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 Ping (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 21 January 2004. 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 or vote on even if you think it is obvious.

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 -- foreign language -- images -- personal subpages -- lists and categories -- redirects -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

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

Votes in progress

Older than 7 days




January 17

  • Micronesian music Some anonymous person's comment on life it seems. RedWolf 03:44, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Redwolf's on the money. - UtherSRG 05:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 07:39, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 12:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, though it is oddly touching. Tempshill 18:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: worthwhile topic. Somebody will fill it in. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:32, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Having it here makes it more likely that someone will fill it in, and it's a valid topic. Valid topic = keep. Even badly written is better than nothing; inaccurate means blank the text, but leave the article. Meelar 01:06, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not badly written and it's not inaccurate. Like Tempshill said, it's oddly touching. I like it just the way it is. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • (Not a vote) It is touching...pity we can't really preserve it anywhere. Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense doesn't seem the appropriate place. Maybe we should leave it in the article as "someone's comments on Micronesian music"? PMC 21:11, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a valid topic and a good start to an article. It's currently a stub and should have a stub notice, and it may not be our conventional stub format but actually it's a very good stub IMO. Andrewa 17:15, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I rewrote it, but it's still not very informative. I don't mind whether it's deleted or not. Angela. 22:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think Angela's rewrite has left it very keepable. It will grow with time. Jwrosenzweig 00:40, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. JDR


  • One thousand one Unless someone wants to do one to nine hundred ninety nine, I don't see a need for this article at present. RedWolf 04:11, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 07:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But only if it is expanded a bit. 1001 is a special number often used to mean, well, a lot. 1001 Arabian Nights, 1001 the detergent. 1001 ways to.... 1001 uses for ... Certainly a more famous number than many. (Mathematically speaking, more interesting than almost all of them if we go up to infinity.) And let's not forget 1001 Dalmations. (Thsi film was 101, the book was 1001.)SpellBott 13:08, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Special significance in Arabic culture. Alf layla wa layla - a thousand nights and a night. Alf sukran wa shukran - a thousand thank-yous and a thank-you. And some stuff about fleas I will not mention :) Anjouli 17:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • This needs to be added to the article, then, to make it merit survival. At that point it would indeed be a keeper, but right now it's not. Tempshill 18:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Add the good stuff, then it's a keeper. - UtherSRG 18:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Thoroughly useless.Robartin 18:09, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yep, delete. PMC 21:11, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, since its a keeper since the good stuff CAN be added even if neither you nor I want to do it right now. BL 05:32, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not a sufficiently interesting number AFAIK, and the criterion should be, does the article justify the claim that it is? Even a good stub should do this, but this doesn't at present. If someone familiar with arabic culture likes to add the above claims in a suitable form, then reassess. Andrewa 21:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep if copyedited ... otherwise too amorphous IMO, JDR
  • Noxious trade - dictionary definition. Wiktionary? silsor 05:40, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 05:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. RedWolf 08:11, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. PMC 21:11, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • mv to wiktionary and/OR redirect/merge with tanner article. JDR
  • List of music videos. I smell raw duplication of information from List of songs by name. One only needs to say within List of songs by name whether that song has a video or not. Denelson83 05:42, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bogus list. - UtherSRG 05:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 07:39, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. RedWolf 09:42, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bogus list. Jade Hamblyn 11:38, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Bogus. PMC 21:11, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The vast majority of songs does not have a music video. And I think some songs has more than one. Can someone explain to me why a list of music videos is not suitable for an encyclopedia? BL 05:32, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, the article entitled music video already has such a list. Why not add to that one? Denelson83 09:18, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • merge with appropriate article and redirect. JDR
  • X86-int - do we really need encyclopedia articles on assembly language commands? silsor 08:22, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We definitely do not need separate articles for each instruction of a processor. If the author wants to use one article to list the instructions perhaps that might be okay. Anyone doing any x86 programming is going to want to find a book anyways. RedWolf 09:42, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; I agree with all of what Redwolf said. Tempshill 18:35, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 18:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Also delete X86-jmp. X86-mov is a redirect; I guess that's OK. X86 assembly language has a list of all the instructions, with the text "Click on them to read more about them" -- may want to discourage that. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:34, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. We definitely do need separate articles for each instruction of a processor. WP is a reference right? Therefore we need instruction references. And I expanded the page too. BL 05:39, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not necessary to delete. Redirect back to parent page if too little can be said for an independent article (and change parent article). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Il Vicoletto - advert for a restaurant in Sydney. Secretlondon 13:01, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Advert, delete. Tempshill 18:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 18:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. silsor 20:56, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - it contains no real advertising information - no phone number, no boasting, etc, just a factual entry about what this restaurant really is - an Italian restaurant in Sydney. Rronline 04:52, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-famous. Non-important. --Imran 22:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Imran, your comment on non-famous and non-important is not enough, really, to delete an article. Just saying that an article is too unimportant for Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not a good article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia of entire human knowledge, encompassing as many facts and articles as possible, even if they are non-famous or unimportant. Instead of judging articles by their importance in the real world, we should be judging them on whether they are written from a neutral point of view, are factual, contain information, are good articles in general and things like that. I believe that Il Vicoletto is a good article in that respect, because I believe we can take Wikipedia further than being just an encyclopedia. If it were just an encyclopedia, then we wouldn't have articles on companies at all (just like Britannica really doesn't), or on brand names, or more. But, Wikipedia is different, and by including as much information as we can in it, even if it's not really important, we're making Wikipedia so much more than an encyclopedia. Also, a more practical reason to include the article is because I know a lot of people (and I do it myself), who, when searching for anything (ranging from a medical disease, economical info, trend, trademark, unknown language, restaurant, etc) would first search it on Wikipedia. The same applies with Il Vicoletto - people might search it on Wikipedia, read about it, and then go to its offical site. In conclusion - think about it - does this article do anything wrong by being here in Wikipedia? Rronline 00:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Rronline, we've attempted to answer your commentary here: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Wants (proposal). →Raul654 00:24, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nothing interesting to say about it. Wikipedia is not like the phone book: you don't get an article here just by taking up space on Planet Earth. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Firstly - the What Wikipedia Wants page is a proposal, it is not really a rule-book of Wikipedia but rather a guide. And, I believe the guidelines listed there are not correct - we should aim to make Wikipedia as broad as possible - including things even like high schools, etc. No, not like a phone book or dining directory, but like an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. And, how do you know Il Vicoletto isn't famous. Do any of you live in Sydney??? Rronline 06:39, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Ronald Paul Bucca - move to sept 11th wiki? Secretlondon 14:47, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move as stated. - UtherSRG 18:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move, but leave a summary and link behind. silsor 20:57, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if fire marshal is at least semi-important. --Jiang

