This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 02:15 (UTC)
I don't even think this is funny. Inventor of chop suey? lol. We should put this on the Worst Jokes thing. WB 06:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
Not notable. --W(t) 00:09, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
*Comment - it gets 145,000 Google hits, and people like Lavasoft provide specific tools for dealing with it. WP:NOT a FAQ, but there is Category:Spyware, Category:Malware and Category:Computer viruses. No vote yet, while I do a little looking around. -Splash 00:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 02:55 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:29 (UTC)
Vanity. A google search doesn't seem to reveal anything signifcant and notable about multi-user dungeons and the allegedly existing person, or with Stephen Hawking, or anything similar. Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
Self-promotion; notability debatable. Presumably the topic deserves an article, but it might be better to start afresh. -- Avocado 00:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 00:58 (UTC)
Article about group of people (founded in 2003) "who often deal with similar cultural and aesthetic themes; generally speaking, the application of decidedly unpopular concepts via popular - often fun - media".
The article looks like vanity and is rather poorly written. There are 56 Google references, some generated by Wikipedia. I would suggest to wait until the group becomes popular enough. Pavel Vozenilek 01:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Phroziac (talk) 14:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This looks like a VfD that was never added to the log on Jun 5, so I'm completing the nomination. This looks speedy to me. Nominator's comment below.-Splash 01:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:38 (UTC)
vanity page Doctor Whom 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:40 (UTC)
Deus Homoni added ((subst:vfd)) to this article on June 16th, but didn't create the subpage. I am completing the process now. --Canderson7 01:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirected to McClintock. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)
Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "unnecessary disambig page - articles have two differnt titles". McClintock is already a disambig page. — Gwalla | Talk 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
Only comes up with one google hit [1] and that page is an add for a company with an email address of dinowhip1@***.com which incidentally is the user ID of the creator. Given that, seems like a form of neologism to me. Although I could see it being merged with bullwhip, I'd have to say delete for now. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:47 (UTC)
No content Samw 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:48 (UTC)
Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "original research; Google returns no hits". — Gwalla | Talk 02:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP.
Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason was "article criterion#1". My understanding of criterion 1 is that the contents of the article do not go significantly beyond what can be gleaned from the title; however, someone unfamiliar with soccer is unlikely to know that Santos FC is the name of a soccer club, or the name of one of its star players. On the other hand, it's a tiny little substub. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 02:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm closing this as a speedy keep, as nobody's actually given a valid reason for deletion. Merging what little extra content there is into Santos Futebol Clube, and done. sjorford →•← 09:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 22:22 (UTC)
Notability not established Samw 02:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 22:25 (UTC)
It is vanity, not notable webcomic --Kiba 03:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete after being put on Wikinews. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
Defendant in a pit bull dog attack. Delete Transfer to Wikinews, not notable. Gazpacho 03:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 14:21 (UTC)
Without adequate explanation of its significance, this ends up being little more than an advertisement. --Alan Au 03:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
Duplicate of Henry Vaughan with incorrect title, not useful as redirect: Thomas Vaughan was a philsopher, not a poet. Cleduc 03:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy delete --Phroziac (talk) 14:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Site does not exist. And if it did, it would be non-notable. Note: both outward links are to porn sites. I think we're getting spammed, might be speediable. humblefool® 04:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
The article seems mostly to be about how the Dec 2004 tsunami might well have an impact on the use of "tsunami" in trade names (for which the media are pretty much irrelevant) and the metaphorical use of the word in the media. Thus it seems to be mistitled; it would better be 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami impact on the non-literal use of the word "tsunami" -- which of course is laborious and hardly the kind of thing this encyclopedia usually covers.
That's its purpose at one level, at least. At another, it uses findings from the Global Language Monitor and is written in such a way that it's hard not to suspect that it's the GLM rather than "tsunami" that's the main subject here.
We learn that the use of the word "tsunami" in "the" (which?) "mass media" grew enormously immediately after the big one. This of course is no surprise, but the only evidence is that provided by GLM. A look in the discussion page reveals that the article was in effect written by GLM, so this is original research. But let's not belabor this: we really don't need research to tell us that "tsunami" became much more widely written and spoken after the big tsunami.
We then read that Among the immediate impacts were found to be that Tsunami-related product names began to undergo intense scrutiny and that sporting organizations had to reassess tsunami-related team names. If true, this wouldn't be surprising -- but no examples are given of name changes (proposed or actual), and there are no further details.
There's then a rehash of the derivation of tsunami and the inappropriateness of the term "tidal wave", a prediction of the future effect on "the world of consumer packaged goods" and another prediction of the effect on journalistic metaphorical hyperbole.
