - there *is* something to say on the issue. Although I admit the term gives zillions of spurious google hits (like, about "dark, compact mass"). BTW are there any synonyms for suitable for redirect, like, dark covenant: what is this? Mikkalai 02:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - List of all two-letter combinations, this is completely useless and just makes things more complicated. Give me one reason of how this could benefit anyone.
    • Keep. Take a look at Talk:List of all two-letter combinations. (BTW, it is always a good idea in cases of doubt.) Mikkalai 02:48, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: Useful. Optim 03:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ridiculous. Everyking 03:32, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whatever may have been the case in the past, the fact that most of the combinations currently actually link to something justifies keeping it. Dpbsmith 13:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) Also: both this page and pages such as TLAs_from_AAA_to_DZZ have the advantage of providing a comprehensive list that is self-maintaining. Dpbsmith 03:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - 138.88.234.170 15:27, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - its actually pretty interesting, since it links to articles corresponding to the 2-letter combinations. -Seth Mahoney 19:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - The purpose of an encyclopedia is not only to provide data but to organize and associate it. See dichotomization. Either change this page's name to a subdivision of the scrabble page or kill it. Bensaccount 23:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not only to provide data but to organize and associate it. I found each of the links from here that I checked to be of interest. Jamesday 17:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - good index of two letter articles. Ludraman, 2115, 29/02/04.
    • Keep Secretlondon 23:06, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

February 27

  • Gabaldi Bound, John-Paul Vitale, My TV - I can find no evidence of any of these on Google search other than Wiki articles. The articles also have (virtually) no content. Power 00:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The very first link for Gabaldi Bound on google is a non-wiki article. Anthony DiPierro 03:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It is only 1 guy at the website, and it doesn't even have a show description. The rest of the top 10 are wiki or clones. Power 03:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep GB and JPV. Anthony DiPierro 02:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Edward Mung - looks like vanity page. Page has a weird edit history. Evercat 02:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verifiable. Looks like nonsense. There was an Edward Mung at Earl Haig Sec. Sch in 1999, but this says he graduated in 1980. Anthony DiPierro 03:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Article says he was CEO of Pixar at one point. Can that be verified? Not a vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If it were true he would definitely show up in a google of "Edward Mung Pixar". Try the "news" search to be sure. - Texture 00:35, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • He doesn't. Also, the article says he "authored several books", but Amazon has never heard of them. Robert Southworth 01:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Check user's other contributions for accuracy.—Eloquence 05:10, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Daniel John Lee - nonfamous, did nothing notable except die. --Jiang 03:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 03:32, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jiang, but I think it's better a sysop goes through this systematically. I see a whole bunch of unfamiliar names at [3] for example. -- Dissident 03:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikimemorial and delete. Bearcat 03:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. No reason to delete. Anthony DiPierro 04:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - No reason to keep - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikimemorial and delete. Wikipedia is not a phone book. Wikipedia is not a morgue. →Raul654 11:46, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 15:49, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Eber - Eber appears in some genealogical lists in the Old Testament, according to which he was a descendent of Noah through Shem and an ancestor of Abraham and hence the Israelites. His name is possibly related to the word “Hebrew”. That’s about all there is to say about him, but this article makes all sorts of assertions about peoples and places and events. For example, from the above facts it manages to “deduce” that all of the differences between Hebrew and other Canaanite dialects are due to the influence of a language dubbed “Eberite”, which was likely related to Hurrian. It’s wild speculation and should be deleted. Josh Cherry 03:48, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • - No Josh you are wrong. First step is to copy edit it and then if it fails to come out looking good VFD it. Go and edit it to the way you think it should look first then come back here. And read through the discussion first. To me this just looks like another attemt to cover up admin abuse in the talk page. Zestauferov 08:13, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but NPOVify. I'm run across these theories a number of times. -- Seth Ilys 12:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless NPOV'd - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: unfixable. Attempts have already been made (see Talk:Eber) to straighten out this article. No sense in spending more time on it. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, it can be NPOV'd. -Sean 08:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but cut back to the basic Biblical context. Eber himself is obviously encyclopedic; all of the supposition and grand theories about "Eberites" and "Eberitic" should probably be left out. +sj+ 13:07, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
