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 Wile E. Heresiarch (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 24 February 2004 (vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Boilerplate

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

Subpages

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

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

Votes in progress

Ongoing discussions

February 12

February 13


February 15

  • Diego Marani - hopelessly POV. Each sentence portrays Marani and Europanto as an attack on Esperanto and Esperantists. I really can't see anything in there to salvage except "Diego Marani...is the inventor of...Europanto". At least part of the article looks like it was created by one of the parties involved in the edit war at Europanto. --cprompt 17:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 23:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub. Anthony DiPierro 00:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Too stubby; having both this stub and Europanto amounts to doing the same thing twice. Delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: redundant with Europanto. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep stub version (should say he invented Europanto, but not duplicate the material in that article). --Delirium 07:05, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid stub. BL 07:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep the current stub. Herbee 03:58, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Catherine Loguidice - move to 9-11 wiki. andy 21:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Nothing there to move, but one might want to move the talk page. Whether or not, as a Wikipedia article, delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to 9-11 wiki. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. 9/11 victims are encyclopedic. BL 07:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless more information is added. Anthony DiPierro 20:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. 9-11 is encyclopedic, murder victims are not. Herbee 04:00, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • Delete. Individual 9/11 victims are only encyclopedic if they have done something more notable than merely dying. Davodd 00:45, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

February 16

  • Dated -- wiktionary entry ? Mikkalai 08:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: related to fashion history; can grow. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Mariusz 19:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The current definition belongs in a dictionary more than a encyclopedia, but there are atleast two or three more usages for the word so I'd rather err on the side of caution. Keep. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Bearcat 10:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 22:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Scotchtoberfest - doesn't merit its own article IMO. Dori | Talk 18:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but needs cleaning up. Apparently this has become a real event since invention by the makers of the Simpsons... -- Graham  :) 18:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If this information can be added to it and thus it is not just a duplication of information which can be better dealt with by being merged into some Simpsons article, I vote to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not even close to being some central concept in The Simpsons, let alone outside. Andre Engels 16:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I wonder about the usefulness of the "central concept" standard. It seems vague and unuseful to me. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Simpsons and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 01:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. 378 Google hits. The Simpsons are so popular that every little detail in the show deserves an article. Atleast every episode. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Mishac 12:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Pulchritudinous - dictdef, nothing more. Fuzheado 23:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Somebody has now turned this into a redirect to Beauty, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, since anybody presented with "Beauty (redirected from Pulchritudinous)" would be none the wiser as to its meaning. If it were likely to come up in other articles, it should be left as a stub. Given that I doubt that, I vote delete. - IMSoP 00:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I have a problem with the redirect. 'Pulchitrude' may be defined as 'physical beauty and appeal,' but in the last few decades it has taken on a connotation of, shall we say, a much earthier kind of appeal. There are some, me for instance, who while not criticising the fleshier, more sensual message the word now carries, may not necessarily see it as pertaining to beauty. Best bet - send it off to Wikt & delete Denni 20:31, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Merge with beauty then redirect, or keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with beauty & redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge, redirect, AND transwiki? Fennec 03:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Transwiki to wiktionary, but do not merge with "beauty". There is no encyclopedic content in here at all, just a definition. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a thesaurus, so beauty does not need this. --Delirium 05:57, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 17

  • Michael Shankle, orphan, name gets 92 hits on google, on first page for several different people of the name. Any fame, use? -- Infrogmation 05:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge content into Manowar (band) and delete Andre Engels 00:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge w/ Manowar and delete. IIRC there are several such pages -- one for everybody who's ever been the band. Same for all of them. Sorry, I'm too lazy to go find them now. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If it is done as Wile and I propose, I'm willing to do the search for these pages. Andre Engels 15:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. famous. (not EVERYthing is on google) BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Famous. Not everything is on google. Unorphan with link from band. Anthony DiPierro 04:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article lacks context. No evidence of fame or mportance. --Imran 16:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


  • RSSOwl - self promotional, yet another program Fuzheado 14:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Perhaps mention somewhere as an example RSS reader, but doesn't deserve its own article (yet). [Note: you forgot to put the VfD notice on. I've added it now.] - IMSoP 17:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Robert Happelberg 19:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: just another RSS reader which is already listed as an external link on Really Simple Syndication. Not significant enough to warrant its own article. RedWolf 03:41, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: I don't agree it's self-promotional, but it shouldn't be in an article - maybe move to the dictionary?
    • Keep! I google for RSSOwl and get 3,700 hits. RSSOwl +java get 2,620 hits. Definitely significant enough to warrant its own article. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • List of relational topics -- not a single topic since the article's start in Aug, 2003. Morever the article has a vague purpose. Jay 14:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Could be an article, but not this. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't a comparison of people be POV? Delete either way. -- user:zanimum
    • Keep. As I understand it, relational topics are all topics named "X and Y" and WP has a lot of those. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