There's nothing interesting here: just speculation, original research into what doesn't even need research, and a bit of plugging for one service, GLM. And if the article were rewritten without irrelevance and following research that did not depend on proprietary algorithms and such mumbo-jumbo, my guess is that all it would say is that some people became rather less keen on the figurative use of a single word. This would be pretty vacuous. Delete. -- Hoary 04:10, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 01:14 (UTC)
Duplicate of content at Runaways (comics). humblefool® 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
Non-notable town park. — Gwalla | Talk 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Mgm as linkspam with little content (speedy criterion 1) --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:21 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what makes this notable, since page doesn't contain enough information. At present, just an advertisement. --Alan Au 04:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:28 (UTC)
non-notable ArrowmanCoder 04:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't see either portion of this article as being notable ArrowmanCoder 05:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Delete - It is "an N.G.O. that has been initiated in thought but not in action." Therefore unverifiable. FreplySpang (talk) 04:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:42 (UTC)
A server/community of the Neverwinter Nights online computer game. Not inherently notable. -Sean Curtin 04:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:48 (UTC)
This page and all of its redirects. It smells like some kind of advert, and is clearly not notable in any way: the album has not even been released yet! Falcon 05:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy keep --Jtkiefer 07:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Page based soley on what users believe to be true, almost none of these puppet states have ever been proven to be puppets so this article is patently unencyclopedic Jtkiefer 05:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Nominator did not add this to VFD log, doing so in is place Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Userfy --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
This article is vanity, and seems like a personal webpage, due to the quote at the top, the "about me", etc. The article was even seemingly written by the person in question (if one is notable, the article should probably come about by others, no?). It should probably be userfyed and removed from having its own article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:37 (UTC)
Not Encyclopedic, POV, Seems to be a list of external links made by a first time Wikipedian. Either Delete it or Rewrite the artcle. What part of Saint Chély d'Aubrac is noteable anyway? — Kjammer ⌂ 06:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was unintelligible. I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD by simply adding ithe members to Category:Free software. Breaking things down by license is pointless, IMO. The list has been deleted as unmaintainable. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
Unmaintainable. If it is done, it will be too huge, which makes it hard to read. Use "What links here" of the GPL article if you want a list of GPLed software minghong 06:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:41 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:50 (UTC)
Non notable group, the only google hits all show exactly same information which look promotional.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
It must be a sign of advancing age that I don't even understand what some of these articles are trying to be. I would say that this was an advert but there's no external link. It certainly doesn't look encyclopaedic. Cutler 09:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Dicdef, if not a neologism Cutler 09:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:00 (UTC)
Vanity - actually gets 79 Google hits [2] but all confirming non-notable facts in article. Cutler 09:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This is NOT vanity as im not Edgar!
Edgar was very influential, educating Canadian's with Peruvian culture and history.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Appears to be complete gibberish - delete ChrisUK 09:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
Dicdef, if not a neologism - see Chilipina Cutler 09:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)
Doesn't warrant a whole page - put content into a star wars page ChrisUK 09:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:42 (UTC)
Title is incorrect. Proper noun should have both first and last name capitalised. New article is posted correctly, this one should be deleted. 193.61.200.140 10:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:48 (UTC)
Judge for yourself 82.50.55.105 10:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily redirected per WP:BOLD.--FCYTravis 5 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)
Disney DVD is a marketing phrase, not a different DVD format. This article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Novakreo 10:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:54 (UTC)
Dicdef/ neologism Cutler 10:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:56 (UTC)
Non-notable/ vanity - see Naresh verlander (sic) above Cutler 11:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 21:00 (UTC)
Even the enthusiasts for the Stargate universe to which this article attempts to refer do not seem to think it validly canonical or encyclopaedic. See Talk: Stargate (device)#Funnel Effect?. Guess that makes it a neologism. Cutler 12:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
Non-notable actor (born 1987. IMdB yields nil post-87 [4]. There are 108 Google hits [5] but none seems to be about him. Cutler 13:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Other three topics added by me: it's basically just three students at a college in England and the film they produced. All entirely non-notable. Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 21:12 (UTC)
Not quite a speedy. A directory of book reviews. smoddy 13:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)
Contestant in a telly program. Francs2000 | Talk 13:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep, tagged for cleanup. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
Advertising. smoddy 13:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
Non-notable hospital. No, don't even think about it! Cutler 14:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
It's an essay about Sherlock Holmes. Goes down as original research. Cutler 14:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
Webcomic hosted on keenspace, a free comics hosting space, not a notable webcomic, delete--nixie 14:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
Day camps are noy encyclopedic, delete --nixie 14:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
