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.

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.)

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

• mostly some POV rambles, not much worthwhile info there. Dori | Talk 03:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Bmills 13:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An article being bad isn't a reason to delete. There should clearly be an article at this name. Improve, don't delete. Isomorphic 01:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • There is culture in turkey. Keep. BL 04:27, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Move to clean up list. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • delete if not improved by Feb 19. --Jiang
  • Merge back into Turkey -- not enough yet for a sep. article. Davodd 09:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Meaningless rambling. Delete. Being bad can well be a reason to delete, when 'improving' can reasonably be considered harder than 'writing anew'. Andre Engels 00:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote reverted because of page change - new version is not very good, but good enough that deleting is no option. Andre Engels 15:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep newly revised version -- Graham  :) 16:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the improved version. Elf-friend 00:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Can anybody find any proof of the existence of these people other than a site that gets its information from Wikipedia? RickK 04:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I can confirm the existence of some Jews of Medina who converted to Islam in 622, but not under this name or any variant Romanizations thereof -- and I find no evidence whatsoever that they formed a distinct sect of Islam. I don't know; it seems like an odd thing to make up, so defer for now. --No-One Jones (talk) 05:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Not an encylopaedic subject. Wikibooks? Bmills 12:53, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic subject. Anthony DiPierro 14:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - move to appropriate location unless it is updated to be more than the mere recipe it is now. - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • m:transwiki this and all how-tos to wikibooks. Gentgeen 14:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikibooks. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • move to wikibooks and delete. --Jiang
  • Delete -keep, put under Biodiesel.or make sure to link to from biodiesel. This is an extemely relevant item for present day and historical existence. sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikibooks. Elf-friend 00:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but fold whatever information we can into Biodiesel. --UserGoogol 00:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• (no giggling at the back, please) Dictionary def of a Latin word. Bmills 13:05, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Texture 15:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: a word with a lot of peculiar uses. Not many Latin words deserve WP articles; this is one of them. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to dictionary. Andre Engels 00:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep/delete. If it is still a dicdef, delete. If fleshed out, keep. I know there is atleast one artistic institution/event with that name. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:12, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary and delete -- Graham  :) 16:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary and delete. Elf-friend 00:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Continued at Talk:Misuse of the Internet

• made up? wikibooks? Secretlondon 19:48, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks accurate from a quick glance. Anthony DiPierro 19:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • It was decided sometime back that how-to's and tutorials belong in Wikibooks, not here. Delete. →Raul654 19:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you point us to this decision? Anthony DiPierro 20:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • One is here: Wikipedia talk:How-to articles. There are others, for example Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Wants Gentgeen
        • Neither of them look like consensus to me, but as long as it's transwikied somewhere, I'm not going to try to block this. Anthony DiPierro 05:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikibooks, as per precedent. Fuzheado 04:21, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • m:transwiki to wikibooks and delete Gentgeen 12:56, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Not useful in its current partial form; not encyclopedic in a possible extended form. Transwiki or delete. Andre Engels 00:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • wikibooks and delete -- Graham  :) 16:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikibooks and delete. Elf-friend 00:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Continued at Talk:History of heterosexuality

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

• • See Talk:Predestination (Calvinism)
  • This should be removed from the list now, I think. What is the procedure? Mkmcconn 18:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• See Talk:List of porn stars who died from AIDS

• 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)

• See Talk:List of Sony products

• 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)

• just a dictionary entry Bob Palin 23:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Andre Engels 17:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary if not there already. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto to what 'Wile E. Heresiarch' (now THERE'S a name) said. Brequinda