February 18

  • Abromeitiella - This page has no purpose, it's a a deleted plant genus, and hasn't been edited since 2002. Flockmeal 04:19, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it existed as a taxonomic classification at one point, then it's probably encyclopedic. People who read references to it in older botany textbooks and aren't aware of the change might want to look it up here. I suggest moving the info on the taxonomical correction to deuterocohnia and then making this article a redirect. Psychonaut 12:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Would have voted to keep, but Psychonaut's move & redirect proposal sounds even better. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote keep atleast until someone has written the deuterocohnia article. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Claremont Resort Boycott - This page needs major revision or total deletion. Flockmeal 04:34, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If someone would like to write an article on the Claremont Resort, then this can be incoporated. Delete is not improved. --Jiang
    • Delete. Stub on a current affair never likely to be worthy of an article, written by an anonymous user probably connected to the dispute. If it ever becomes sufficiently famous, write the article then. Andrewa 09:26, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Probably not important; rewrite if it happens to become so (unlikely). Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Claremont Resort. Or is Wikipedia finished and we can stop accepting stubs? Anthony DiPierro 21:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, for reasons given. The place is lousy, by the way, a bad joke on a respected local institution; and the long-running labor dispute may be directly related to its badness; but it's not Wikipedia material. Dandrake 23:14, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if it can be expanded, otherwise delete. But best bet if it cannot be expanded is to merge with the resort. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Verifiable and seems to be "big enough". BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Protein molecule - No useful content. Happy to reconsider if any info is added. -- Warofdreams 16:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirected to Protein for now, not sure if they should be separate articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I see no reason whatsoever to do so. Anyway, keep as redirect. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, on the grounds that in general [[substance]]s don't have a redirect from [[substance molecule]]. Herbee 04:24, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • List of collectors - This "list" only contains two people. Either add more and revise the article, or delete. -Flockmeal 21:28, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - a list lacking a list - Texture 21:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dumb. Anthony DiPierro 23:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If there were actually a lot of collectors listed it could be worth keeping, but not with only 2 people. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless - Graham  :) 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with collecting before deleting. Jay 19:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are now five items and the page can grow endlessly. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Impossible list to maintain. Redirect to collecting or similar article. Rossami 04:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete because of no interest whatsoever. Herbee 04:30, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • Keep. Valid list. I've added a section on stamps. Link with more articles and make it grow. Jay 08:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Inane. Will we have List of quilters next? Davodd 00:42, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

February 19

  • How to compute calendars - Article rehashes knowledge already available in detail on Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and Calendar itself, as well as being very centered on both of those calendars, but not giving details for either. If I have missed something, the missing content should be merged into one of those three and this page deleted; it does not provide additional value. Should the article instead be enhanced to encompass a "how to" guide for every calendar around, a lot of duplication would be neccessary (of the articles for the respective calendars) Eike 03:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Info needs correcting, but merge any useful content with calendar and redirect -- Graham  :) 12:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • merge and redirect Rossami 04:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Montreal Canadiens Captains - No signifigant updates since 2002, no reference to what these captains "captain", but I'd guess an NHL team. Update or delete. --Flockmeal 04:55, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Just because it hasn't been updated, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. It does mention above, and have a link to the Montreal Canadien's NHL team entry. I'd suggust merging with the team article, if anything Lyellin 06:07, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • The 300 new captains in the last year or so have not been added to the list: Better delete right away. :) mydogategodshat 07:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Lyellin -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, this is one of the more ridiculous deletion requests I have seen in some time. - SimonP 14:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Isn't preceding vote nonNPOV? ;-) Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep ofcourse! BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Entirely legitimate content. Keep. Maybe move the title to "List of...", though. Bearcat 17:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • John Highway - Appears to be purely a vanity page. The only edits are by User:John Highway, and this is the only page he has ever edited on Wikipedia. Bryan 08:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete vanity page -- Graham  :) 11:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs substantial revision by someone else for POV and specificity if this can be found out. Very marginal, but if the revision cannot be done, I certainly vote to delete. I don't think we should be making a decision on this article based on what pages he's edited in Wikipedia, however. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Didn't intend that to be a reason why it should be deleted in itself, merely a piece of evidence to support my impression that this was created as a vanity page. Bryan 02:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete vanity page (not on the basis of pages having been edited by the user but simply the nature of the page in question -- an ad and vanity. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Elf-friend 23:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • move to USER PAGE then delete. Davodd 22:41, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to User:John Highway. It's completely unnecessary to delete this, although that is probably harmless since it's so new. In fact, I just moved it, so the crisis is gone! No vote needed, even a non-admin could have done it. -- Toby Bartels 06:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, if this user makes no further edits (note that he's also used the IP 141.156.91.206), then this should be deleted -- including the user page (which now has the vfd message). Do fake user pages (for users that aren't actually editors) go through the same deletion process? Surely there's a period of time that one should wait to allow the user to come back -- is there a standard waiting period for that? -- Toby Bartels
  • Indoor, dictionary definition - SimonP 16:14, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Vanity. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Mv to dictionary. Wish transwiki links were viable. ( "Vanity"? Are we reading the same page?) Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete bad dicdef -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Generative programming - vanity - just trying to sell a single book - Texture 16:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Is it a recognised programming style? If so turn into a stub, it could improve. Otherwise delete -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No, just a book - Texture 20:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not just a book. The article should be turned into a stub. ShaneKing 23:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Mrwojo 21:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I did not know of this style until now although I have probably used some of the techniques like it in the past. Google returns 10 pages of hits and the ACM Digital Library has 27 citations[2] on the book. Whenever an anon adds a page with a book reference that usually provokes suspicion on motive but I think in this case, the topic has sufficient merit to be kept. RedWolf 06:40, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Koehl - Wikipedia does not have articles on lastnames - SimonP 16:48, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with List of people by name: Ko before deleting. Jay 19:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - only listed entry is a user and links to a user page - Texture 20:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: nonencyclopedic, vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reason for deletion is not adequate. WP does have other articles on surnamees.. Rousseau, Bach -- mostly as disambig pages.. but how would an article on a surname definition, origin, history and notable so-named individuals not be encyclopedic. Davodd 22:51, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Korova - a self described "not so well-known metal act" - SimonP 16:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Google came back with a few hits [3][4][5][6] so they appear to be better known than the article gives credit for. keep -- Graham  :) 20:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Injury - a dictionary definition and not a very good or complete one. Dpbsmith 17:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete dicdef -- Graham  :) 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 20:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Am I completely wrong, or is injury a legal concept? Maybe a lawyer could expand this...or maybe not. Just a thought. I'd have no problem with deletion in its current form. Meelar 03:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Elf-friend 23:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I object to the page being redirected to body since there are many other types of injury than just physical injury. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Triads in Hong Kong - about a less-than-relevant movie, looks rather like advertising. Kosebamse 20:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Created redirect to Triad but apart from a user page and this page it's an orphan anyway so might as well delete. -- Graham  :) 20:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep redirect - Texture 20:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, legitimate topic. Fuzheado 03:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • FYI if you look at the article at triad the subject is already covered there. -- Graham  :) 12:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Scartho Top - irrelevant. Kosebamse 20:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikified, deleted some content and turned into a stub. And I've never been there, how good is that? Keep. -- Graham  :) 20:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - why would this be considered irrelevant? - Texture 20:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, No harm in a little background info. I'll find some more info asap. Seraosha 23:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC
  • Maurice Bejart - I agree the article is a stub, but who cares? Who is this guy? Dude has a website, but that doesn't make him important (I have one--I don't have an entry). Needs to be deleted. —Frecklefoot 21:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - lots of google hits that make him look very famous in his part of the world (by content, not necessarily by quantity) - Texture 21:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to have won some prizes - however I know nothing about ballet. I've added a little bit of info. It's also not _his_ website - it's a listing of Kyoto prize laureates. His ballet company has a professional looking web site (in French). Secretlondon 22:00, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, could improve -- Graham  :) 22:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Famous for a pretty long time now. Mikkalai 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, move to Maurice Béjart and list on cleanup: there must be more to write about him. Maurice Béjart is famous — certainly more noteworthy than a lot of other people covered in Wikipedia. Lupo 09:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely to keep. European ballet dancer and later famous choreographer. --Palapala 00:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • USA PATRIOT Act, as it applies to citizens and non-citizens - Was on cleanup, but content has nothing to do with title. No significant activity since creation in July. Orphan. I don't see any way to clean up (or need). Rossami 22:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - rant - not even an attempt at an article (and not the right title for one) - Texture 22:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete rant -- Graham  :) 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The content contained in there should already be covered elsewhere. In which case, delete. Anthony DiPierro 02:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fuzheado 03:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Hopeless. Delete. Kosebamse 08:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Article with somewhat clumsy title. My tentative vote is to delete, but I could be persuaded to change this if the highly arguable POV text, off-topic by its own admission, were radically altered. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 20