Vanity articles for this duo, delete--nixie 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Self-promotion for a possibily joke company established in May 2005, delete--nixie 14:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
771 hits for a peer-to-peer application, does not seem sufficiently notable to be encyclopedic.--nixie 14:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
Resumecruft, delete--nixie 14:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
Vanity, not notable, useless. KFP 15:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
Cyber pets, only 100 adopted since 2001, article does not go any further to establish notability, delete--nixie 15:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
Usenet neoligism, delete--nixie 15:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
Graduated from college in 2004, vanity, delete --nixie 15:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
Delete unexceptional university clubs. The law society was up for vfd in April but no concensus was reached. --nixie 15:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
I can't tell if this article should be deleted or completely rewritten. I thought it was patent nonsense when I first saw it. I've never even heard the term before; Google only shows 28 hits. Also, nothing links to it. Phoenix-forgotten 15:46, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep, but the article remains under review as a possible copyvio. -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 03:00 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this article is about, but it appears to be non-notable comic-cruft. Mackensen (talk) 15:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
DELETE' Obviously a vanity entry.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
This isn't a Spanish dictionary the last time I checked... I'm not sure if there's something other than deletion that's necessary here. --Naresh 16:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
poorly written and little encyclopedic value ChrisUK 16:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
Notability not established, a req. for explanation tag had been on the article for several weeks. Perhaps vanity. Delete Abstain. Mr Bound 17:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 17:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has been recreated after being deleted less than a month ago, and is still complete nonsense/vandalism. Related nonsense was added to NASCAR driver pages(like Jeremy Mayfield and Kyle Petty) by 207.161.35.138, this page's author. DomRem | Yeah? 04:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)
Guess what? It's err... deletable Frenchman113 17:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)
Photographer with website and LiveJournal blog. Coudn't find notable event associated with him (thousands Google hits but only few for this person).
Sentence from his website: I've also been documenting my life via photography since 1997, in 2003 after taking photographs and putting them online I was contacted by the NME and am now working with them and various other publications as music photographer.
It looks similar to case of Naresh Verlander, another photographer right on VfD, above (A.K. got compared to him). I suggest to wait a bit until Kendall gets more famous. Pavel Vozenilek 17:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Gwalla as patent nonsense. --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 03:03 (UTC)
nonsense ChrisUK 17:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was userfy and delete FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
I am sorry, as it seems that the author has put quite a bit of work into this, but a Wikipedia article should not be a collection of external links or a directory. And as every university in the world has an economics department, this list would actually end up as a list of unversities, and we already have that. Uppland 17:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
I can't find anything substantiating this or the "Kick Barney's Ass" thing. Apparently not notable at least. Delete. - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
Not notable. --W(t) 18:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)
Nn ad. --W(t) 18:45, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Move to wiktionary and delete. --W(t) 18:54, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 15:44 (UTC)
Article is a simple how-to for creating a child's drawing; I contend that the pig-nose happy face has no cultural significance and that producing a pig-nose happy face is self-evident from any example of one (which the author has declined to include). Tysto 18:58, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)
Incorrectly named (there was a correctly named version cut and pasted, but Weyes redirected it to List of Star Wars Characters. I don't see the need for this misspelling to be redirected. Oh, and it can be deleted because it is duplicate information. smoddy 19:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 15:39 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. --W(t) 19:35, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
It's absurd, not at all notable or recognised industry terminology Tverbeek 19:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
Non-notable neologism. --W(t) 19:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
Keep- used by many, provides a meaningful label to a well established and prevalent community
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 15:00 (UTC)
Not notable. --W(t) 19:52, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:33 (UTC)
just an ad for a web ad company. commercial GangofOne 20:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Charles Matthews as unverifiable nonsense --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 03:00 (UTC)
One line of garbage is all it contains ChrisUK 20:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:28 (UTC)
more star wars garbage - doesnt warrant its own page ChrisUK 21:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:24 (UTC)
vanity page ChrisUK 21:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:18 (UTC)
Neologism, not notable. Delete. Mr Bound 21:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED at the request of the articles creator. JeremyA 14:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unverifiable. Every school has its own set of epithets, but that doesn't make them notable. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:17 (UTC)
Vanity page of some sort Pburka 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
Dictdef entered by a well-meaning anon. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:14 (UTC)
KEEP- It was number 14 on a list of websites you'll want to visit recently published by a very prestigious magazine. The site was often mentiond by Janelle on Big Brother.
Delete for advert for forum. NN as far as I know. --Lord Voldemort 23:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)