• Discussion on whether to redirect or keep moved to Talk:Drug addiction

• yet another dot-com? Mikkalai 08:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Zappos? Zap it. Delete orthogonal 09:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's an ad. Vespristiano seems to have a good record as a Wikipedian. --UserGoogol 01:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub. Anthony DiPierro 01:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Alexa rank 1500. Keep it, I suppose. Meelar 07:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Leave it... for now. But if nothing interesting gets added after "a while," dump it. --UserGoogol 01:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • What Meelar said, Keep. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• index of another site. they don't make sense. TY 08:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete these index pages. A maintenance nightmare anyway. Users are better off visiting the Aozora Bunko website directly. Lupo 13:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, this is a useful index for stimulating articles in English on classic works of Japanese literature. Keep. -- The Anome 13:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete subpages, keep Aozora Bunko. "Maintenance nightmare" is right! Let people be stimulated by visiting the Aozora Bunko website. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Suggestion. I'll keep Aozora Bunko and move subpages to another namespace related literature (list of Japanese literary works or something). How about this? TY 08:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. I am the guy who created the index. Well, I guess I must admit that was mistake. Having a list of Japanese literature or so is useful but not this one. This index contains any work avaliable in Aozora Bunko, not necessalily prominent Japanese literatures. This should not have existed in the first place. -- Taku 08:59, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not material for an encyclopedia. Link to Aozora Bunko's own list (if they have it) instead. Andre Engels 16:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form. A lot of pages linked from there already exist, and we have no other List of Japanese literature to index them. I agree this is probably not the best list (too much non-famous stuff, and no recent famous stuff), but at the very least the works we already have articles on should be salvaged from the list before deleting. --Delirium 05:57, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hopefully the red links will get some Japanese literature expert to write them. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• See Talk:Cum spitting

• See Talk:Cum swallowing

• Orphaned article about a minor road on a housing estate in Aylesbury. Hardly encyclopedia material. -- Graham  :) 16:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Secretlondon 22:29, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Indeed delete:
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've BEEN to Aylesbury. Delete! Hilarious, but please delete. Brequinda
  • Keep. Roads are encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 01:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • (Not a vote) Its author argues on the talk page to keep. --Delirium 05:57, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A road is not encyclopedic just because it's a road; it has to have some historical or social significance beyond its immediate environs. For example, Yonge Street in Toronto, Ontario is encyclopedic, as it's in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's longest street. The street I live on in Toronto, however, is not encyclopedic. Bearcat 10:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• doesn't merit its own article IMO. Dori | Talk 18:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs cleaning up. Apparently this has become a real event since invention by the makers of the Simpsons... -- Graham  :) 18:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If this information can be added to it and thus it is not just a duplication of information which can be better dealt with by being merged into some Simpsons article, I vote to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even close to being some central concept in The Simpsons, let alone outside. Andre Engels 16:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Simpsons and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 01:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 378 Google hits. The Simpsons are so popular that every little detail in the show deserves an article. Atleast every episode. BL 07:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• Vanity page. RickK 01:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears in imdb, and I see no reason why wikipedia can't be as extensive as imdb. ShaneKing 01:37, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regional significance.
  • Keep. Some significance. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:25, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He does show up in the IMDb. —Frecklefoot 18:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity Mariusz 19:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vanity insanity. Anthony DiPierro 01:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like that idea about being at least as inclusive as IMDB. Meelar 04:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. To quote RickK talking about a porno, "Noteworthiness is in the eye of the beholder. No need to delete this just because it isn't famous." At any rate, this actually is noteworthy insofar that it has useful facts about a character actor. Cool Hand Luke 22:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• non-famous. - snoyes 02:13, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some information can be added colourably justifying inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a faculty directory of all faculty at every high school, so without more, this should be deleted. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vanity. —Frecklefoot 18:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• See Talk:Iberian-Caucasian peoples

• • See Talk:Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force

• 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)