    • Keep. Eber is not an invalid topic which needs deletion. Please use cleanup, peer review or disputes pages if you need help removing inappropriate content from an article. Jamesday 17:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Darien K., perfectlydarien.com, pd.com - Personal vanity and promotional pages. Google identifies only a handful of pages linking to the domains. - Seth Ilys 04:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. "Mayor of the Internet"? Please. RickK 04:27, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Recall that mayor! Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not quite a vanity page, more like quasi-trollish nonsense. Ensiform 05:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I know Darien; he does frequent Rinkworks, but just because Samuel Stoddard helped him on his website doesn't mean they should appear in Wikipedia. At least not till they're featured in newspapers and magazines like Rinkworks. --Johnleemk 08:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Hazel E. McLane. Genealogical info for an obscure family, several unwikified paragraphs, only two of which refer to the person in the title of the article. RickK 05:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Also John McLane, from the same poster. Please note: As I was adding the VfD header, Adam Bishop deleted the page, so my save made it look as if I created the page. RickK 05:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, John McLane was apparently Governor of New Hampshire, so I guess that can stay (but certainly not as the genealogical entry it is right now). (Insert Die Hard joke) Adam Bishop 05:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of EU people is no better than List of Europeans, discussed above (Feb 26). Kosebamse 07:28, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, as above 131.111.8.96 16:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It does not duplicate List of European people: not all European countries are in the EU. Jamesday 17:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. I think the point is not that they are the same, just that are equally as pointless. They both trivialise the culture and history of many people. Perhaps there would be use in having a list of politicians who were instrumental in the creation and politics of the EU. As it stands, this page offends me :-p Dmn 20:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Pi Omega Nu -- non-encylopedic self-promotion, pointless, candidate for fast-track deletion? -- The Anome 10:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • GMTA, was about to add it myself. Perhaps it should be deleted straight off. Dysprosia 10:50, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sunset High School (Hayward) - someone's personal commentary on a high school that has been closed down for 14 years. Pointless and non-encyclopedic. Darkcore 11:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if edited for NPOV and removal of personal commentary. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a high school. Everyking 17:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, it WAS a high school. It no longer exists. Darkcore 22:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I suppose you'd support deleting the article on Julius Caesar, on the grounds that he died a long time ago? Everyking 23:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Uh... aside from the fact that that's a strange (and completely non-similar) example Everyking, the only thing that is notable about this high school is that it closed down. (Or that it was a good school, according to the person who wrote the article, but I guess that would be POV and biased, thus not something you would put in an article.) That's hardly expandable. Darkcore 08:09, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I see no difference. You seemed to be arguing that the school did not deserve an article because it no longer existed, and I said Caesar doesn't exist anymore, either. The school is/was not notable for being closed down; it is/was notable for having been a school. Everyking 17:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't agree that a school is notable by sole virtue of the fact that it is a school anymore than I feel that a person is notable by sole virtue of the fact that he/she is a person. Using your example of Julius Caesar, the reason he is in this encyclopedia is because of what he did when he WAS alive; you would probably not see an article about your next-door neighbour in here (unless he/she was famous). But obviously you don't agree with me, so that's fine. Darkcore 20:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • How totally bizarre. I grew up in Hayward, and Sunset was our bigget sports rival. Hey, can I vote for delete just because they were our enemies?  :-) No, I'm not going to vote, because I've voted time and again to delete all non-important school articles, and have been voted down. RickK 08:23, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • USS Whipple - just a bunch of external links Dori | Talk 15:23, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless expanded - Texture 15:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Perl 15:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Make it a disambiguation, but then delete the redirect USS Whipple (DD-217) andy 16:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 17:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have expanded the page a little. It should be kept, of course, as a page linking to one page for each of the ships that have carried that name, and explaining the name. I have changed USS Whipple (DD-217) into a stub instead of a redirect to this page USS Whipple. —Morven 19:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It was a bit stubby at first but it's no simply one of the usual naval naming tradition articles and should be kept. Jamesday 17:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Battle of Lodz - belongs in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Robert Southworth 15:55, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • A great joke. But delete. DJ Clayworth 16:35, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nice try... --Palapala 22:04, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It seems that there was a battle by this name, see [5]. I'll replace the current joke by a good stub if someone else doesn't fix it first. Andrewa 03:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Dystmesis - Unverifiable. It's not in dictionary.com, nor is in google's define function. Google search only yields about 60 hits for this word, most of which are really just wikipedia articles, or other encyclopedias that source wikipedia. NOTE: this article is also being vfd'd at Talk:Litotes on the grounds of