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)

Jeff Jack[edit]

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)

• Delete tenuous connection to Hawking is that he worked on the CD version of Hawking's book, presumably as a graphic designer, but the article doesn't say. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Firing squad. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Splash 00:45, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with the silly links from Grinnell, Iowa, Jeffrey (name) and Jeff. Pburka 00:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Attention 24.126.73.225 (talk · contribs). Please do not delete other users' votes or comments. I stand by my vote and my comment. Even if notability is established, it seems unlikely to me that Jeff Jack could possibly be so notable as to merit these links. Also, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Pburka 12:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 01:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. -Hmib 01:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity? Redwolf24 06:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Please do not bite the newcomers - I suggested to the author to post this. It is sourced from personal research and corporate material. The subject at hand played a key role in defining technology for GoTo, PriceGrabber, Price.com, PartsAmerica and literally dozens of other significant web applications. I have further suggested to the author to expand the information gathering to cite sources. As an influencer and guide, this subject is an unsung hero. I suggest letting her (the author) complete her attempt.
  • (unsigned comment by BigRedOne, only edits here and to the page in question)
• Delete nn vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Protein ontology[edit]

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)

• Delete, would be speedyable as a platform for a link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keep article has been rewritten. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 30, 2005 13:18 (UTC)
• Uhh.... Ok, well, get rid of it, and get an actual encyclopedic article for it. So, clean-up really... I think. Satanicbowlerhat 01:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It the opic is real article will be created. Pavel Vozenilek 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. The topic is encyclopedic but the current article is just advertising. JamesBurns 04:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The project is ambitious, far from completion and I'm not entirely sure it's encyclopaedic under this title PdDemeter 05:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Me thinks this falls under the ol' crystal ball category. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Oh joy, turning Wikipedia into an advertisement. Though this may be keepable if he wrote... What protein ontology even is! otherwise Delete like the wind Redwolf24 06:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as written. -- BD2412 ^talk 12:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to keep only Harmil's stub. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:33 (UTC)
• Keep see my edits, below the rule in the page in question. If we decide it's acceptable, just blank the original bits above the rule. -Harmil 01:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Harmil's version. No need to delete if we've got something sensible to put there -- it is a potentially valid topic for an encyclopedia article. -- Avocado 04:06, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Josh Parris ✉ 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)

• Keep as re-written and expand, obviously. Bubamara 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Unpop Art Movement[edit]

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)

• I get 115 Google hits. But anyway, Delete for vanity. CanadianCaesar 01:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence to show that it's actually vanity? Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. JamesBurns 04:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ^ditto^ Redwolf24 06:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no-notable vanity. But I bid 71 unique Google hits. -Splash 14:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as self-promotion. Hall Monitor 04:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we know that the article was created by members of the movement solely for the purpose of promoting themselves? Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Article needs improvement (to get it away from vanity), not removal. Morning star 22:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, the article is here since October 2004 and not much improvement has been done on it. None, to be exact. Pavel Vozenilek 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a movement with at least three members who are notable enough to have lengthy Wikipedia articles. It's notable. Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please note that none of those articles about the three "members" actually mention this "movement," so it can't be too significant in their lives. Delete this and all other artists and art movements that are not documented in notable academic or industry publications or media outlets. Self-referential vanity. Come back after Artforum writes about them. Postdlf 29 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)
• Keep. If it needs improvement (and I agree that it does), improve it. I tend to think that the impact this group has made on the counterculture is well documented in texts such as Apocalypse Culture and the like. So, it should stay, as the indivduals who are collected under the UnPop umbrella are all established artisans in their own right. I went ahead and fixed the lead and split it into two paragraphs. blood_victory 29 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)

The Unpop Art Movement is not documented at all in the article Apocalypse Culture, nor do any of the artisans linked from the article make mention of it. Hall Monitor 29 June 2005 15:57 (UTC)