• 0 Google hits. Another fabrication from the author of Bakta (211.21.23.202). Jay 10:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Can't find anything on Kim Tae-hyung either (all occurences are of current-day non-famous people of that name), but on the other hand, google might miss either because they are just found in Korean-language pages (which usually do not use Latin script). No vote. Andre Engels 00:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: unverified, & created by an author with a history of fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • DElete! the article refers to bulgoki meaning soul, when bulgoki is actuallya beef dish! --Mishac 03:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Finally had enough of the contant changes to sant cassia. I believe this should be deleted once and for all. [Conte Said Vassallo]
  • Another renomination for deletion, two in one month... I would say keep and sort out the edit wars another way, though I suspect even if it was to be deleted you'd have to wait until the renominations policy had been sorted out (see votes for Sarah Marple-Cantrell at the top of the page). -- Graham  :) 13:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Keep. The current minimal content there is presumably uncontroversial and useful. As to the mass of material that has been the subject of edit wars, mediation seems in order. If the bulk of this is to be found elsewhere on the Internet, perhaps we could settle on just a short article and some external links? -- Jmabel 18:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, much information to salvage. silsor 07:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• I don't have one, do you? -- user:zanimum
  • No, and marginally important, but these do exist, so I vote to keep if this can be expanded. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - misleading - If anyone wants to create a real article, "home" is a unix concept, not a PC concept. Since unix does not call them folders, the article should be deleted, and, if necessary, recreated with an accurate title. - Texture 16:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a PC concept too (although originating from Unix as you mention). On the Windows platform, it's called "My Documents". Keep as redirect to home directory though, as mentioned. ShaneKing 01:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and agree with Texture (!). Move to 'Home directory' and expand. It's about 20 minutes old, give it a chance Syntax 16:41, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, we already had an article for Home directory, so I've merged them. [Therefore, I vote to keep as redirect] - IMSoP 17:56, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. IMSoP's merge is good work. Cedars 13:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• no explanation of who or what Marco Marra is. Evercat 22:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - originally deleted a few times already for junk content. Fuzheado 23:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I claim to have fixed it. Keep. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• moved to Talk:Libertarian socialism (no consensus in sight)

• Retinue - Good definition but recommend Wiktionary unless someone knows how this can be substantially expanded. Rossami 23:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedica Britannica from 1911 doesn't think it is (only) a dictonary definition. Neither do I. Keep. BL 08:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Does this mean anything? RickK 03:34, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. It's a heat shock protein. -- anon, 05:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Put on Cleanup, delete if not improved after a reasonable time. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with heat shock protein and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 23:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Good idea. Andre Engels 15:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite that I have no idea what heat shock proteins is, I managed to add a paragraph. :) I think that conclusively proves that someone who knows their stuff could add countless of more info to that article. Nine minutes is not giving an article a fair chance, narrow topics deserve some time to grow. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Do we need this? Anthony DiPierro 03:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yet more needless overhead. Agree with Anthony, delete. →Raul654 03:56, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary, impossible to keep up to date. RickK 04:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: unnecessary, impossible maintenance task. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful. Andre Engels 17:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Will you ever use this page? Denni 01:32, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• See Talk:Diamond theory

• many questions: 1) Is this real or just a joke that is passed through email and humorous web sites? 2) If it is pseudo-real, is it encyclopedic? 3) Should this just be moved to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? - Texture 17:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Graham  :) 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Bogus. Delete with extreme prejudice. Kosebamse 08:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a blog creation, and (sadly, because I think it's quite funny) should be deleted. This despite the fact that it has more potential value as an article than List of porn stars who have married their pets. Denni 18:28, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Usenet troll - vanity article - this is a troll from someone and their college buddies to get a single web site linked. Zero google hits related to this college group that has "since dispersed". The topic may be ok but would need to be rebuilt without the vanity text - Texture 17:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I just redirected it to the article Internet troll that already covers Usenet trolling. Bevo 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect -- Graham  :) 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• This is an old and ideosyncratic version of Abuse. It was listed on VfD, and then removed when the new version was written halfway through the process. Now it should probably be got rid of. DJ Clayworth 21:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Can any of it be merged into abuse? If not delete -- Graham  :) 12:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know enough to merge, and no-one came forward to do it last time. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I've had a look through both articles and have included some of the content of the old article into the new one, particularly the bit about overt/covert abuse. Some content from the old article is so out of order it's scary. As a social worker if I started telling clients to "give him a taste of his own medicine" I'd be out of a job quicker than a speeding bullet, so kill the rest of the old page, it's not only out of date it's dangerous. -- Graham  :) 20:03, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• This is just a list of the names of various advert campaigns. This information is of no use to anyone and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an advert for McDonalds. Astrotrain
  • Keep, unless you want to merge it with McDonalds. Anthony DiPierro 23:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggest keeping. It may be useful for Media / marketing students - and McDonalds advertising is quite hard to escape. Secretlondon 23:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep--or at least merge w/ McDonald's article. Material is somewhat interesting. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, decent little chunk of information. Merging with McDonald's would be OK. This information is potentially of use. Within the last year I personally was trying to find the approximate year in which a certain Coca-Cola slogan was current ("Coke is a natural—naturally!) and a list like this would have been exactly what I needed. And it isn't very promotional for McDonald's. Companies only want their current slogan publicized and rather dislike having old ones mentioned. Dpbsmith 00:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please note in which country these are the advertising slogans of McD's: other countries may have had different advertising slogans which can be added to make this into an article. Wikipedia is not American! -- Graham  :) 12:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could be an article on McD's advertising eventually. DJ Clayworth 14:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 09:33, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• a 13-year-old with a high opinion of himself; unverifiable vanity. --No-One Jones 23:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity page. --zandperl 23:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. Jacob1207 00:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not famous, two Google hits, neither relevant. Dpbsmith 00:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Aww how sweet. Delete -- Graham  :) 12:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Why morons should not be allowed to breed. I mean, delete. ShaneKing 12:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unbelievable! Brequinda
  • I am afraid Wikipedia is not yet ripe for revelations of such magnificent splendour. Delete. Kosebamse 08:28, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I like rap, but that page is crap. Start the article funeral mass and bust a cap in its ass. -- DELETE. Davodd 09:54, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) a.k.a davooda
  • Delete. Elf-friend 23:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Article in italian language and also illegal (?) copy from [1]. --Vikingstad 00:16, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. Anthony DiPierro 01:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub -- Graham  :) 12:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 1998 et al
  • See Talk:List of Number 1 Hits