being moved to wiktionary, but I also wanted to list this article individually for being unverifiable. - DropDeadGorgias 16:00, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • List of Paraguayans - one line of five words does not make a list or an article - what happened to starting these things in user space until it is actually an article? - Texture 16:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • A bit politician heavy but how about a list of 18? And that was just from the Paraguay article and others linking from it. Keep -- Graham  :) 18:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chella - User:Chellabm is okay, but this is just one more user page. <KF> 17:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - user page masquerading as an article - Texture 18:09, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with user page and delete -- Graham  :) 18:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with user page and delete. --Johnleemk 08:56, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Jack Heslop-Harrison - vanity - looks like the family's web page in honor of a relative - Texture 17:09, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, keep, keep. (Does that count as three votes? No? Oh, well). Not at all vanity, he's—he was—quite a distinguished and famous botanist. I recognized the name instantly (admittedly, "Heslop-Harrison" is a fairly memorable name). Dpbsmith 02:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Karras - a disambiguation page for two articles that do not exist. That isn't why it should be deleted - it is merely two names with the same last name. If this is valid then we need one for Jones, Smith, and Johnson - Texture 18:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Crotopo soup has been listed on Talk:List of recipes/Delete since 21 Feb, consensus is to delete. Can someone please do so and rm the listing from the talk page. -- Graham  :) 18:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)(moved from speedy deletions page by me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)~)
    • Delete - Texture 21:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Can I just ask what the point is of asking (at the top of this page) to list all recipes for deletion on Talk:List of recipes/Delete if they're only going to be put back here for five days once consensus has been reached there? This article, for information, was originally listed on this page, but was moved to the recipes page as per the request above in a bid to clean this page up. Why not just forget about the list of recipes page and just list everything here anyway? -- Graham  :) 23:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Incidentally the page was listed on speedy deletions to bring it to the attention of a sysop, so that they could delete it. How else are we meant to bring the need for deletion of these pages to a sysop's attention? -- Graham  :) 23:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yellow Pig Day - irrelevant. Was deleted before, should not have been undeleted. --Wik 19:16, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • It was wrongly deleted, therefore it should have been undeleted. Angela. 19:20, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • It was rightly deleted months ago as unencyclopedic. It was then recreated and should have been instantly deleted. --Wik 19:29, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Regardless I vote for delete now. Secretlondon 19:26, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, and get over it -- WormRunner 19:51, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. At least three W'pedians have independently wanted to create the page (afaict)... really, we should just stop by our local uni and ask the math profs there if they've heard of/celebrated this day. I'll do that on monday.  :-) --one of the three, +sj+ 21:04, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
      • Also might want to check the textbook Calculus by Michael Spivak in the index under the letter P. Anthony DiPierro 21:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, and get over it - Texture 21:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Relevant. Anthony DiPierro 21:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's about time we got this one back. Everyking 21:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If y'all care about it so much, why don't you write more, to make it deserving? Mikkalai 22:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We kept attoparsec (which I agreed with), and this is about as valid. Meelar 01:33, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - It seems to be an old joke at Princeton that the founders at HCSSMP picked up, and not encyclopedia-worthy. Power 05:03, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter how it started. What matters is whether or not it is real, and all signs point to yes. Everyking 06:15, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • That's not what matters. Any piece of dust is real, that doesn't mean it's worth an article. There are already more Google hits about this coming from Wikipedia and its copies than there are independent ones. That's effectively promotion of this day which amounts to an NPOV violation. --Wik 00:49, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep iff it's true. Optim 07:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. -Sean 08:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. True and interesting -Gandalf61 10:35, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if real; else delete. --Johnleemk 08:56, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's real. It also just came off votes for undeletion on a 7 undelete 2 delete result. That was preceded by a VfD result which I made 3 delete 3 keep, some uncertain which an admin deleted anyway. More on the talk page for the article. Jamesday 16:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • David C. Kelly - a maths professor at a college. Connected with Yellow Pig Day. Secretlondon 19:38, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious. - the top of the page
      • He did! It's the Yellow Scare... +sj+ 21:10, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 21:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Seriously, what's the policy on professors et al? Kelly's notable mostly for persevering in the development of a very unusual summer program over the past 20 years. I don't know if that's "WP Encyclopedic" or not. +sj+, not an author of this page.