• It isn't mentioned because it didn't exist as an entity when the book came out ca. 1989. This is a loose collective of like-minded individuals who happen to approach their various crafts with relatively the same jaundiced (sic) worldview. Maybe if we didn't call it a "movement" and instead focused on just how this collective is different from all others that have preceeded it in type and deed. Dada is undefinable. Surrealism is subjective. UnPop is similarly in the eye of the beholder. Neither you nor I can safely say what it is. To delete this because one doesn't comprehend its impact on the counterculture is INDEFENSABLE.blood_victory 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotion. Also vanity and non-notable. Article appears to be original research too. Quale 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a legitimate art movement with active members across the country. It is a relatively new movement, so articles edited by other people may not reflect involvement. Artforum articles don't make an art movement legitimate. KevinISlaughter 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a promotion to me. Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
• Delete, promocruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
• Keep, and tag it for improvement. It's a notable subject, though the article needs a little work. There is still valid content there. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Marvin Morgan[edit]

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)

Delete Dubious biography on a person I'm struggling to get even an iota of info either on the web or in the print edition. Either this is a prank or a note on some obscure business genius, either way i doubt if it deserves a place in wikipedia. i've never heard of pop fizz inc. have you?--Idleguy 08:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I also veto this entry. Worthless information from someone trying to see if he/she can keep a posting on wiki.(Unsigned comment by anon. IP 24.19.42.197)-Splash 01:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as clear patent nonsense. Also delete the image that goes with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kwanzaa.jpg Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary to inline that huge image on this page? Just ((ifd)) it -- this page is big enough already. --Tabor 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, that's better. Thanks! --Tabor 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Patent nonsense. Pburka 01:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As per above. -Hmib 01:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied as blatant nonsense. "At the age of 6, he had already learned 13 different languages and was an expert in the field of baby-making"? Please. — Gwalla | Talk 04:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Holosoth[edit]

vanity page Doctor Whom 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Vanity, 'nuff said. -Hmib 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ^Ditto^. EatAlbertaBeef 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ^ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Obvious Vanity Redwolf24 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe Speedy according to the "Very short articles with little or no context" rule. Otherwise, it's got 2 google hits. -Eisnel 09:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn pointless vanity. --Etacar11 19:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity -Harmil 01:29, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a Rolodex. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
• Delete. I saw this linked from Bemanistyle. I thought "holosoth" was, perhaps, something else he named himself after. I was wrong. :( Azure Haights July 3, 2005 03:17 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Michael Singleton[edit]

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)

• Keep - Informative. (Unsigned vote by 24.210.54.156.)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Pburka 01:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like vanity. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, not notable. Cleduc 03:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless it gives some reason for being notable... Redwolf24 06:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, no suggestion of notability. -Eisnel 09:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn DS1953 18:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox -LostAccount 18:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 19:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (Sorry for not creating the subpage) yeah, It fails to establish notablity; as far as I can see it's a vanity page. Deus Homoni 13:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity -Harmil 01:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

McClintock (disambiguation)[edit]

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)

• Keep. Useful disambiguation page. Pburka 02:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since McClintock is already a disambig page, what is the purpose of McClintock (disambiguation)? — Gwalla | Talk 02:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand the reason for the nomination. 23skidoo 02:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What don't you understand about it? It's a redundant and pointless disambig. — Gwalla | Talk 02:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This nomination appears to be incorrect. It points at McClintock when the nominated page is actually McClintock (disambiguation). I vote to keep McClintock and delete McClintock (disambiguation). Pburka 03:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now. Yes, the fate of McClintock is not at issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 04:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As said, disambig page already exists at McClintock. -- Cabhan 05:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there is no point here. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to McClintock seems simpler, but Delete is OK too. -Eisnel 09:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary with McClintock already a dab. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirect to McClintock. There is, I have discovered, a very good reason to keep "Foo (disambiguation)" pages that point at "Foo", which happens to be a disambig page - it makes it easier to sort out and clean up erroneous links to disambig pages, by setting aside instances where the link is actually intended to point to the disambig. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:54, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Redirect to McClintock. — RJH 18:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Dinowhip[edit]

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)