  • Small Molecule. Improperly capitalized title, plus nothing there but links to other pages. RickK 03:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Capitalisation is irrelevant, but the other criterion is enough for deletion. DJ Clayworth 15:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - but redirect to molecule. Jargon. Any (potential) real content can live in "molecule" article instead. Same for Small molecule.
    • Redirect to molecule -- Graham  :) 18:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of geophysicists - one geophysicist does not a list make. --Mishac 03:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. From little things big things grow. ShaneKing 03:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Important subdiscipline. -- Decumanus 03:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - when you have more than one, you can make a list - Texture 05:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You mean like now, when there are four on it? ShaneKing 06:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I change my vote, keep now. 4 geophysicists does a list make. --Mishac 07:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: impossible maintenance task. It's going to be comprehensive, right? (Because otherwise it should be titled List of geophysicists filtered in some way.) There's no way WP can keep up; they make a lot of new geophysicists every year, you know. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but move to geophysicist, 5 would make a list. -- User:Docu
      • Update: now there are 6: keep. -- User:Docu
    • Hey, Wily one -- check out this occupation list list. Please explain what you would like done with those lists...
    • Keep. First the argument was that there was to few geophysicists, now it is that there is to many? :) BL 10:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep list -- Graham  :) 18:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • FileMaker Pro POV review of obscure software. Mrdice 08:34, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Delete. FileMaker already exists. Maybe a redirect, as this product is often referred to both FileMaker and FileMaker Pro? --Vikingstad 09:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I am pretty sure filemaker and filemaker pro are distinct, and both are very common software.
      • As a matter of fact, FileMaker and FileMaker Pro are, when people talk about them, the same product. Just take a look at the FileMaker page. I am still for a redirect. --Vikingstad 09:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I stand corrected. I'll vote for a redirect too.
    • Keep as redirect. Not of great importance but the redirect is helpful. Andrewa 09:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect. As a power-user of FM/Pro: Yes they are the same. No it's not that obscure! :-/ Elf 21:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to FileMaker. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's definitely not an obscure software. BL 10:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. My future mother-in-law's employment is basically doing stuff in FileMaker Pro. Incidentally, she always calls it "Pro", so if we redirect, based on my experience, FileMaker should be the redirect, not FileMaker Pro. Jwrosenzweig 19:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Stratocracy - dictionary definition that is already included in the only article referencing it. - Texture 17:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Definition was wrong. Fixed. New article, but recommend Wiktionary if it's not substantially expanded. Rossami 18:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Needs content, otherwise wiktionary and delete -- Graham  :) 18:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The Roxie Advert. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not even a very good advert. - DropDeadGorgias 19:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless it is significant or historical in some manner. —Frecklefoot 19:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep this stub. Davodd 19:38, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well-known in San Francisco Bay Area history & current culture. Elf 21:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • New info on page provides rationale to keep. Denni 21:25, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Keep. : ) Kingturtle 03:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - "The oldest continuously-operating movie theatre in San Francisco" BL 10:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks good, keep -- Graham  :) 18:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This is where VfD scores! In light of new information I withdraw nomination. DJ Clayworth 03:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • John Talignani - September 11th victim. →Raul654 19:33, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 20:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 21:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Denni 21:23, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sir Paul 21:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Transfer to 9/11 wiki Secretlondon 22:13, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Wik 01:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Transfer to 9/11 wiki. Elf 01:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 02:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to 9/11 wiki. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 10:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Transwiki and delete. Bearcat 10:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 9/11 wiki -- Graham  :) 18:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless it can be verified he did something more notable than dying. Davodd 22:56, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, nonfamous, but move to 9/11 "wikimorial". Fuzheado
    • Transwiki and delete. --Imran 17:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 20:2