January 18

  • History of slavery in the United States of America - Not an article, written by an admitted bookseller, just poor info on two books about the subject. Flockmeal 06:00, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote. Do you think this article can expand? Do you think we can list the books under another article? Optim 06:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is a stub with some citations worse than a stub with none? If someone has gone to the trouble of adding some valid references, I don't see the point in deleting the entire article. In short, why not just add the standard "This is a stub" description? Peak 06:57, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • But it isn't a stub. A stub would have a sentence of content. Abstain. Morwen 10:54, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If we're going to have an article titled the "History of Slavery in the USA", then I think it should have some content actually covering the history, not just brief info about some books on the subject. Maybe this article is better listed over at cleanup. Flockmeal 06:12, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; there are thousands of books on this subject, so an article that does nothing but list two of them at random is not really any better than no article at all. --Delirium 06:34, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Before it was listed for deletion, I listed it on Cleanup. Keep for now. silsor 07:53, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, becasue it is listed on cleanup, which seems the better action. SpellBott 09:55, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be at least a stub. --Jiang
    • Wrote article. I know someone can do better than it, though. C'mon people! Meelar 08:09, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but move to Slavery in the United States of America. Bmills 09:43, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: important topic. Looks like somebody's been working on it. Great, keep up the good work. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:35, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Topic is valid and much underdiscussed. Whole books have been written on it (e.g., the US checkered past vs evolving ideals) ... JDR 06:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 19

