Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Momoloe

No explanation, makes no sense. Wasn't sure if this qualifies for speedy delete?

Delete Erwin Walsh

• Delete doesn't appear to exist. --Etacar11 00:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Walsh has made 7 VFDs on his first day here, most are disputed. He gave this article less than 5 minutes thought as is shown by the history. --Gorgonzilla 14:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, but I find nothing about this word. Verify its usage to me and I will change my vote. --Etacar11 14:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as of now it is a substub - even if it's true, it's so short as to be trival to recreate. JesseW 17:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No relevant google hits. Martg76 17:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Men and Cats

Article appears to be based on a biased internet rumor. If it is real, more citation should be given and it should be merged into cat anyway. Decapod73 02:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am a cat, and I disagree with the analysis. Sdedeo 05:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am a dog, and I disagree with the analysis. No Account 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Without citations, this article is just speculation. ManoaChild 05:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Absolute garbage. It's even signed. Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ
• Delete. No sources provided, unverified, original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. anything good should be merged into cat --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing useful to merge into cat, since it's not only OR, but is the opposite of the few surveys I've seen (ISTR higher proportion of males than females own cats, relative to owning dogs, with differences below significance levels). Basically, this is a load of barse and should be treated as such. Grutness...wha? 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (co-signed by Nut and Bolt, kittens of this parish)
• Delete - As both a cat owner and a preferrer of intellectual women, I find this fake apparent scientific study interesting, but the fact remains that it is still fake and does not belong at Wikipedia. There are zero google hits for "Aka K. Molitov," so, even if the scientist exists, he or she is not particularly well known, and, as such, is not a credible source.--Frag 20:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal essay and original research unless good verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of VfD discussion. There oughta be a law allowing speedy deletion of any article that says "studies have shown" without citing at least a couple of studies... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like a POV essay --Dysepsion 05:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. My cats agree. --Etacar11 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. I rather think this is actually a joke. The last sentence reads like a punchline. Sabine's Sunbird 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion ^talk 06:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contrablonial

Nonsense - unfortunately I don't think patent nonsense (although I won't object) --Doc (?) 22:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Patent enough that I would've {{nonsense}}d it. Anyway, if the broken English doesn't convince you, zero googles might. —Cryptic (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the nonsense per google. feydey 23:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, speedy wouldn't hurt either. Punkmorten 23:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 02:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense, neologism. ManoaChild 03:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Fever vs Malaria

Very few people would search for this article in particular. It is best to move all the dialogue to the two respective articles about Malaria and Yellow Fever. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 18:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Gee, I wish Malaria and Yellow Fever could just settle their differences and stop all their fussin' and feudin'. Ok, ok... merge into the relevant articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• merge if there's useful contentBorisblue 09:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• merge if there's useful content — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopaedic, nothing in there that isn't in Malaria and Yellow Fever already. Pilatus 14:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Adds nothing to the 2 real articles. -R. S. Shaw 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', nothing to merge.--nixie 05:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baja California Rat Snake

As it stands this article probably could be speedied, but I'm leaving it open to vote for the benefit of the poster. I have nothing against this snake or an article about it. However, the article doesn't tell me anything I can't figure out simply by looking at the name of the snake. -Soltak 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. 60 google hits are enough for me.--Fenice 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• • It's not the topic I have a problem with but the content, or rather the lack of content. If someone else was interested in expanding (I don't know nearly enough to do so) I'd be more than happy to withdraw the vfd request. -Soltak 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Then mark it with a stub or expansion topic or find the WikiProject snakes or look up some info or find some herpophile Wikipedians and ask for input ... but don't VFD an article about a subject when you accept it's a perfectly valid one for an encylcopedia article. Ben-w 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I would remind you that this article could have been (and still can) simply be speedied due to lack of content beyond restating the title. -Soltak 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
        • And then we would not have an article about the snake. Now we do. Which do you think is better? Ben-w 22:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
          • It's irrelevant at this point becuase I withdrew the request but I'll respond anyway. It is always, always better to have no article at all than to have a poorly written one with no valuable content. -Soltak 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
            • If those were the only two options, sure. They aren't. Ben-w 23:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Following expansion by Kappa there is no longer a need for vfd. Request Withdrawn -Soltak 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. But cleanup. -Splash 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dracunculiasis

More or less verbatim plagerism from the CDC site on the topic Scott.wheeler 08:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conservare, but un-copyvio. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Clean. Works-for-hire for the federal government are PD, but it would be more polite to give a brief summary and keep the CDC link. Eldereft 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What is the problem?--BirgitteSB 19:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that it was verbatim copied (and this wasn't actually noted). At any rate, I think it's far to do as Elderleft suggested. Scott.wheeler 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an informative, accurate article. Why should it be removed? Perhaps it could be stated differently to this page it has apparently been plaugerized from, but still it should stay.138.130.214.5 10:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When looking for information on plagerized articles it suggested first deleting an article and then recreating it so that the plagerized version did not remain in the WP history. Since this content seems to be PD, then that's probably not a necessary middle step. Scott.wheeler 06:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Clean Lots of useful info could be summarized down to a paragraph or so, and then a link to the original source provided. Or chunks could be quoted? Not worth throwing away. Ramk13 20:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.