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

February 21

  • Who Wants to Marry Mr. Jones? - Zero Google hits. There are other dubious edits by this contributor. Evercat 00:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, agree. Fuzheado 00:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sir Paul 00:10, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be looked into and expanded. - Arthur George Carrick 01:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be kept if expanded. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete, unless someone can proove that it actually exists. Saul Taylor 03:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: if verified, delete because it's insignificant, otherwise, because it's a fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If it does turn out to be real (which seems highely unlikely) then I think we should keep it because I don't see why we shouldn't have articles on ever tv show ever broadcast. Saul Taylor 16:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verifiable. Anthony DiPierro 16:24, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Useless sub-stub at present. Andrewa 15:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Confrontation - dictionary definition, nothing more. Fuzheado 00:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be redirected to conflict or argument or something similar. Mintguy (T) 00:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Too ambiguous to redirect. Anthony DiPierro 16:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only a (useless) definition. Jacob1207 21:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; this could be revised into an article on human response to conflict. -Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. What branddobbe said + how other species react to confrontations + witness confrontations. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Dictionary definition. Animals that have unique confrontational displays will have them listed in the animals site. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary Rossami 04:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - move to wiktionary - Texture 00:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Mildcompetence - Gibberish KJ 03:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless heres a space on Wikitonary for made up rubish, in which case move there. Saul Taylor 03:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: no such term. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dictionary definition of some runtogether words. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Interestingly, the user who created it did it with the edit summary "keep" -- sounds to me like he knew it'd be posted here. Bearcat 18:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Every google hit on the word comes from the address of one website. Average Earthman 19:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is nonsensical. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Nonsense word. Rossami 04:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Didiot - derogatory name for one obscure Windows advocate. Pakaran. 04:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Edit and move to "Laura DiDio". she exists and is somewhat famous/infamous in some geek circles--Mishac 08:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Laura DiDio. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Laura Didio (who still has a blank page :) --Palapala 10:07, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Started page and merged. --Palapala 13:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Laura DiDio and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 4futureengineers.com - seems to be self-promotion.... was an advertisement. removed contact information. --Hemanshu 10:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete both this page and the redirect page Ragini Communications Inc. Cedars 12:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Anthony DiPierro 16:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Neither is it the Yellow Pages advertising phone book. Delete. Tempshill 20:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, page and redirect. Sir Paul 18:22, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete page and redirect. Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete page and redirect. Elf-friend 23:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wikipeda is not paper. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. With the contact info stripped, it's now a blank article, and there's no remotely encyclopedic content that could conceivably be added. Bearcat 17:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No bearing on, well, anything.
    • Delete, Wiki is not an attic. Fuzheado 02:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - advert - Texture 00:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • attoparsec - Mainly listed to prevent bad precedence from being created, I don't think this particular prefix/unit combination warrants its own article. The brief mention in parsec is enough IMO. -- Dissident 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. I just rewrote it, emphasizing its special status as a jocularity and therefore (hopefully) making it clear that it's not a precedent for individual article on yoctoparsecs, exaparsecs, etc. Assuming that it really is in jocular use by programmers--I just googled on it and The Jargon File and other sources aren't terribly convincing about this--it's worth preserving, though if there is a suitable article on nerd humor it could be moved there. I think I would argue that if it has an entry in FOLDOC and in the Jargon File, there's a prima facie case for it to have an entry in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 23:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. In its present form, a perfectly good item on a piece of nerd humor. Dandrake 00:09, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a joke with a long tradition (pre-web times...) --Palapala 09:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; it's got a long tradition. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Relocate, probably under the (as yet non-existant) nerd humour page. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bible atrocities and the associated redirect Bible attrocities. Irredeemably POV, even with my intro, and serves no purpose. Meelar 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, same reasons as above. -Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Apparent copyvio, see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml]. Move discussion to copyvio page? Damn, that's one good list, though. Tom Paine would have enjoyed it. Dpbsmith 00:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • All this and a copyright infringement too? Barely worth saying explicitly, Delete. Dandrake 00:13, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 20:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Rossami 04:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: interesting topic; can be made suitably NPOV. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: IMO it's a good topic. Always likely to be controversial, but can still be NPOVed and will get many interested readers. I'm not completely happy with the title but can't think of a better one. Of course the copyvio must be fixed. Andrewa 12:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Greenie Bus - is this something we need here? Even if we decide to keep it, do we need its schedule? RickK 22:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but drop the schedules -- just list the routes, maybe. -- Seth Ilys 22:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Saul Taylor 01:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems okay to me. Why not have schedules? They are useful to those who use these buses. Optim 02:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I can agree with Optim that bus schedules are useful, but Wikipedia isn't where anybody's going to go looking for one when they need it. Bearcat 10:03, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Awesome article. Keep. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, or at least trim significantly. This isn't encyclopedic in the sense that people are going to be looking for information on it here. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • keep. we shouldnt penalize the article for being detailed.--Mishac 16:41, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No, we should penalize it for being absolutely irrelevant to anybody besides the students at one university. Bearcat 21:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Davodd 22:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: an out of date bus schedule (which this will certainly be in a year) is worse than useless. Disclaimer: I don't own a car. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Crotopo soup. Moved to Wikibooks. Angela. 23:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Recepies are encyclopedic. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete.--Jiang
    • Delete, unless encyclopedic background is added. Recipes belong at Wikibooks. -- Seth Ilys 16:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, recipes belong at wikibooks, no encyclopedic content.Gentgeen 23:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 00:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • One plus one not encyclopedic Anthony DiPierro 23:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but maybe retitle, move, or merge with something else. Does have some interesting info. -- J. Antley 17:48, 21 Feb 2004 (CST)
    • Keep; agree with DarkFantasy. The contents are worthy of the encyclopedia, but wouldn't suffer if integrated somewhere. Dandrake 00:16, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a phrase that everyone use with a long and proud history. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; this is inappropriately titled. Move/merge content to some article dealing with addition or uses of the plus sign. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Not addition; the entry shows clearly that this expression is not necessarily addition in any normal sense. And plus sign is a bit of a red herring: it's nothing but a redirect to addition—which reduces the problem to the previous case. Dandrake 04:56, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Pointless here. Everyking 20:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. We will have n-squared combinations otherwise. I agree with suggestion for the info going into the pages for one and plus. And binary etc. No need for the collection of the info in one place. Paul Beardsell 10:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Texture 00:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 22