• Couldn't this just be added to the Easter Island article? --Flockmeal 04:46, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub, it could improve -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs work but legitimate and important article - Texture 16:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I have done the opposite from what was proposed here: I replaced the half-sentence on the page by the two paragraphs that are on the Easter Island article, and shortened the piece on Moai on the Easter Island article. Andre Engels 15:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with the article as it is, and there is no reason why Moai must be discussed along with Easter Island. -- Dominus 15:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• sounds like an autobiography. Antonio Rehab Runaway Martin
  • Keep. (It smells like autobio as well: the smart-ass has already created the link from his home page to this article!) But the guy did do something sensible and IMO deserves here not less than half-known pop-artists. However the page requires proper disambig: it turns out there are quite a few Jim Halls already mentioned in Wikipedia (e.g., see the back-links). Mikkalai 08:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and turn into a disambig page -- Graham  :) 11:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Self agrandising, but deserves his entry. I've disambig'd it, he's now at Jim Hall (programmer). ShaneKing 12:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of some significance. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm in the minority, but autobiographies need to be removed or labelled as questionable - the person writing their own autobiography cannot be NPOV - Texture 16:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems you didn't bother to look at the article. Pure facts, not a single opinion. So the only percievable problem is that he is lying. Mikkalai 16:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is not an autobiography. While doing reasearch on free operating systems I came accross the article on FreeDos. In that was a link to the uncreated Jim Hall article. I started it, and as I did not have copious amounts of information on Mr. Hall asked him to contribute to the article. He added one sentence, the last of the first paragraph. I'll admit the article is lacking, but that hardly counts as autobiographical. Goofyheadedpunk
  • Why not pursuade somebody to write about _FreeDOS_, then mention him there. --Palapala 00:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with FreeDOS and redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 23:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and "big enough". BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Empty theorising - nothing to save here in the big words. Charles Matthews 09:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:59, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not useless. Eike 15:59, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sounds familiar. Elf 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep, and hope someone expands. Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem has been a Holy Grail of mathematics for hundreds of years - no empty theorizing here, but needs someone strong in math to tackle Denni 01:58, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Really, I do have the background; and this says nothing on FMT. It is someone's fringe view, and splices unification (which happens) and conjectures (which are made) to support a bogus model. Adding in a prestigious allusion is throwing dust in people's eyes. Redirect to conjecture. Charles Matthews 09:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Looking at your userpage, I can only marvel. I withdraw my suggestion completely. Continue the good work, sir! Denni 21:14, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

• See Talk:Palestinian terrorism. Note also the Israeli terrorism VfD entry for Feb 22.