    • Keep. Everyking 21:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Yellow Pig's Day and turn it into a redirect. Optim 07:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • YPD would be a terrible place for this to redirect. HCSSiM would be a lot better, but that hasn't been created yet. In any case, I plan to work on this further, if it isn't deleted, that is. Anthony DiPierro 15:25, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Anthony DiPierro: the summer math program is worth an article, Kelly probably isn't, YP day can be mentioned in article on summer program. Vicki Rosenzweig 00:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • that sounds right to me. -+sj+ 02:05, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

February 28

  • Squid Soft - This entry consists of two sentences describing the "Squid Web Proxy Cache" software. This software, however, is not made by "Squid Soft". The only "Squid Soft" I can find seems to be some type of software consulting firm. The only article linking to this entry is Peer-to-peer, which seems to be referring to a third piece of software named "Squid". - JMD 01:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Change link to "SquidCam"? Anthony DiPierro 19:16, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 19:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I've made this a redirect to the existing squid cache article and updated Peer-to-peer. For anyone who doesn't know, the Wikipedia has two of these, which deliver about half of all Wikipedia pages. The software is commonly called just "Squid". Jamesday 17:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure why it should be a redirect, because as I mentioned originally, the web cache software is not made by any entity named "Squid Soft". There is, in fact, absolutely no mention of "Squid Soft" or "Squidsoft" anywhere on www.squid-cache.org, according to Google. There does happen to be a wholly seperate software company of that name. I'm new around here, but I would suggest the page should be removed, rather than redirect one company's name to another organization's product. JMD 21:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Max Baer - at best a anecdote, not an encyclopedia article Brian Rock 02:43, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
    • little more info, this appears to be a brand-new user, may not be familiar with what we are about Brian Rock 02:50, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
    • Keep page, not content. Between the boxer and actor of that name, I believe there should be a page there, but I agree not with the current content. I've stubbed in an idea of what I think it should contain. Niteowlneils 04:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Actor was Max Baer, Jr., the boxer's son. Both are certainly deserving of articles. Actor was famous for playing Jethro on the The Beverly Hillbillies. -- Decumanus 05:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Ok, it's a good start now. What do I do to 'decommission' the VfD? Thanks. Brian Rock 05:06, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
      • And what, if anything, do I have to do for it to be OK to delete the original 'joke'? I had been thinking of trying to work it in. However, that fight lasted four rounds, which isn't short enuf for the joke to make much sense.
        • I would be in favor of being bold and just wiping the original. As a matter of fact, I just did it. If needed, it can be recovered, but I don't know that it adds anything. Brian Rock 11:56, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 19:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Decumanus 22:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Trenton Ray - this has been on here since November. It is completely fictional, as far as I can tell It was created by JessPKC and has since been updated by several anonymous IP's since then. Someone has been pulling a little joke on Wikipedia, either individually or part of a group effort. -- Decumanus 03:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I think living in New York doesn't help you find such a small food chain. I am sure you personally could mention a handfull of franchises that you'd never be able to "prove exist" on the internet or even by talking to other people in your state.
      • Note. Above comment was from 209.226.132.114 who has been part of perpetrating the hoax, if not the original creator now editing anonymously.-- Decumanus 04:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, even if it weren't fictional Power 05:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • A discussion on deleting smaller chains has been done before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Captain_Submarine/delete where it was decided to keep them depending on their size.
        • Sorry, JessPKC/209.226.132.114. But you made a number of fatal mistakes that any Texan or ex-Texan like me could spot. For one thing, you have a wildy inaccurate view of racial relations in Texas. For example, the use of the term "Chicano" is a dead giveaway. Also implying Lampasas, Texas ia a too small to support a taco franchise. But the little game is over.-- Decumanus 05:21, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Chicano was not originally used. Someone edited the page replacing it with Chicano. Mexican-American was the original wording. New information is given to me by relatives. On the 24th, page was edited saying the lampasas store was closed, I investigated into this by asking around and what I inserted was what I was told was the "official" reason. As I am not Trenton Ray why should I be criticized for what was said as the reasons for its closing?