• Delete. Term does not appear to be widely used. Pburka 02:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The original version of this article was speedied. Given the almost complete absence of Googlability I'd have to say delete as unverifiable, possible nonsense, even though the link in the article appears to be a site dating from 2000 which, if true, would mean it wasn't a neologism. Must write in shorter sentences. -Splash 02:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ^ditto that all^ Redwolf24 06:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ^^^ -Eisnel 09:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dinocruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Software solutions[edit]

No content Samw 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Should have been speedied for nonsense when it was created... but delete now that its here anyways. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a web hosting service. Gazpacho 03:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As mentioned on its talk page, such articles are more appropriate for |Wikibooks, and even then each article should be directed at a specific type of software or area of software. Ben Babcock 05:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's more appropriate for wikibooks, but only when it actually has some content. PdDemeter 05:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 08:41 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Xenoarchy[edit]

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)

• Delete: all true, zero Google hits, appears to be 'original research'. Gblaz 02:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, neologism. JamesBurns 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "Xenarchy" gets lots of Google hits, but all that I looked at were not relevant (mostly screen names). Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal theory and non-notable: nobody has written a book on it, and it does not exist! Falcon 05:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Misterwindupbird 06:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is original research but I hope it finds a home somewhere off wikipedia - it is a clever idea. GabrielF 17:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism. --Etacar11 20:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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.

Santos FC[edit]

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)

• Keep, even if it eventually becomes a redirect to an article of another name. There's an article for every group of hairless primates that chases a ball, why not this one? Cleduc 03:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be only a tiny stub, but Santos is one of the world's most famous soccer clubs. Its best known player was a guy named Pele. I shall attempt a rewrite. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind - it's already here as Santos Futebol Clube. Changing vote to merge and redirect. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Dennis Ng[edit]

Notability not established Samw 02:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, copied from his web page. Gazpacho 03:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and copied from elsewhere. Harro5 03:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. CanadianCaesar 08:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn professor vanity. --Etacar11 20:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "copied from elsewhere" is not a problem in this case (you can submit your own writing to WP, after all), but I agree that notability has not been established. -Harmil 01:36, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

OniKiri : Demon killer[edit]

It is vanity, not notable webcomic --Kiba 03:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable webcomic, just started last month. — Gwalla | Talk 04:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable comic. JamesBurns 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the stated, boring reasons. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and I'll eat my hat if it ever is. --Misterwindupbird 06:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• User:Celestianpower/Delete
• Delete. Non-notable. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 18:38 (UTC)
• Delete. Kinda notable in that it's the only trilingual webcomic (that is author-translated, not fan-translated) I can think of. But no link, no references on Google, and such enlightening information as "It is a copyrighted work" makes this a deletion candidate. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Maureen Faibish[edit]

Defendant in a pit bull dog attack. Delete Transfer to Wikinews, not notable. Gazpacho 03:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain This is trash but "Faibish bit bull San Francisco" gets over 5000 google hits. Wikipedia is full of stuff no worse than this, which will be a big deal at the checkout counters for a month or two. --Wetman 03:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if expanded. News coverage on this story as far away as Australia - borderline notable. JamesBurns 04:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually a pretty big deal in the SF bay area, and has been all over the news. Granted, the current stub doesn't say much, but it's verifiable and notable. — Gwalla | Talk 04:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. Porturology makes an excellent point. — Gwalla | Talk 20:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move Seems more suited to wikinews PdDemeter 05:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It'a not so much the dog mauling per se that makes this noteable - but the amount of notoriety this woman has gained with that interview has made her a 'household name' in the Bay Area and as such warrants a mention in Wikipedia.
• Transwiki to Wikinews. Sustainabilty of notoriety is very doubtful. "coverage as far away as Australia" ! - there is a picture in today's Sydney Morning Herald of an american dog wearing sunglasses - does this make the dog a subject for an encyclopaedia article?--Porturology 07:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It would if the dog could talk on television interviews and gave birth to a kid, which was then killed in a pit bull attack. JamesBurns 04:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If it gets kept, someone should correct the information, because July 24 2005 hasn't happened yet. DS 16:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki from Wikipedia to Wikinews is not allowed, for copyright reasons. A Wikinews article would have to be written from scratch. If I have the time today, I'll do so, I've done so, since this is newsworthy. I strongly suggest that all of the editors who have voted for transwiki reconsider their votes in light of the fact that what they want is not permitted. (Any of them is welcome to go to Wikinews xyrself and beat me to writing an article. ☺) Uncle G 13:19, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • Wikinews:San Francisco mother of 12-year-old boy who was mauled to death charged with child endangerment Uncle G 17:23, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete as there is now a wikinews article--Porturology 23:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:49 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Galaxy Desserts[edit]