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• rant.—Eloquence 17:09, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Already covered in Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. Delete -- Graham  :) 20:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • If encyclopedias (encyclopaediae?) had an editorial page, this would be appropriate. They don't. It isn't. VfD. Denni 02:05, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

• random crap.—Eloquence 17:20, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete very funny random crap -- Graham  :) 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - funny - Texture 20:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny. Also worth keeping. It's the title that's the problem, not the content. Can it be moved someplace else? Denni 02:09, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to Wikipedia: list of articles with very long titles that probably can (and should) be shortened significantly (or just Wikipedia:List of articles with long titles). -- uriber 08:31, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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

• inherently POV. -- uriber 21:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • True, but nastily put - how about renaming it List of ethnic conflicts involving the U.K.? - Texture 21:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The implied attribution of the listed conflicts to a single cause is tenuous to the point of irresponsibility. Causal relationships which can be demonstrated belong in the divide and rule stub article, not here. Rossami 21:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Inherently POV. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename and de-nastyize. First, it's not the UK, it's British Empire. Right now it is very stubby, but could grow into something interesting. Regarding the too-frequent POV argument: imagine you are dealing with any other empire (Roman, Russian, etc). The fact has already happened, and encyclopedia's job is to list it. Humus sapiens 22:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I would dispute one or two of the listings as to the British Empire's involvement, but I have no problem with the article existing. It just needs renaming (it wasn't the UK, it was the British Empire) and added to. -- Graham  :) 22:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Inherently POV" says it nicely. If it's replaced by something with radically different content and title, as some respondents have suggested, then that's even better than simple deletion. But either way, this one is a Delete. Dandrake 00:50, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Renamed, de-nastyfied, NPOV'd a bit. This has the potential to become the inspiration for an interesting article: something like ethnic conflict after the break-up of the British Empire?. Keep. -- The Anome 01:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Every article speaking ill of Britain must be deleted.
    • Even better: delete anonymous vandals and trolls from this page. But I don't want all the flames from real users that would result if I did it unilaterally. Consensus?Dandrake 00:57, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the renamed article; despite it current massive POV status it could be an interesting article. Delete the article with the original name. DJ Clayworth 16:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename article and keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• racist rant that was deleted when added to many other pages - Texture 22:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Almost a word for word duplicate of hate speech. Merge and redirect. Rossami 22:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirected - Texture 22:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • To one of the pages that has a link to it in the first place, I note -- Graham  :) 22:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to say keep and and list on Wikipedia:Cleanup, for the sole reason that there's a Homophobic hate speech article, so there ought to be a racist one -- Graham  :) 22:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Using this reasoning, since there are factual articles, there ought to be articles with made-up facts, right? Wrong. - Texture 22:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? Where did that logic spring from? Things are said against lesbian and gay people, and things are said against black people. If you have an article on one but delete an article on another that's double standards. Either keep both or delete both, and don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say -- Graham  :) 22:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry, took me a few minutes to get your meaning. Good idea. - Texture 22:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Uncertain. This article doesn't IMO add anything to Wikipedia, although it's well written and does no harm other than wasting space in VfD. It's borderline IMO. There seems no good reason to list it here, but that's true of many other entries too. No VfD notice at present, just BTW. Andrewa 16:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Homophobic hate speech needs to be merged w anti-gay slogan, but thats a seperate topic. Sam Spade 08:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep according to the logic that homophobic hate speech should be kept so should this one. BL 09:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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.

