And you point is? Look there are lot's of how to's on how to are you planning on listing each one of them here individually? The plan was to transwiki them all to wikibooks, starting with the recipes ( but people have objected to even doing that) . But there is a lot to do, and past experience has shown that there is no consensus for deleting how to pages just because they aere how tos.theresa knott 11:33, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Stubby as is, but it could be expanded to be a full (if rather esoteric) article. - TB 13:27, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
And my point is, that howtos are not encyclopedia articles, and as Theresa said, the plan was to transwiki them to wikibooks. RickK 18:50, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
This information has long been part of the Stoma article, needlessly duplicates information and does so under an article name that is highly unlikely to be searched for. I would have recommended a redirect, but I seriously doubt anyone would search for "Nail varnish impressions of stomata," without first having looked up Stoma or Stomata (which redirects to Stoma). Delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:09, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Stoma. I have to once more insist that there has never been any consensus that how-tos do not belong in Wikipedia—or if there is nobody has ever been able to point me to any evidence of it. The title of Diderot's encyclopedia is "Encyclopædie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des métiers et des art" (Encyclopaedia, or a Systematic Dictionary of Science, Arts, and the Trades) and what was good enough for Diderot ought to be good enough for us. Dpbsmith 01:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: redundant w/ stoma, and not a title that people are going to search for. Since the part about making nail varnish impressions is pretty short, there's no need for a separate article. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