Without adequate explanation of its significance, this ends up being little more than an advertisement. --Alan Au 03:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yellow pages, the Wikipedia is not! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising vanity - this is on the verge of being an "a very short article with little or no context". -Splash 23:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fairly well known company which has national exposure. I added a better version of the page, below a rule (see page in question). If people think it's worth keeping, just remove the original version above the rule. -Harmil 01:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As Harmil said, it is a well-known company with 11000 hits on Google. It also looks like a valid entry now -- _not_ "a very short article with little or no context"
• Keep 11000 hits on Google deserves a mention. Since the article has been re-written by Harmil it can be kept.
• Keep. It's a fine article now. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:51 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Thomas Vaughan (poet)[edit]

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)

• Delete as duplicate content. JamesBurns 04:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above - But are you sure it's not Henry and Thomas's brother, also named Thomas, who evilly got credit for everything both of his brothers did, without doing anything? --Phroziac (talk) 14:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If this is a duplicate of our Henry Vaughan article, then that needs help, too. Wow. Influenced Wordsworth, eh? There is stuff to say about the man's poetry. Geogre 05:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Comrade Che[edit]

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)

• Delete as-speedy-as-possible. Good catch! FreplySpang (talk) 04:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 04:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied. — Gwalla | Talk 04:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Impact on Global Media[edit]

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)

Abstain. I didn't look at the article. I just wanted to say that this is the longest reason for delete ever! Congratulations on the record. --Lord Voldemort 23:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Some of the information into the 2004 Tsunami article and delete this one. EatAlbertaBeef 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Merge and delete" is an invalid vote (see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. If content is merged, a redirect must be left to preserve attribution history. — Gwalla | Talk 04:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: What "information"? I think there is none, aside from (i) "tidal wave" is a misnomer (which we already know); (ii) "tsunami" is derived from such and such (which we already know); (iii) the media talked more about "tsunami" after 26 Dec 04 than before (which is obvious); (iv) "tsunami" has been used figuratively (which is trivial). -- Hoary 05:08, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research and speculation. JamesBurns 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - too far over the line into original research and crystal ball-gazing. Personally I have seen no lasting impact on the use of the term tsunami or on media in general and I spend far too much time watching for these sorts of things. 23skidoo 07:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Content-free ramblings; mostly a plug for PJJP's GLM. --Macrakis 16:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete somewhat interesting original research that you'd normally to expect to find on page 35 of your daily newspaper. CanadianCaesar 23:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, possible advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. It's not original research. It cites its source. Just take out all the references to GLM and replace them with one reference at the bottom of the main Indian Ocean tsunami page, then merge all the useful content. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:54 (UTC)
  • What "useful content"? -- Hoary July 2, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Chase Stein[edit]

Duplicate of content at Runaways (comics). humblefool® 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Runaways (comics) — Gwalla | Talk 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Runaways (comics). User who created this page has created pages for every member of the Runaways. I've been turning them into redirects, but if those an editor wants to delete those redirects, I'll change my vote on this one to Delete. --Pc13 09:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Lola valley[edit]

Non-notable town park. — Gwalla | Talk 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to vote delete, but given the overwhelming precedent on schools (and the similarly non-notable middle school that this links to), I have to admit that it would be inconsistent to delete this, as much as I would otherwise like to. — Phil Welch 05:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Redford Township, Michigan. Kappa 09:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unless there is potential for expansion, Merge to Redford Township, Michigan and/or Hilbert middle school. As an aside, why on earth does Hilbert Middle School redirect to Hilbert middle school?? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved it to Hilbert Middle School. Kappa 15:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with town per Kappa. — RJH 18:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge until there's an expansion. -- Natalinasmpf 19:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Fumbbl[edit]