  • Kenneth_O'Keefe A self written article that is more about his personal political view then anything else. Also of note is the relative insignificance of this person (quick google search of the name displays several others with same name, didn't see this one). Oberiko 16:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, though it should be slightly rewritten. His organising the human shields (or part therein), whatever one might think of it, renders him significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, definitely. Everyking 20:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)?
    • Delete - self-written articles are inherently POV - btw, did I mention that I invented the Internet? - Texture 00:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Israeli terrorism (see Talk:Palestinian terrorism)
    -- Added to list to make parallelism explicit. +sj+ 02:16, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • So what article does this one duplicate (which was the main reason for listing P.t.)? Keep, but the name needs changing. --Zero 02:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Should be moved to Violence against Palestinians in parallel with V. against Israel.
      • A separate discussion of terrorism in the Middle East over time can cover terrorism by Jewish groups before Israel was founded, against Britain and other occupying forces; by Arab groups throughout the century, against Britain, France, and other occupying forces; and by groups across the subcontinent against rival groups, neighboring nations, &c. -- probably the largest category of 'terrorist' violence (but the least likely to arounse international notice). +sj+ 09:06, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • Relocate Oberiko 17:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The word terrorism should not be in the title. Move to another title. Optim 09:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • ...or in the rest of the article. Everyking 23:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • William Ware Theiss Page about a person not notable for anything, presumably by a family member, user who created this has not made any other contributions. Saul Taylor 02:20, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's the same guy, he was the costume designer on Star Trek. Keep and add relevant data (no pun intended). Lee M 02:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep this version. RickK 03:03, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Now that the article has relevant content, I change my vote to Keep. Saul Taylor 03:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; he's famous within his field. Psychonaut 14:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'd heard of him about 30 years ago, and his 3 Academy Award nominations show he's known within his field. -- Arwel 14:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This person's information could easily be added to a list of supporting people for the Star Trek series. Oberiko 17:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Famous enough. DJ Clayworth 03:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chuckles insginficant and obscure, can't grow.--Mishac 11:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope. Chuckles, like Lord British, is the pseudonym of an Origin Systems founder and programmer heavily involved with the Ultima series, and also the name of a character that has appeared in most of the games. I just expanded the article significantly, and vote to keep it. —Psychonaut 11:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Change my vote. Keep as rewritten by Psychonaut. Nice work psycho :)--Mishac 12:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and Move. Unless this article can be expanded further, it should be compiled with a list of other video game pseudonym's, or under the Ultima entry.Oberiko 17:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep -- Graham  :) 19:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • BOOK (magazine)-ad?
    • Delete: Surely this could be relocated to a list of published magazines. Unless greatly expanded, I don't see where it serves much purpose. Oberiko 16:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 19:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Top O'the Bruce - obscure saying about obscure hill in obscure place. Fuzheado 16:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)]
    • Redirect to Mt Ruapehu.........which is only obscure when the cloud is down on it; otherwise it dominates the North Island of New Zealand. ping 06:44, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep if expandable, ootherwise delete.--Mishac 16:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Far too obscure, can't see how this can expand -- Graham  :) 19:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. The word "obviously" in the sentence "So, obviously, if you're going up the road and it's the end of the road, you're at the Top o' the Bruce" waves a red flag suggesting that it isn't even a well-known local name for the place, but a personal coinage inserted for the amusement of the author. Dpbsmith 15:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep (if expanded). Is indeed well known in NZ and by international snowfield visitors. A southern hemisphere landmark may be considered obscure by people in the northern hemisphere. And vice versa -- take a look at the entry for Waterloo, Louisiana. I wouldn't suggest Waterloo be zapped and hope The Bruce isn't either. We're not going to run out of paper here, and if either entry informs someone, some day, then that's why we are here. Moriori 22:23, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)


