Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalpworms

Not notable. Possible neologism. Joyous 17:38, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is http://www.geocities.com/scalpworms/index2.html but I don't think it is a medical term, and I can't find anything else on the net, apart from a tape worm condition in cats? See talk:worm and talk:hair too. This is confusing. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason given for deletion. While a previous version was a prank, the current version is encyclopedic if accurate. If anyone doubts the accuracy of the current version, list it on cleanup or as an accuracy dispute. Andrewa 19:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Copy to Wikictionary and Delete or find some article about scalp conditions and Redirect. This is just a dicdef as it is. Jallan 02:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: This could be a redirect to parasite, but the reason this isn't a clean up candidate is that it's the very concept and name of the thing that's in doubt. You can't clean up Pink elephants, IMO.  Geogre 14:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that's the very reason it is a candidate for cleanup. Agree you can't cleanup pink elephants, but the status of pink elephants as a concept is in no doubt at all. It's a dangerous principle that things are nominated (or voted) for deletion simply because the nominator has never personally heard of the concept. If an article has been a week or more on cleanup or similar pages and nobody has heard of the concept, that's a different issue. But that fact should then be indicated on the article talk page. Andrewa 20:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I never have a problem with things going to clean up, if there's hope. I just suspect we're talking about ringworm here or pin worms, both of which can infest the scalp.  So long as the VfD debate goes into the talk page and it is clear that there is a prejudicial return to VfD if clean up fails, I have no quarrel with that.  My vote is the same, though, because I think this is a wrong title, an incorrect subject, upon which nothing sound can be built. Geogre 02:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Vote changed to Delete per Geogre. Currently, whether true or false, this article is only dicdef and worse, unverified dicdef. I don't see why this dicdef for an unverified word usage should be treated differently from numerous other articles that were dicdefs and were at best neolisms and which were often unverifiable. It is up to the person who creates such an article to provide some means of verfying it, if material is not easily found by Google or in standard reference books. Even if the information is valid, which I doubt, I still can't see keeping a dicdef for a word that apparently almost no-one uses. If there is something behind this, an article can easily be created from scratch at any time with fuller information by someone who knows something. It would be a dangerous principle to keep everything that is not proved to be bogus. Being unnotable is enough. And when the accuracy question touches every piece of such a short article, rather than part of it, then VfD is a good place for it. Totally unverified is a good reason to delete. Dicdef is a good reason to delete. Jallan 18:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism, dicdef. --Yath 08:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)