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)

• 'Delete. NatusRoma 05:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - PdDemeter 05:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. JamesBurns 06:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Not almost - definitely. Speedy delete as a place to promote the linked site and lack of content (speedy section 1). - Mgm|^(talk) 17:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Shrivel[edit]

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)

• Keep, but remove the gamecruft. -Sean Curtin 05:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove the fancruft and keep the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Remove the games ad. JamesBurns 06:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If there's no wither, wane or rumple, why this?. --Misterwindupbird 06:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly move to shrivelling. Not having one article is not a reason not to have another. Kappa 09:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary for gosh sakes. A dictionary definition is all this will ever be. If I'd labelled it so, however, some little person would have come and complained to me. So, while we're all voting on "shrivel" the trash is piling up at New Pages. --Wetman
• Weak Keep. This is more that a dictdef as it provides a (brief) description of the physical process of shrivelling. (i.e. it tries to answer the why as well as the what). Pburka 13:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you should be voting to move it to the participle shrivelling, as per the Wikipedia:naming conventions (verbs). Uncle G 13:29, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Keep the first part and expand the first part, merge the second. Capitalistroadster 15:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Demokratia[edit]

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)

• Delete. Theoretical organization that does not exist. — Gwalla | Talk 05:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this advertising for vaporware. -- Hoary 05:20, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete . . . it's not notable, poorly written, does not belong here. Ben Babcock 05:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. — Phil Welch 05:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Initiated in thought?" Puhleese. --Misterwindupbird 06:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

World of Avlis[edit]

A server/community of the Neverwinter Nights online computer game. Not inherently notable. -Sean Curtin 04:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no serious notability established, reads more like an ad. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:35, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:58 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

The Cookbook[edit]

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)

• I retract my nomination, as the album seems to exist and the article has been cleaned up. I vote keep. Falcon 18:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I just made those redirects to prevent confusion with the cookbook article (I didn't create the actual album article itself). And an album that hasn't been released yet does NOT mean it's not notable!!! Have a look on other albums' articles which haven't been released yet, like Hypnotize by System of a Down, to be released in more than 3 months time!!! How are they "adverts"? Actually this album has already been leaked to the Internet already, next time at least use a search engine to search for it to see if anyone else think's it's notable or not. secfan 05:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ummm..now Wikimedia has a lot of server power to spare these days meaning the search results pages are back which makes finding obscure articles easily. I don't think all those redirects would help much. --Krystyn Dominik 06:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The search feature doesn't work all of the time, and try searching "cookbook", you won't find the album there at all... that's why I also had to put a disambiguation link on the top of the Cookbook article itself. secfan 06:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Redirects like that are very helpful, apart from searches they also aid linking. Anyway redirects are deleted automatically when a page is, you don't need to mention them in the nomination. Kappa 09:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Bitch Slap (..delete) - Not encyclopedic. --24.186.249.15 05:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How can it be not encyclopedic, it's just a description of what the album is... and it's just a stub anyway... secfan 05:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It is officially the upcoming album (official name and release date are confirmed by Amazon.com) of a popular American hip hip musician, Missy Elliott. The song "Lose Control" is being played a lot in radio and television stations. There are gazillions of music albums articles in Wikipedia. This should be included in Wikipedia. Strong keep vote from me. --Krystyn Dominik 06:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 64.12.116.137 06:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Albums do seem to get a fair bit of coverage by Wikipedia, and if we have an article for the upcoming Spider-Man 3, why not an upcoming album? CanadianCaesar 08:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No cheesier than Amici Forever Wikipedia is full of this stuff. --Wetman 08:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable and verifiable, if possibly cheesy, album. Kappa 09:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - just be thankful that we don't yet allow every song to be its own article. -Eisnel 10:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't (thank goodness), but on a related note, you might be interested in reading through these: Category:