  • Lynn Marple - seems to have done nothing of note besides being a wife and mother. I don't see the potential for meaningful encyclopedic expansion. - Seth Ilys 16:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this and Sarah Marple-Cantrell too. IT's sad, but unless it's wel known news, its not encyclopaedic.--Mishac 16:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this and Sarah Marple-Cantrell. This is not a site for people to put up personal information and self-webpages, especially those who have little to make them noteworthy in the large-scheme of things.Oberiko 17:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I've already made my feelings known about Sarah Marple-Cantrell. I'm ambivalent about Cyrus Cantrell, while we're at it, but there's enough information there that I could potentially be swayed by the argument that he's relevant beyond being the father of a girl who committed suicide, if anybody wants to make that case. Bearcat 17:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 19:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del. -- Minesweeper 20:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. More famous than 2147483647. Anthony DiPierro 20:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge with Sarah Marple-Cantrell and redirect. Optim 21:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • <slightly off-topic> Seems to me that Sarah (and her associated relatives) are exactly what Wikimorial is supposed to be for.</slightly> Jwrosenzweig 20:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Lime Juice - Orphan. I cannot find any evidence that this album exists. Google, Amazon, CDDB all turn up nothing.--Minesweeper 20:39, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless it can be linked to a particular band then delete. Even if it can it ought to go to Lime Juice (album) anyway to avoid confusion. Vfd tag added. -- Graham  :) 20:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete unless verifiable. An idiot in his bathrobe? Anthony DiPierro 22:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: unverified. probable fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Heart Lake Secondary School - has nothing of note besides the fact that it's a high school in a suburb of Toronto. I don't see how this stub can be turned into a non-trivial, non-stub, NPOV article. Darkcore 22:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not famous. Rdash 05:24, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A high school is noteworthy enough to be included here. Everyking 06:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not relevant. (Disclosure: I'm a Torontonian and I still don't think Toronto high schools warrant inclusion.) Bearcat 08:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. A high school is noteworthy enough to be included here. Anthony DiPierro 03:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Articles on significant buildings are noteworthy. But needs to be updated to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Davodd 06:52, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Turner Fenton Secondary School - again, another high school in suburban Toronto. Same as above. Darkcore 22:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If the fact that it's Canada's only campus-based high school was expanded on, it could make a good article. Keep. Rdash 05:24, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • Campus-based only means that the school is a merger of two other schools. There's not enough there, even, to expand upon. Darkcore 17:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 06:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not relevant. (Disclosure: see above.) Bearcat 08:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Articles on significant buildings are noteworthy. But needs to be updated to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Davodd 06:52, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Richard Genovese - irrelevant surrealist. --Wik 22:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is he irrelevant? Mark Richards 22:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Because I voted for the pages undeletion and Wik doesn't like me. Anthony DiPierro 22:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Google search finds no evidence of serious recognition. Just self-promotion, and even much less of that than, for example, Daniel C. Boyer, and we don't have an article on him either. --Wik 22:55, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Non-notable surrealist artist whose reason for having a page here is that he associated with prolific wikipedia contributor, Daniel C. Boyer. Maximus Rex 01:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kill all surrealists.—Eloquence
      • The anti-surrealist bias that keeps purging relevant articles on surrealism from Wikipedia can now be seen in much clearer focus. Who can contradict me on this point now? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I guess we can just keep listing articles here until they finally get deleted? No vote until I see some verification. IHL. HAND. Anthony DiPierro 04:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Everyking 04:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: irrelevant, personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • comment only: This page is now being vandalized by someone claiming to be Richard Genovese. Anthony DiPierro 15:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Susan Finlayson - Nonfamous, possibly fictional. Google search ("Susan Finlayson" farming) turns up three hits, none related to this. Fuzheado 23:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I added the VfD header. Delete. I can't find anything when Googling "Murie Center" and Finlayson. RickK 00:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Susan Finlayson was a real Stanford student. She worked at the Murie Center one summer. Could be a professor. IP is in Pleasanton, California. Possibly an autobiography, or biography by a student. Web page at http://www.susfin.com/. Seems to be checking out. Keep and list on cleanup first. Anthony DiPierro 01:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • "Temp - TMS" does not seem to be "professor." Why should any university student get an article? --Jiang
        • Ah, you're right about the professor thing. As for why should any university student get an article, why not? Also, she most likely has graduated by now, so she isn't a university student at all. Anthony DiPierro 04:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Jiang
    • Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 23