• one geophysicist does not a list make. --Mishac 03:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. From little things big things grow. ShaneKing 03:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important subdiscipline. -- Decumanus 03:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - when you have more than one, you can make a list - Texture 05:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • You mean like now, when there are four on it? ShaneKing 06:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I change my vote, keep now. 4 geophysicists does a list make. --Mishac 07:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: impossible maintenance task. It's going to be comprehensive, right? (Because otherwise it should be titled List of geophysicists filtered in some way.) There's no way WP can keep up; they make a lot of new geophysicists every year, you know. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to geophysicist, 5 would make a list. -- User:Docu
  • Hey, Wily one -- check out this occupation list list. Please explain what you would like done with those lists...
  • Keep. First the argument was that there was to few geophysicists, now it is that there is to many? :) BL 10:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• this article is redundant of and identical with Other perspectives on Jesus, a more NPOV title. The article was apparently copied but not moved. COGDEN 07:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete Other perspectives on Jesus rather than Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus. The "Other" in the title is silly. Other than what? Non-Christian actually explains what the page is about much better. ShaneKing 07:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I merged Other Perspectives into it and redirected. Can be de-listed now. Tannin 07:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Non-Christian not so good, as it isn't just in contrast to the article on Christian views, but also the articles on Jewish and Islamic views. Morwen 07:54, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Other" is meaningless, and I agree that "Non-Christian" is far from ideal, as we also have articles on Islamic and Jewish views (and these are surely non-Christian faiths). But ... (the $64 question) ... can you propose a better title? I have eliminated the redundancy, but the poor title problem remains. The place to discuss this, however, is on the entry's talk page. I propose moving this discussion there. Tannin 07:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep merged article. As for renaming... I hate to poop on this party -- but, unless I am mistaken, Mormons (who are included in this article) consider themselves to be Christian. Maybe, Extra-Biblical perspectives on Jesus, or something like that. Davodd 09:17, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The merging is good, but the article should be renamed to make it NPOV. But the discussion should probably be moved to the talk page. COGDEN 03:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggest moving it to Perspectives on Jesus, and adding links to articles covering the mainstream Christian, Jewish and Muslim perspectives. The only term I can think of that means "anything other than the 'gang of three' monotheisms" is "pagan", which isn't exactly acceptable either. Onebyone 11:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Second Perspectives on Jesus move - Texture 14:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support this as long as links in the series stay as "Other..." Still not a perfect solution, though. Anthony DiPierro 15:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Discuss the naming issue on the talk page. "Non-Christian" is problematic if it doesn't discuss jewish or islamic views, but "Other" is even worse. Keep other as a redirect. Anthony DiPierro 15:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great article, remarkably NPOV at present. Great series in fact. Title is IMO an accurate and inoffensive description of the topic. If particular views are under-represented, then add them. That's no reason for deletion. Similarly, if redundant then remove redundant material. Make a redirect if there's nothing left. No deletion notice at present, just BTW. Andrewa 16:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete the inappropriately named Other perspectives on Jesus and to keep Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus - irismeister 19:22, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • The trouble with Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus is that we already have Islamic view of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus. But this is better than 'Other...'. Keep. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Title Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus is fine, no need to change it. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• Perl 15:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs content, but Robert Wyatt is well known enough to have TV documentaries made about him. Charles Matthews 15:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: slightly famous. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 10:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• No record of Josh Robbins performing any of this in 1931. Can anyone verify this is real? - Texture 18:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