  • American Idle - describes unfavorable (and probably rare) view of TV show American Idol. -Smack 02:57, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and merge anything worthy into American Idol. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. silsor 04:32, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Same here. - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. SpellBott 06:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, not valid topic. Meelar 07:15, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - disguised rant - Texture 15:51, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a valid typo. Redirect to American Idol →Raul654 17:10, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • Did you read the article? I'm a little incredulous that anyoue could see this as anything beyond an attack piece. It is a single sentence saying that the show is "taking up" valuable time. The article begins "Some thought it was strange that in the midst of a floundering if not drowning economy, wardrumming, questions about the legitimacy of the Bush presidency..." Also included are links to similar attacks on the show. I don't watch the show or find it interesting, but this article is an attack, not a spelling mistake. - Texture 18:01, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Just because the article is an attack not a spelling mistake, it doesn't mean someone might not spell idol as idle in a search engine. If we redirect we catch that traffic theresa knott 16:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • I think you misunderstand, Texture. Theresa reinterated what I wanted to say perfectly. Yes, this is an attack rant. Delete the content, and turn the page into a redirect, to catch people who make typos. →Raul654 19:53, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
            • Does Wikipedia normally create an entry for every possible spelling mistake? I've never seen a traditional encyclopedia include even one. I agree with Meelar on not keeping insulting redirects. - Texture 22:14, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
              • No, not every possible one - just common ones, like "idle" for "idol". →Raul654 23:50, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Rant. Tempshill 18:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • As it stands delete - but the expression does seem to be used. Gets 3,600 google hits. Yes its partisan - but so are _all_ the slogans on wikipedia. Secretlondon 18:46, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not NPOV, it's just a rant. Rdash 18:52, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and don't redirect as redirect would be POV. Angela. 23:14, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as a redirect. Not even necessarily insulting; lots of people misspell homophones accidentally. Plus, we do already have potentially insulting redirects, such as Dubya, as noted above. --Delirium 23:07, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Amiga Religion - article about fanatical devotion to the Amiga computer, begins by saying "Amiga as a religion or religious cult seems to be widely overstated as such" --Smack 04:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, merge anything interesting into Amiga. silsor 04:37, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete & merge. - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Ridiculous. Tempshill 18:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete ike9898 23:21, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Svend-Allan Sørensen - apparently a person of little importance --Smack 04:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 04:32, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This guy exists and is a practicing artist. Not for us to decide if he's the next Picasso. I'm listing on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Bmills 12:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There is no indication that the individual has done anything notable. Maximus Rex 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: unimportant. I don't see a need for the practice of giving everybody a write up in case they happen to become famous. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Christopher Hsu - vanity page. - Hephaestos 04:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. silsor 04:32, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Why do people think anyone cares about them? Put it on your own user page. Sheesh! - UtherSRG 04:39, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, make a user page for 18.251.6.65, and move it to there. It will look very pretty. - User:Ashibaka 05:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Good idea. I just did (without the edit by another anon. - UtherSRG 17:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 15:14, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete ike9898 23:21, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Truth (Serious Account) - looks like an older version of Truth. - UtherSRG 04:31, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, article was created by someone who had disagreements over Truth. silsor 04:37, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not the way to handle this sort of dispute, a very dangerous precedent in fact. Andrewa 17:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge content with existing truth article and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Idiocracy - one line definition. I can't see how this can be expanded without POV problems. Also an orphan. Secretlondon 09:23, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Idiocracy makes no mention of, and is easily confused with, its traditional definition and its present definition ([1], [2]) is inescapably POV. Chris Roy 10:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 17:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Suitable only for Wiktionary, and if I were a contributor there I'd vote to delete it from Wiktionary, too, for not being a word. Tempshill 18:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oberschule am Elsengrund - I have asked the author(s) to actually write some text on that school. Only if they do not should this article be deleted.
    • Please sign your name.... - UtherSRG 17:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've looked at the article in German wikipedia and at the school web site. Its a school in east Berlin. I have added to the article but found nothing special. I will put the vfd tag on the page as you didn't. Secretlondon 17:20, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • UtherSRG and Secretlondon, please don't be so strict with me. For the school in question: As far as I'm concerned, adding trivial information on a particular school does not make the article any more encyclopaedic. Encyclopaedias traditionally draw the line at university level: An institution of higher learning deserves its own article, a school does not unless
(1) the building that houses the school is of architectural value;
(2) lots of famous people were educated there, preferably by equally famous teachers;
(3) it features prominently in a book or, even better, a movie;
(4) it was the scene of a bombing, school massacre, etc.
<KF> 20:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Did the policy on schools ever get finalized? KEEP, Wiki is not paper. Gentgeen 08:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Pray, what policy on schools? <KF> 14:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Current practice and I think policy is to delete such entries, much discussed, sorry I can't provide a link, but I don't think it's a very well thought out policy. Andrewa 16:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 20

