Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Firefox Cookies Placeholder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Firefox Cookies Placeholder

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect.

[edit] Firefox Cookies Placeholder

I can't think of any program option that should have an article, this one included. Edward 15:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Don't delete. Interesting article. 212.219.92.98 15:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (aka JoeBaldwin who can't be bothered to sign in)
    • Delete. Unfortunately, the standard for these things is "encyclopedic", not "interesting". Bearcat 17:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't know much about this sort of thing, but it appears to me a lame joke inserted in a program does not warrant an article. Perhaps mention it briefly in a larger article. No redirect though. -R. fiend 16:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's just a joke. You tell jokes. You don't put them in encyclopedias! To the author, please go outside, find someone, and tell them this joke. It is much better that way. Geogre 19:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe include as information in the Mozilla Firefox article. Maybe not. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:03, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wifki 23:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly rework some material into the main Firefox article. I agree it's interesting, but it doesn't meet the level of importance to warrant an article of its own. This is like giving minor characters from TV shows and video games their own pages, which is a practice that tends to get the pages deleted, I don't see why this is any different. Shane King 00:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is true and the text on the cookies option is still in my memory. It is a legend. 01:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete! I know this one, and it might be the one piece of software least deserving of an article in Wiki Wyllium 01:30, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
    • I can't think of any program option that should have an article ? You must be joking. Wyllium 01:30, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
  • Mildly interesting trivia which would be better described in the Mozilla Firefox article. On the assumption that this anecdote is important enough to keep in that article, merge and redirect. If the anecdote gets cut from the article, delete. Rossami 01:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Aiee! Keep. The text seems to be a bit of a legend. Dysprosia 07:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. That option is almost as legendary as The Book of Mozilla. Kiand 12:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • On second thoughts, Merge and redirect. Kiand 21:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge to main Firefox article - funny, interesting, but not worthy of its own article -- Ferkelparade π 13:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. I recognized it as soon as i read the first sentence of the article. interesting, but not enough to it for its own article. SECProto 16:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not legendary. It's just cruft. --Improv 16:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love Mozilla but this is ideosyncratic. --Locarno 19:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 230 hits for "Cookies are delicious delicacies". I've been using Firefox as my Wikipedia browser for several months, and when I checked, it does, indeed, contain that phrase, but I hadn't noticed. Merge/redir if not enuf delete votes. Niteowlneils 20:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete-->BJAODN Ashibaka ✎ 20:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I've heard the story about the firefox cookies, and it's a cute little article. Although I'm not sure if something this small and obscure should be in wikipedia, my gut reaction in this case is to err on the side of inclusionism. - Lifefeed 21:49, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm forced to agree. -- Kizor 11:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Firefix or move to Firefox cookie/Firefix cookies. (User should be informed that placeholders shouldn't be put in article titles, as placeholders need to be deleted after use. Put articles in the correct spot from the start or use a personal user subpage.) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 21:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • You appear to be confused about the purpose of this article - it is not a placeholder itself, it is an article about the text "Cookies are delicious delicacies" found in options menu of Firefox. (And I presume you mean Mozilla Firefox, not "Firefix".) - Mike Rosoft 13:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mozilla Firefox.Not notable enough to warrant a separate article. - Mike Rosoft 13:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. (or maybe merge) I agree with what Lifefeed said. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 15:59, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
  • Merge with either Mozilla Firefox or Blake Ross. AlistairMcMillan 16:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a legend. It's something to memorize like "All your base are belong to us". Part of a history, the nicer and more funny one 17:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with both Mozilla Firefox and Blake Ross. This article is informative, useful or not. It's name, however, isn't "reachable" and I can't think of any adequate name anyway. Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 16:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge--Greg K Nicholson 22:02, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and factually accurate. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, mention in firefox. ✏ Sverdrup 14:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect, and mention in Mozilla Firefox. --81.178.94.158 17:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I keep forgetting to log in. The above Merge and Redirect request was mine. --Spe88 17:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. It's an interesting article but not one that warrents its own page.--Zarks 09:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. And redirect Delicious Delecacies to Mozilla Firefox, while we're at it.--TexasDex 23:13, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. The delicious delicacies thing was a legend, but it's not really deserving of its own article. Add it to the Firefox article. Frank 21:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I rather like it. But, merge. Andre (talk) 22:14, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or Merge with the main Firefox page. But Keep. As Author I would like to take a few moments to comment on an alraminly narrowminded trend that has been displayed here. One of the key ideas behind wikipedia is that it is a living thing, constntly growing and evoloving. This however is being hampered by the use of luddite phrases such as 'not encyclopedic'; if the wikipedia continues to be held to such ridigid and errnoeous standards that are unrealistic given the scope of the project, it will eventually fail; it's scope of knowledge confined simply to second rate articles from oft elitist people, who are terrified of change, or the inevtiable growth of wikipedia. So what if the article under the stricktest definiton of the term encyclopedic doesn't fit; is space so limited on the servers of wikipedia that articles that offer important facts about the growth of important projects can not be included? What can be gained from deleting everything but copied statistics about Arizona? Nothing. Much can be lost, however, including the sucuess and the joy of learning that the wikipedia current is battiling to stand for. So, I call to you, vote to keep this article, and support the enrichment of what could become the next wonder of the world. Think of it, a store house of the sum total of knowledge, experinces, history of the world. Or, if some people get there way, a project that might have been something better, but sadly wasn't. To those that voted for the outright deletion of this article I must say Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem --bquanta 07:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You're going way off-topic here, man. Discussing Wikipedia policies isn't taking you anywhere, just look into yourself and admit the possibility of not having done a perfect job. In my opinion your article is interesting and really a little encyclopedic. The name you chose for it, however, is horribly inadequate, it seems to me that you didn't put any thought into it. Anyhow, I'm going to poke a little in your article and try to save it. Omar "Ekevu" Balbuena 00:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • That was not only incredible arrogant but condescending to the highest level. I do not like being referred to as 'man' which implies disrespect, in that it refuses to address me by user name, or name thus denying and deriding my sense of identity and thus worth. Your further comments about the article I spent a good hour on being hastily composed, and without thought it not only erroneous, but against the core wikipedia principles of civility and etiquette. In shot, please do not presume that somehow your opinion or input is somehow more valuable the mine or anyone else's. --bquanta 06:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry to have offended you in such a horrible, arrogant and impersonal way. It certainly was not my intention, and this is certainly not how I see the use of the word 'man'. If we can't communicate adequately, we better not communicate at all. Apologies, cheers, and goodbye. Ekevu (talk) 11:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. Add it to the main article. Seriously. Oh yeah, and the original author of the article is starting a "spam wikipedia with support" campaign, see here. I'm currently waiting for him to edit my comment out when he notices this... --Me at work 16:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. Put into Mozilla Firefox article. Tubular 16:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)