**Given that the user who posted this info posted "i fucked your mom" three minutes later at 1933 in sports, I'd lean towards it's being false info. Jwrosenzweig 18:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• • • Keep as amended -- Kingturtle, you rock! Jwrosenzweig 04:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I just packed this baby with mucho info. I think it can stay now. Kingturtle 04:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• vanity advert to web page - Texture 20:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google turns up a lot of hits for antibubble. The link is related and non-commercial--it just tells what an antibubble is and how to make one. Just stubbish for now. —Frecklefoot 20:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't consider a couple hundred to be a "lot of hits". Multiples are the web site itself. - Texture 20:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • KEep. Ap[ears to be a legitimate scientific phenomenon--Mishac 20:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Threaten (new, unapproved response)Keep, as fixed. I'm not in the no-stubs school, but this really is just a stub that's a vanity advert to a web page for a phenomenon that's valid material (assuming it's not BS). So delete it unless it turns into something else. I'd accept even a good stub that says something about the matter, but this is not a good or acceptable stub. Dandrake 20:45, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I change my vote to "Endangered" - Texture 20:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Then shouldn't it be in Cleanup not VfD? Andrewa 20:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • No, I define the new term "Endangered" as in need of really fast delete as a single website's quack theories... :) - Texture 21:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a very common phenomenon, and anyone washing dishes in soapy water has seen them even if they didn't know what they were (they look a great deal like air bubbles - what gives them away is the speed at which they move). They're easy to make once you know how. Denni 21:41, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • I've just finished reworking this page. Anyone not believing antibubbles exist can now go make their own. Denni 22:39, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep. There was a long piece about this in Slashdot recently... it's a real phenomenon of legitimate interest. Dpbsmith 16:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it wasn't my intention to advertise. The site mentioned isn't anything to do with me, but I thought it was a genuine resource for further info.
    • It's a legitimate external link, and the photos are great. Denni
    • Agree. I've just looked at it, and I think it's a fine site and a highly appropriate external link. In fact, I'd read articles about antibubbles before but only just realized now that I've seen them for years--we had a drip coffeemaker that produced them regularly. You'd see little droplets skimming across the surface of the brew before sinking in. Dpbsmith 00:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Awesome! Keep. BL 10:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• child stray bullet victim. Does not belong in an encyclopedia. Sir Paul 21:34, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. They don't belong unless they make the news. Her death seems to have been covered by the Puerto Rican media. —Frecklefoot 21:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Does this mean we should include every single person that makes the news in a newspaper? Does that mean we should include the other 23 individuals who died because of stray bullets that year in Puerto Rico? Of course not. An encyclopedia should register those events that have some degree of historical significance. I concur with Denni that it is a sad story, but our emotional bias should play no role when deciding over the future of an article in this encyclopedia.Sir Paul 23:59, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sir. Paul, only one person died as a victim of stray bullets in Puerto Rico on that New Year. Antonio Frenesi Martin
      • True. But my point still holds: should we include the other 23 persons who died on previous years? Sir Paul 18:16, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's an incredibly sad story, but I question its encyclopedic value. Wikipedia has an advantage over a paper encyclopedia, where the user must give serious consideration to wall space, but does that imply that it is a suitable repository for every human's life transitions? (Sorry to sound callous - don't intend it to be.) Denni 22:47, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • Is that intended to be a vote, or just a comment? Anthony DiPierro 20:16, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 02:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ordinary people could belong here, were it, e.g., an illustrative part of a case study. Mikkalai 03:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikimemorial. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • There is no wikimemorial. Anthony DiPierro 16:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedias should be wider about a few topics, stray bullet shootings included. Antonio Feroz Martin
  • Keep. Does belong in an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 16:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a morgue. Save for time when we do have Wiki-memorial→Raul654 16:23, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is sad, but still is vanity... unless I can add details about all of my dead relatives. Davodd 20:03, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 23:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. BL 10:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Is this legitimate? Regardless, it doesn't make any sense. Perl 21:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a Star Trek: Next Generation episode. There is precedent for the eps having their own page. See Encounter at Farpoint. Admittedly, it needs work, though. RadicalBender 22:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll add some to it when I have time... in an attempt to make it a better article. Perhaps best put on cleanup, instead of here. Lyellin 22:47, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would suggest moving episodes of any given TV show to an article that reflects the show in the title of the article... ex "Star Trek TNG: Best of Both Worlds" A lot of TV show episodes are rather common phrases that could merit their own articles, it's important to keep fact separate from fiction. Alexwcovington 01:30, Feb 21, 2004 (CST)
  • Delete: insignficant. Random episodes of TV shows get their own pages? So what if it's been done before; no need to repeat the mistake. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably the most significant and popular ST:TNG episode. Mrwojo 21:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was voted the most popular TNG episode. Jacob1207 21:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a particularly notable episode, but I agree with Alexwcovington that the title is bad. A common enough phrase that doesn't mention Star Trek at all will not do. Move content and turn into redirect? Cool Hand Luke 21:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 10:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
    • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• a fictional world known only to a small group of friends. Only google hit is for a blog entry [7]. Maximus Rex 03:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, irrelevant to anyone not in that group of frineds.--Mishac 08:49, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, is known to a community of about 300 and they are planning on publishing their work. Has many Google hits when "ONW" is searched, but it takes some filtering to find them. Could provide additional information for others interested in conworlding. J. Antley 12:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What J. Antley said. Anthony DiPierro 20:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, same as J. Antley. Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • J. Antley (User:DarkFantasy) is the original author of the piece. Of course he wants to keep it. This only "exists" between a few people on a bulletin board. Maximus Rex 03:04, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Wik 03:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What J. Antley said. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Not a notable number. I withdraw my nomination of this as Tim has now added something to the article to suggest it may be notable in some small way. I don't care if it's deleted or not now. Angela.
  • Mildly cute idea, but DELETE. Unnecessary. Moncrief 10:47, Feb 21 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely redundant as is. Get rid of it. Dysprosia 10:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought we had agreed to move these pages to XXX (number)?? Mintguy (T) 10:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: then move the only useful bit of info (the largest numbers stored on 32-bit) to the article that has something to do with computing memory.
  • Delete all number pages. Anthony DiPierro 16:29, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't know what the right thing to do about number pages is, but we should be selective. This number is not famous or notable, even to most nerds, when expressed in words in decimal notation. (Nightmare: someone programs a bot to write articles about each number... "54 is the largest number which, when expressed in Roman numerals, is the first name of a Swedish actress...") Dpbsmith 16:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 54 Ullmann, that's cute. --Palapala 17:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only interesting part of it seems to be Tim's addition (2^31-1), which surely can be of much more service somewhere else...? --Palapala 17:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absurd. Sir Paul 18:19, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Orphan -- but its relation to the upper limit of 32-bit CPUs like the Pentium is informative. No vote. Davodd 19:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe put on a page of important numbers. Jacob1207 21:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. -Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 23:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stick content on a page of "interesting numbers, in brief" where people can put numeric trivia and associations until there are enough for a single number to merit its own page. And yes, XXX (number)] is a much better idea, for those numbers that are of interest.
  • Keep. Mildly interesting number. Many millions of people are aware of its significance, so if it were a person or place it would romp in. Andrewa 05:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- but make it a redirect to 32-bit and move the currently useful content (2^31 and scientific notation paragraphs to that page). RedWolf 06:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fairly significant number. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Moved to Wikibooks. Angela. 23:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Recepies are encyclopedic. BL 10:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 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)