  • Telophase - dictionary definition. silsor 03:42, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Expand if possible, redirect to mitosis if not. — No-One Jones (talk) 03:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I made it a redirect to mitosis. The mitosis article would have to get a _lot_ more detailed before we would need to farm out each phase into an article by itself. -- Finlay McWalter 03:54, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It could conceivably get a lot more detailed... Alfred E. Mirsky's "The Cell, Biochemistry, Physiology, Morphology, Volume III: Meiosis and Mitosis" runs to 440 pages. Of course I don't know the book, for all I know it could be 435 pages on meiosis and 5 on mitotis.  :-) Dpbsmith 18:11, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Formalism (art) - dictionary definition. silsor 03:42, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - UtherSRG 14:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • This is in fact a copyvio from Merriam-Webster online. I have listed it as such. Bmills 14:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Windex - only advertisement, I don't expect this to become more then a stub ever andy 14:12, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - UtherSRG 14:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
    • If there were an article on glass cleaners, it could be a redirect there, but since no such article exists, delete. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, its a major brandname product that I'm sure has a history, composition, and uses that could fill an artilce. - SimonP 15:59, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. I'd be willing to work on it. --zandperl 16:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. silsor 00:10, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Photon torpedo Fictional, not much to be said about it. Merge with Star Trek article in section such as "Invented technologies". Mr. Jones 14:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge & Delete Redirect. - UtherSRG 14:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙ - amended UtherSRG 14:26, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect, unless there are some Trekkers out there willing to give it a fuller treatment. — No-One Jones (talk) 14:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, don't merge. Being fictional is not grounds for deletion, and neither is being a stub. If it needs attention, it should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. -- Finlay McWalter 14:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not a stub, there is nothing more to be said about photon torpedos. Mr. Jones 15:02, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep, there is much more to be said about them - SimonP 15:59, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a decent sized article about a piece of science fiction. Compare to One Ring (Lord of the Rings, Tolkien) if you don't like SciFi. Otherwise, see Physics and Star Trek and Physics and Star Wars for many other such "inventions." --zandperl 16:17, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Although photon torpedos may have been invented in Star Trek the term is now used in non-trek contexts as well. --Imran 19:21, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems like a nice article. Gentgeen 22:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, interesting. silsor 00:10, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: even if there isn't more to say, this is informative enough. Photon torpedoes are enough in everyday language that I imagine people would go looking for what they were (and without knowing the Star Trek connection), so our having an article is a fine thing. Jwrosenzweig 00:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Lee Silvan nothing seems notable about this individual. Gets very few google hits 10. Maximus Rex 17:08, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Fewer than that. One is about Silvan Michelle Lee, two are lists of names in which Lee is the last name of one person and Silvan the first of the next. Hey, I get ten Google hits! Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Incidentally, page was created from Philadelphia. silsor 00:10, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Suave If it is a kind of shampoo it might fit in the WP. If it is a brand, then out with it! Pfortuny 20:24, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Really worthless. As it is, not even worth merging with anything. Delete! ike9898 23:18, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Kill it with fire. silsor 23:44, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Urm... pur it down the drain! - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Megaesophagus. Contains a two-word definition and two related topics. --Smack 01:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but check to make sure definition is included on pages linked to it (or it links to, as appropriate). - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Moisture. Definition. --Smack 01:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Put in Wiktionary, then delete. - UtherSRG 01:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

January 21

  • List of comic and cartoon characters I'm probably being too harsh, but I think this is ridiculous. jengod 02:12, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:44, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep!! - Optim 05:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) (?)
    • Merge into individual entries as appropriate, redirect to List of comic strips, and delete. -mhr 05:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • What Michael said. There is no way this will ever live up to its name, and I can't see it ever being particularly useful even if it did. —Paul A 05:55, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Technagenesis - idiosyncratic mumbling. Salsa Shark 04:37, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. - UtherSRG 04:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI:> 3180 God hits for: technogenesis. Optim 05:46, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) (?)
    • Delete, it seems to be a non-subject created by joining two unrelated terms. ping 06:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Sportsman - dictionary definition. Unless people think there are things to be written about this subject that go beyond a mere definition, move to Wiktionary. -- Vardion 04:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Sportsmanlike? Sportsmanship? All should be in Wiktionary. - UtherSRG 04:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Stoner Metal - it was blanked, I agree there isn't much content there to keep. Perhaps it should be made a redirect Dori | Talk 06:35, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2199231"