            • Those comments in question were added by IP address 209.226.132.97. Recurring address block seems to be from dial-up or pool in Ontario, Canada, same as claimed address of original poster. Adding knowingly false material to Wikipedia articles is a bannable offense. In any case, the community will take care of this. Google search for " 'Trenton Ray' taco" produces one hit, based on Wikipedia article.-- Decumanus 12:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. None of the major online telephone directories nor Fort Worth or Arlington directory assistance have a listing for the restaurant. Clearly fictional. -- Seth Ilys 16:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Trenton Ray does not exist. Yes, I am Texan. Ensiform 16:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, I'm a sucker. Delete. Meelar 16:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 19:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Utter bunk. Only relevent google hit for "Trenton Ray" restauarant Texas is Tutorgig.com article based on the Wikipedia one. This is prank/vandalism; other contributions by User:JessPKC and associated isps should be checked for more such. -- Infrogmation 19:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • StarProse - non notable small company. --Jiang 07:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 19:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Michelle. Silly. No content. RickK 07:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. How lame it should be turned into redirect since it is a link anyway i think i will redirect it
    • Delete. -Sean 08:00, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 19:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Shamelessness I'm not tripping right now and therefore feel unable to embrace the content, would anybody know whether this has some potential...? --Palapala 22:32, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bejewelled - an article about an admittedly fun online game (which also goes by the name of Gem Drop), but not particularly encyclopedic or notable. Darkcore 23:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A popular game; needs cleaning and to be moved to Bejeweled though. Mrwojo 03:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Slovenian War - POV and misleading. --denny vrandečić 12:12, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's just crap, it should be deleted. That page only exists because someone changed the fine pipe link from Yugoslav wars that pointed it to History of Slovenia; I'll go undo that. --Shallot 23:11, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I listed it on Cleanup, hoping somebody could NPOV it, but it looks hopeless. RickK 00:59, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 29

  • Harris family reunion association - this doesn't look significant enough. Only 1 hit in Google for "Harris family reunion association" which seems to be a family genealogical site. Darkcore 00:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 03:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The number of hits on google is irrelevant. It may not look significant enough to you, but that doesn't mean we should delete it. Keeping it doesn't hurt anything, and maybe it'll help someone. It was listed here for a reason, after all. Listing it here on VfD does nothing but waste everyone's time. Anthony DiPierro 04:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • What you're saying isn't a valid reason for keeping it either. The fact that it was listed on Wikipedia for a reason is irrelevant, it's the reason that it was listed that IS relevant. Darkcore 06:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • We don't know the reason it was listed. The valid reason for keeping it is that we don't know whether or not it will be useful to someone. Since it's not hurting anything, and it might be useful, deletion is pointless, and keeping is smart. It's better to keep 1000 articles which are insignificant than to lose a single one which is significant. Therefore we should err on the side of keeping, and it should be the requirement of the person requesting deletion to prove show why the article should be deleted, not the other way around. Look at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy_polls. Should lack of fame or importance be a legitimate reason to delete an article? There is no consensus that it should. And lacking consensus, an article should be kept. Anthony DiPierro 15:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • It's not about fame or importance, we have a lot of articles that are about non-famous places and people. It's about relevance, of which the article has very little. Its significance is limited only to a very small set of people (namely a small subset of the Harris family). This isn't a genealogical site; if people want to find out information about their family's history, there are websites and services out there that are available to them. Darkcore 22:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete, nonnotable. --Jiang
    • Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonnotable. --Wik 20:51, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 00:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but more to some higher-level page. list of reunion orgs, say. Whenever someone produces a "nonnotable"; art that isn't obviously a self-promo, it makes me think there should be a relevant meta- or list- page.
  • C. J. Everon and Justice Better Attained seem to be a self-promotion for an obscure author and their book. - SimonP 00:29, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems to be self-promotion for an obscure author and eir book. Anthony DiPierro 00:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Let me clarify. The author exists. The book exists. Obscurity is not a valid reason for deletion. Self-promotion, which may or may not be true, is also not a valid reason for deletion, and it can be fixed. Anthony DiPierro 04:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 00:49, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anthony, your comments are ridiculous. RickK 00:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't know if it's self-promotion or not, but the author and her book plainly do exist. Everyking 01:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The author and her book do exist, but so do a few million other authors. The book is in no Canadian libraries and there are no links to the author other than Wikipedia. I also can find no sign that the awards cited exist, nor the Scottish society that is meant to have given one of them. - SimonP 01:39, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion. Promotion of unremarkable authors & their books is what Amazon.com is for. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge both to higher-level pages -- if someone can verify this book exists. I can't find it via an ISBN-tracking site. CJE can prolly just be listed on the page of "Canadians", (already there!); but note that CJE or whoever created that article has contributed a lot to WP and isn't just a self-promoter. Still, neither of these needs its own page yet.