  • Catherine Gordon. Any reason why this person needs to be kept as a separate page? RickK 01:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Either expand or redirect to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron Saul Taylor 01:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Any reason why this person shouldn't be kept as a separate page? Anthony DiPierro 04:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: literary biography. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Her son's biography is a literary biography. She has no such claim to fame. Why can't this info be merged into his page? RickK 01:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Byron's ancestors, on both sides, were interesting people, one might say charitably. Here's what an online essay [7] says about Catherine: "Byron's mother was a Scotswoman, Catherine Gordon of Gight, the last descendant of a line of lawless Scottish lairds. After her husband died (Byron was then three), she brought up her son in near-poverty in Aberdeen, where he was indoctrinated with the Calvinistic morality of Scottish Presbyterianism. Mrs. Byron was an ill-educated and almost pathologically irascible woman who nevertheless had an abiding love for her son; they fought violently when together, but corresponded affectionately enough when apart, until her death in 1811." There's not much in the Catherine Gordon article now, but it's clear to me there is room for a lot more material. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and merge, doesn't seem like much else can be said about her. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete and Merge AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete (that order makes more sense :-) ) Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Francisco Rivera Rosa - Looks like a vanity page. Non-famous. Google turns up eight hits. Darkcore 02:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: personal promotion, nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • He was written up in Islands magazine, for whatever that's worth. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • When? What issue? Where can I get a hold of a copy of this magazine? Anthony DiPierro 17:44, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Arfé - Tie this in with FRR. "Arfé is the creation of artworks by staining with coffee." Seems to be a Daniel C. Boyer special. Anthony DiPierro 04:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a level of dishonesty here. Francisco Rivera Rosa invented Arfé, or at least invented the name for it, to the best of my knowledge, and I have never made or attempted to make one. It is as nothing to do with me as anything could be. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • [8] Arfe: "A term coined by Francisco Rivera Rosa to describe his 'paintings' with coffee on paper (derived from art + café = Arfé) Daniel C. Boyer, Artist"
      • [9] You also are the one who created this stub. Anthony DiPierro 17:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • So what? I submitted information I knew about to one reference site, where it was presumably confirmed and included; I started an article on the same information I knew about in Wikipedia. I don't understand what your point is. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • You're the one who claimed dishonesty. Anthony DiPierro 21:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: irrelevant, idiosyncratic. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, add blurb about this to some page on Art techiniques Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Still doubting on these two; lightly tempted towards keep. However, we certainly do not need both pages. If they are not going to be deleted, merge the two. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Land Ordinance of 1787 is a mistake. The content describes the Northwest Ordinance. There is a separate act called the Land Ordinance of 1785 that this may be confused with. Bkonrad 03:21, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Relocate. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as redir. Davodd 00:51, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Google shows the term is being used, though not often. Keep as redirect, unless someone can make a case that it's confusing. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of gelato parlors - too wide and general. Fuzheado
    • Delete. Its too bad. I'd like to know a good gelato parlor around here :)--Mishac 07:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. One item is not a list -- Graham  :) 11:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Hetto-Iberians. First there was an article called Hetto-Iberian (no ‘s’). This attracted much negative attention for two reasons. First, it stated as fact that Basque and Etruscan are related to certain other languages. It is well known that although numerous attempts have been made to link Basque and Etruscan to various languages, standard scholarship holds that neither is related to any known language. Second, many who knew something about linguistics had never encountered the term “Hetto-Iberian”, and a Google search for the term turns up almost nothing. The eventual outcome of this criticism was that the article was moved to Caucasian peoples and substantially modified. Progress. But now an article with all the original problems has been put at Hetto-Iberians. This should be deleted. Josh Cherry 03:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Or rather, give it a week to get modified so that it does not lend the status of Wikipedia, such as it is, to what is plainly a splinter theory. If nobody cares enough to do that, it's no loss when deleted. Dandrake 05:12, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete this and Caucasian peoples as now written. RickK 05:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: fantasy. Another quality product from our good time buddy User:Zestauferov. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Everyking 06:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Graham  :) 11:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Artificial human companions - Apart from being very NPOV, the article really does not say anything and does not appear to be expandable in its current form. Darkcore 05:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Article with lot of potential. Jay 08:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and list on cleanup. Could improve -- Graham  :) 11:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and move to cleanup. There is no article in Wiki for 'companion animals' (not the same as 'pets'), and there is also considerable effort going on in AI to improve the quality of computer-human interaction. Denni 19:17, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • Keep - really needs to be rewritten, but the topic is interesting. Seth Mahoney 19:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Darkcore, I think you POV, not NPOV, right? Anyway, it's laughable as an article. I personally don't think it's worth keeping around until someone someday perhaps gets around to turning it into a real article. No one yet has seemed so inclined. Delete. —Frecklefoot 20:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Oops, I meant POV. Sorry for the confusion. Darkcore 22:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep but not with this content :0)AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree with Denni and Seth that we might have an article on this, but the current content is not in any way useful for doing so, so delete. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Toronto Women's Sword - looks like advertising. Google says 40 hits. If they're at all important, someone say so and I'll clean it up. Isomorphic 07:00, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is an instance of a sword team which is of no significance, and is misleading, as the long sword tradition originates in north of England. There is no original tradition in North America. Brian Kelly (creator of the original Sword_dance) page 18:22, 2004 Feb 23 (GMT)
    • Delete, local. Mrdice 09:31, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • Anything with a contact phone number on it has got to be an advert. Delete -- Graham  :) 11:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Vfd is not a cleanup request. Anthony DiPierro 14:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. No information on it that would make it special enough to deserve its own page. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ratatouille (recipe only, no text) - transwikied to wikibooks KJ 09:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a traditionnal recipee, that some users might look for . It is very typical of provencal cuisine. It has encyclopedic value. Anthère0
    • Keep, but move the recipe anyway - Suggestion: rite about how the ingredients of the recipe are typical of Provencal cuisine, cultural significance, &/c, and link to the recipe at Wikibooks? Dysprosia 12:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote. What's the source of the apparent consensus that recipes do not belong in Wikipedia? As I remarked in the Village Pump, there's nothing in What_wikipedia_is_not that excludes a) recipes, b) instructional material, or c) how-to articles. And the very word Encyclopedia derives from paideia, instructional. If there's really a clear policy that recipes don't belong I'd like to see the pointer to it. Otherwise, I am tempted to vote to keep recipes. Dpbsmith 14:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Recipies are generally POV. You have to pick the best ingredients, and the best quantities, and stick to it. Anthony DiPierro 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • My grandmother taught me how to make Clam Chowder. My grandmother couldn't possibly be wrong, so My grandmother's recipe is the ONLY one that can be in Wikipedia. Any possiblilty of NPOV violation for having recipes yet? Gentgeen 00:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I would advocate that any dish which is covered in any of the major culinary encyclopedias, like the Larousse Gastronomique is valid for inclusion at Wikipedia. --Nohat 18:44, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • Keep the current stub, but a recipe needs to stay at wikibooks. Gentgeen 18:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I would be against any recipe, so my vote does not count. AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • In the current, stubbified form, keep. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Le Tourin (recipe) - transwikified to wikibooks KJ 09:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Argument_against_any_specific_God Although I am an atheist myself, an article with this title cannot exist without being POV. Atheist rant. Mrdice 09:21, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • POV Atheist rant. Delete. Optim 09:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete rant -- Graham  :) 11:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Take any relevant information and paste on Atheism or Agnosticism if possible. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original research. Anthony DiPierro 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Original...er....research. DJ Clayworth 14:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. POV rant. Seth Mahoney 19:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Argument from inconsistent revelations, fix, and keep. We have pages for each of several Arguments for the existence of God, and a page on Arguments against the existence of God as well. This article needs help to be sure, but it contains the gist of that argument. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Smerdis/Ihcoyc is right -- keep. It definitely needs an overhaul, but I can envision this article outlaying the argument (and responses of course) in NPOV fashion. Jwrosenzweig 20:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, Smerdis is wrong, Argument from inconsistent revelations is original "research" (more like poorly thought out musings), and, incidentilly, is pure bunk ;) If you would like to change the policy on original research go talk to Jimbo. Sam Spade 20:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. I don't see how this counts as original research. There is no actual research in it. Secretlondon 22:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fix, but if not fixed, delete. Definitely not NPOV (and i say this as a militant athiest). Morwen 23:00, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Everyking 23:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete but if not fixed AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Can be made suitably NPOV. WP has Anselm's ontological argument, it can have the counter-arguments as well. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Constitution of Fiji and linked articles. Original source material without any additions. TwoOneTwo 15:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd be very grateful if you wouldn't delete it. I am not intending to keep the full text there. I plan to write a commentary on each of the constitutional chapters, quoting selectively from each chapter. The full text included is just the raw material that I intend to work with over the next few days; it's nothing like what it's going to look like in the end. So, once again, I'd be very grateful if you'd kindly leave it there. Davidcannon 20:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it therefore be better referred to Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements? --Phil 15:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • Copyright infringements? The Fijian Constitution is not copyright, any more than the American Constitution is. What are you talking about? Davidcannon 20:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd rather see it moved to Wikisource. RickK 16:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • The full text is already on Wikisource. But I've deliberately posted the chapters on Wikipedia because, as I said, I intend to write articles about each of them. Each article will quote SELECTIVELY from the full text; the remaining text will be deleted. But I've started by pasting it all up there so that I don't have to go to the hassle of looking up the individual quotes when I'm writing the articles. Davidcannon 20:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Let David work. If it's not going to stay, then I'm ok with it. Isomorphic 00:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Its fine if the article stays. Wait and watch. AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks to both of you-) I have made a start - the article on Constitution of Fiji: Chapter 1 is now written. As you can see, it's about 95 percent my own work, summarizing the main points together with commentary on the historical and social reasons why the various clauses were included. Except for two or three brief quotes, the original text is gone now. The main article and all of the lined articles (chapters) are going to look just like Chapter 1. So once again, I beg you all to be patient with me and give me a few days. If building materials are lying about, it's reasonable to wait until the builder does something with them before removing them. Thanks to all of you. Davidcannon 12:15, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 32nd century, 33rd century, 34th century, 35th century, 36th century, 37th century - Templates. I checked the "What links here" link and found nothing indicating that there is nothing in Wikipedia which refers to these centuries indicating that the templates are not needed. --Hemanshu 18:12, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, or redirect to Future --Nohat 18:18, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
    • This has been brought up on this page before, and what they did then was to merge the content with Future and redirect there. Therefore that's my vote. -- Graham  :) 18:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anthony DiPierro 20:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Future. Optim 20:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Everyking 23:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Templates are good, but not templates without content. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Nominal category Now an orphan; its IP creator 142.58.101.24 misspelled it, linked it from Noun (either confusing a grammatical concept with a group-dynamics one, or camouflaging something else) and otherwise edited it with such poor quality that i assume it to be utter nonsense until shown otherwise. --Jerzy 20:04, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • Carbo - Unwikified, POV page about "the most important members in Roman History" by anonymous user with only this page in his contrib history. --Flockmeal 21:23, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, it's just the article from the 1911 Britannica...we have plenty of those. It needs Wikification of course, but don't delete it. (This should be on cleanup instead of VfD.) Adam Bishop 22:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • List of numbers that are always odd - I'm not even sure what this article is supposed to mean. It doesn't seem encyclopedic and I don't see how this can be expanded. Maybe the bit about Atlanta's FM radio stations can be merged into FM radio? Darkcore 22:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added a suitable discussion to the article on FM radio. It's simple arithmetic, based on an 0.2 MHz-wide channel. The FM band starts at 88.0 MHz so the lowest is 88.0-88.2 MHz so its center frequency--the nominal number you set the dial to--is 88.1 MHz, and they follow at 0.2 MHz upward, QED... those outside the U.S., do whatever you think appropriate... Dpbsmith 02:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Junk. Delete. FM radio stuff is FCC regulation that is not followed in other countries.Davodd 22:19, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Everyking 23:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete or merge with some other article where odd numbers are discussed. Optim 05:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Trivial and no sign it could ever become substantial. seglea 07:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Collection of trivialities. Andre Engels 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Doom Builder - "Popular" program used by maybe 50 people. Fredrik 22:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 22:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • There are tens of thousands of programs out there with 50 users. Should there be articles about all of them? What about websites with 50 visitors? (possible exaggeration) Fredrik 22:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 636 google hits. Secretlondon 22:51, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge with Doom because we cannot know how many people are using it and because many people are interested in Doom. Optim 05:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 24