• "Object-oriented operating system is an operating system that uses the concept of WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer...)" --- I have never seen this term before, and my (admittedly brief) searches for the term on the Internet turn up nothing but more links to this article (and articles on operating systems written in object-oriented *languages*.) AFAIK, WIMP has absolutely nothing to do with OO; this article has no basis in reality and should be nixed. jdb 06:59, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • It's quite possible to have an object-oriented user interface for an OS. Of course, the Windows GUI is emphatically no such thing, and the author is utterly full of BS. Perhaps some OS/2 guru will emerge from his cave and write an article about the real concept. As to this: Delete. Dandrake 08:08, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The author is confused. Delete. Josh Cherry 08:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• (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)

• 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)

• dictionary definition? Perl 03:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • has potential, is currently not even a stub though--Jiang
  • I don't see the potential--Markalexander100 03:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless someone writes a completely new version, at the moment its not even a decent definition. Saul Taylor 05:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I would've nominated it myself, but Perl beat me to it. Ambivalenthysteria 22 Feb 2004

• Nonsense. RickK 04:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • ... it's already gone. Fennec 05:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Restored since it is on vfd. Optim 08:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Wikipedia:The last page. Do not let it stay in the article namespace and do not delete. It is a product of Futurology and Transhumanism culture and thought and it is a very nice joke. Haven't you ever seen The last page of the web? If the web has a last page, why Wikipedia can't have one? :) Optim 08:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, good job Optim. Theres no good reason not to keep it. It is fun and heartwarming. Besides, if we move it as optim suggests, it can't possibly do any harm, but rather might make someone happy. Thats good for wikilove :D Sam Spade 08:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. No Guru 08:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Even if it were clever or enlightening, which it certainly isn't, it should go. Delete. Josh Cherry 08:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, I was amused, but there's no question this doesn't belong in the article namespace. Delete, or move to meta. Bearcat 09:59, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• don't know it's place here. seems pointless. Alex.tan 09:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Moved to List of Casio calculators. Optim 09:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)