  • cybermedicine - bad dictionary definition Anthony DiPierro 00:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - very bad definition and an appropriate article for this would have a different title - Texture 03:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I initially thought it was garbage but googling on "Cybermedicine" has convinced me that the word exists and refers to practicing medicine over the Internet—that is, remotely from the patient and via the intermediary of a communications network. Dpbsmith 03:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This should be in cleanup, not VfD. Darkcore 06:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid encyclopedia topic. But article should be expanded. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Accad - contains "See "Babel's in Arms" by David Ives.". Google turns up nothing useful. --Nate Silva 00:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 03:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rate me site. I thought of moving this to rate-me site, and then saw that the page was absurd. Michael Hardy 01:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 03:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's badly written, and not all that interesting to me, but it's true, verifiable, and I can't see that any case has been put for deletion. Andrewa 03:19, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Could be expanded and should probably be renamed into something like "rate-me sites". Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Rewrote. Keep? Dysprosia 11:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (with new focus). Probably one of the top 10-20 most explosive new website categories to date. Niteowlneils 22:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Dance of the United States - it duplicates modern dance and ballet as well as being US-centric. redcountess 01:07, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, this shouldn't be deleted. The fact that there's a bit of overlap with other subjects doesn't matter - there's certainly an article to be written on this specific subject, and there seems to be a decent start on it now (admittedly, the article has a narrow focus right now - no mention of folk dance, for instance - but it can and will be expanded). The complaint that it's US centric seems very odd to me - isn't that like wanting to delete Politics of France for being Franco-centric? --Camembert 01:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Mrwojo 03:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Hushmail Advert for website. Maroux 01:34, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
    • Delete, nothing obvious special about it that would qualify it as the subject of an article. Dpbsmith 03:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've heard of it. Anthony DiPierro 03:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's reasonably popular. I've heard of it, too. Keep. RadicalBender 03:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I know of this site. --Johnleemk 08:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. (Is people having heard about something reason enough for an article?) Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • For the most part, yes, so long as it is not prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
      • Not in itself. Popular dictionary definitions, for instance, wouldn't have an article. But popular websites should. Anthony DiPierro 15:40, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Alexa rank 44,8oo and change, FWIW. No vote.Meelar 00:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • MediaWiki:Dih. Now obsolete as [[Mediawiki:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} selected anniversaries]] is used instead. Angela. 02:28, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for historical purposes. Perl 16:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • delete in the name of good housekeeping. might confuse people. --Jiang
  • Reach-around - Extremely POV. Once the POV is gone, what is left? Also, this is not part of regular baseball lingo. Kingturtle 02:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, it's about basketball! Phew ;). Keep. →Raul654 02:42, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. None of the top 20 hits from a Yahoo search for "reach around" -clown -wrestling -clowns refers to the baseball usage of this term. At best, this would probably end up as a disambig page. On the otherhand, maybe that would be a good thing--since the term seems to pop up in so many contexts, if the article is deleted it's likely to keep getting recreated. Niteowlneils 22:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Proton-proton fusion - this article is currently science-fantasy. I think there is such a thing as proton-proton fusion (such as in stars) but this isn't an article about that. It needs to be deleted or recreated into an article by someone with knowledge on the subject. - Texture 04:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Delete or recreate. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect for now to Nuclear fusion. Can be rewritten later as a separate article on that particular reaction. The article as it stands right now should really be something like Nuclear fusion as space transport or something like that, which is itself worthy of an article eventually, but this is too measley of a stub to keep in that regard. -- Decumanus 17:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We may double the size of wikipedia with various sci-fi gadgets and technologies: blasters, scorchers, antigravs, trasfulgulators, etc. (Could be a good idea, though.) Mikkalai 18:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Page is now rewritten as a physics page (which it should be). I did not mention the space travel aspect, since I'm not an expert at that. If included, it would only be as a paragraph at the end of a larger article anyway. -- Decumanus 22:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • While Decumanus has done some sterling work, proton-proton chain covers the topic well already. Suggest folding the two together (in particular, the vg graphic should be added to pp chain), and redirecting proton-proton fusion there. -- Bth
        • I agree. Was of course not aware of the other article. Proton-proton chain is more general and of course should be the main article. Proton-proton fusion should redirect. -- Decumanus 22:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Page now redirects to Proton-proton chain. Content merged, including graphic. -- Decumanus 22:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The picture is indeed nice, but should not feature a gamma ray, as this is part of the next step in the nucleosynthesis chain, not the p-p fusion. Pstevenson 22:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ. Product of fusion is always in an excited state, never the ground state. I see your point regarding typical decay times, however. The graphic was made for isolated reactions. Glad to defer to an expert on this. -- Decumanus 22:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Graphic now fits article. Perhaps follow-ups will come when motivation arises. :) -- Decumanus 22:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Nicely updated - withdrawing my request - will remove from list shortly - Texture 01:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Gundam Seed Episode 1, Gundam Seed Episode 2, Gundam Seed Episode 