  • Incorporation - US- and even Delaware-centric. If it's kept it needs to be expanded to include the rest of the world. Otherwise, make it a dictionary stub and move it to Wiktionary. RickK 01:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not every article needs to be about the entire world. Expand or move to Incorporation in the US. Anthony DiPierro 03:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Although some content is redundant with corporation (and apparently adapted from an sd or something using personal pronouns), I think this is a respectable start that could contain more information relevent to actual incorporation in the future. Also, Delaware corporations are rather significant in the US, and several notable multinationals are Delaware corporations. Cool Hand Luke 04:16, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, could improve -- Graham  :) 13:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Andre Engels 13:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Altaf Fatima - It may be beautiful, but it says nothing. Darkcore 05:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Probably a copyright violation. From the talk page: Well, according to the Internet, Altaf Fatima is an Urdu poet who was born in 1929, so I doubt that her works are in the public domain. RickK 05:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) - Optim 06:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote. I replaced the poem with a stub article, and I moved the poem to the talk page. 73 Google hits. So, I supoose that now any votes to keep or delete it will have to do mostly with whether she is famous enough or not. Optim 06:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote. Only one of her books appears to be popular enough (in the UK) to be listed on Amazon and be widely available. LOC has some more of her books list in their catalog.
    • New article is sub-stub. Put on Cleanup and delete if not improved. Andre Engels 13:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • King M.C. & D.J. Flash - non-famous, despite the fact that the article says they have garnered "world wide fame". Google turns up 5 hits with the search "King MC and DJ Flash". Darkcore 06:28, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • They are on allmusic.com, so they're famous. Keep. Mrdice 10:18, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • If the current article is correct, I'd say they're famous enough to keep. Andre Engels 13:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sekihan Recipe. Mrdice 10:10, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • wikibooks and delete -- Graham  :) 13:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but only the first two paragraphs (until "...celebrate something"). Andre Engels 13:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=2511173"