3, (Gundam Seed Episode 4 listed on February 28), Gundam Seed Episode 5, Gundam Seed Episode 6, Gundam Seed Episode 7, Gundam Seed Episode 8, Gundam Seed Episode 9, Gundam Seed Episode 10, Gundam Seed Episodes 1-5, Gundam Seed Episodes 6-10 -- plot summaries of an anime called "Gundam Seed", which appear to have been copied from fan sites [6] and [7]. Unencyclopedic. -- Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • An encyclopedia is a written compendium of human knowledge. It seems this qualifies. Anthony DiPierro 06:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- WormRunner 06:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • As is, delete due to copyvio. Secondly, even if (and it's a big if) someone wanted to do episode synopses for this show (which there is precedent for - see Star Trek: The Next Generation and The Simpsons), they should be under the episode name (e.g., "A False Peace," "They Call It, Gundam," "Collapsing Land," etc. as opposed to Episodes 1, 2 and 3). But, on a completely unrelated note: Gundam Seed - blech! :P RadicalBender 06:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • We have a separate page for copyright violations. Anthony DiPierro 15:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm quite aware of that. You'll notice that I didn't argue these articles should be deleted for being copyvios. I'm arguing that WP is not a dumpster. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Sam Spade 08:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Looks like copies from the fan sites. Why duplicate the text here, besides probable copyvio. Unless someone is going to re-write it from scratch as well as rename the articles according to what RadicalBender said. RedWolf 08:46, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Asssuming it is not a copyright violation, having this text would be a perfect starting point for an article. Whether or not it's a copyright violation is supposed to be determined on another page, frequented by people who know about that kind of thing. Anthony DiPierro 15:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • UN Resolution 687 - wiksource if not turned into article in 5 days. --Jiang 06:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with the above. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The resolution's text should go to Wikisource. I wrote a very very small sub-sub-stub to encourage other people write more. Optim 18:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of cities in San Marino - the list of cities is already in the San Marino article. Darkcore 08:19, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect instead. Muriel 08:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect. Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Redirect is pointless. Searches will find the base article anyway. Andrewa 11:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect since it prevents future duplication of the article. Optim 18:32, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Apocatastasis - currently on Transwiki. Originally on vfd in December 2003 but re-added after it was removed. See Talk:Apocatastasis. RedWolf 08:22, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Optim 10:12, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. (But could be expanded.) Elf-friend 10:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ricardo S. Sanchez - we dont need an article for every US military officer. Muriel 15:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Let me see if I can't work on it. Right now the article is just pulled exclusively from here. But the man is important; he's commander of the U.S. Army V Corps and seems to be, effectively, the top field commander in Iraq right now. RadicalBender 16:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • By the way, I've worked on the article now, combining the Army's info with info from other sources, making it more readable. RadicalBender 17:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Somewhat significant. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - He is the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq = important. Optim 18:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. He's certainly more significant to today's world than certain obscure Romans we have! :-) Pretty much every corps commander who ever existed will be significant enough in history to rate a bio. Stan 18:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course. Why on earth is this listed here? Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ruth Prawer Jhabvala Maroux 08:39, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
    • Not quite a speedy deletion (unless the info is incorrect). Try WP:VFD instead if you want. Dori | Talk 15:35, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've made it a bit more tho it's still a stub. RickK 02:22, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Kilian Knote - if Kilian has a page, i want one too. Muriel 16:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; purely a vanity page; no meaningful Google hits. Added VfD notice. -- Seth Ilys 16:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonfamous. Maroux 20:46, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  • Barangay Tisa. Barangays are the smallest unit of local government in the Philippines and typically consists of a community of about 1,000 people. There is no need to have an article on every barangay in the Philippines (which number about 35,000). Notable barangays can be discussed in the corresponding cities or municipalities. --seav 16:29, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • We have articles on US cities with populations smaller than this. I vote keep. Meelar 17:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Don't destroy cultures with small representation in Wikipedia. We have so many articles on obscure US cities, why not have articles on non-US communities, too? Wikipedia is not one nation's national encyclopaedia. Optim 18:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • True, but it does matter what level of distinction they're at. For instance, we don't have articles for each separate ward (city council districts) of Chicago. Then again, maybe we should. Meelar 19:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • keep Perl 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've long been in favor of keeping all of the Rambot creations, and I see no reason to delete little places in other countries. RickK 23:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes-no pen - another obscure Boyerism. --Wik 17:45, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Again with the Boyerism. If I had really invented all the stuff Wik et al. think I did I would be the most brilliant genius in history. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fails Google test totally. (btw, are there any geniuses that are not brilliant?) Maroux 20:43, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
      • All geniuses are brilliant, but some are more brilliant than others. BTW, I vote keep. Meelar 22:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not obscure at all. Darkcore 04:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Romeo Beckham - famous only for being the son of someone else -- Graham  :) 19:28, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete after merging the content with David Beckham. Optim 19:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The reason why someone is famous shouldn't be of our concern, only that they are. However, article is almost empty, so delete. Maroux 20:38, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
    • Delete unless someone can add some information to it that wouldn't be better stated on David Beckham. Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Like it or not, the Beckhams feature a lot in British media and culture. You can be sure that in years to come, this page will get larger and larger. Over the last year I bet more newspaper articles were written about Romeo than say Princess Beatrice of York (famous only for being the daughter of somone else) or maybe even Prince Andrew, Duke of York (again famous only for being the son of someone else) Dmn 21:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, it is not wikipedia's job to decide if someone should be famous, only if they are famous. -SimonP 02:41, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ,[[TLAs from IAA to LZZ|]],TLAs from MAA to PZZ,TLAs from QAA to TZZ,TLAs from UAA to XZZ,TLAs from YAA to ZZZ - These list are of little use, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Noldoaran (Talk) 19:36, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: Useful. Optim 19:40, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Useless because they dont organize these words they just list them. Bensaccount 20:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. These are useful for maintenance purposes, shows what TLAs are in use, makes it easy to get to "nearby" ones. I use these pages pretty regularly, and I think if other people used them more often, they'd be less likely to make hashed-up messes of TLA connections to articles. Stan 20:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Useful. Maroux 20:36, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
    • Keep. Really useful. Secretlondon 20:55, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Useless clutter. Everyking 21:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Wik 21:13, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Perl 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikipedia: namespace. Useful for meta purposes. Anthony DiPierro 21:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why? Because I like 'em. IMHO a very good example of something that's appropriate for a Web encyclopedia though not a print encyclopedia. Dpbsmith 01:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, just as useful as List of people by name etc. - SimonP 02:41, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Omar Sánchez - vanity page - almost a resume - Texture 20:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Why people think this should be in an encyclopedia, I'll never know. Maroux 20:35, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  • Nahuel Marisi - looks like a fake biography, notice that all events in the article are in the future - Andris 20:44, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonsense. --Wik 21:13, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not speculative fiction. I'll make an entry in my tickler file to check in 2011 and if Nahuel Marisi runs for Senator in the 2011 elections I'll insert an article about him then myself. Dpbsmith 01:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The Jones' - not based on any fact, fiction, or myth... - Texture 21:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • How can you say that ? Keep. Perhaps move to keeping up with the Jones'.theresa knott 21:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Texture has obviously never been to America. Perl 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Next time I'm in America I'll visit the Jones'. But this article does not represent the concept just one person's original work - Texture 21:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It should be The Joneses anyway; "The Jones'" is a plural possessive form, as in "I accidentally ran over the Jones' dog." I'd say keep it. Etymology here might be interesting. -- Wapcaplet 22:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • "Keeping up with the Joneses" is a fairly common US phrase, and I could see the value of an expanded entry on this concept. But please, please change it to "The Joneses" and get rid of that dangling apostrophe (it should be the plural of "Jones," not some kind of attempt at making the word possessive). If consensus is not willing to make that change, then I say delete. Moncrief 21:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, at proper spelling. Very well-known US expression--historically significant. Might also add a ref to the more modern "desparately desiring something (typically drugs)" usage. Between the two defs, I definately think it's a keeper. Probably should make the original page a redirect, so we don't have to go thru this again. Niteowlneils 22:33, 29 Feb
  • Salient - dictionary definition - Texture 21:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. Maybe redirect to Ypres Salient, which is probably worthy of an article due to its importance in WWI. See http://www.greatwar.co.uk/westfront/ypsalient/ Niteowlneils 22:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Or write an article about the concept in military strategy, with illustrative examples, of which there are plenty, including Kursk. (It's not clear that the Ypres redirect would be useful, as there are so many other possiblities. List of historical salients?) But otherwise, just delete.
    • Keep. As it is now, it's a dictionary definition, but it could potentially become something better. →Raul654 02:04, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Quedar Bien translation of a spanish phrase. Perl 22:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unless this phrase is well known among English speakers, there is no point in having it on the English WP. Move to Spanish version? Maroux 22:20, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 01:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Zerjavic - incomplete title, orphaned article, rather slanderous bit of content, not marked as a stub, a reasonably insignificant person whose (tangential) impact is already discussed on other pages, was created merely because of User:Igor's usual agenda, overall not encyclopedic. I pondered cleanup for this but it just doesn't look like it's worth it. --Shallot 23:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I moved and improved it. There's no good reason for deleting this. This sort of thing is very important to understanding Croatian politics, especially during the early to mid '90s. Everyking 00:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 1

  • Operation Downwood - is a redirect to Operation Chastise (The Dambusters raid). But it's an incorrect redirect. For some reason long ago someone on Wikipedia said that the the Dambusters raid was called Operation Downwood; but it wasn't and has never been called that. The mistake remained in Wikipedia for more than a year, before someone noticed and move the page. Put Operation Downwood into Google and all you get are references that have been copied from Wikipedia and nothing else. Time to expunge this. Mintguy (T) 01:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Jeesh - limited slang word RickK 02:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and merge into Battle school or Ender's Game - I loved the books but Jeesh just isn't more than a dictionary definition of a fictional word - Texture 02:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2580286"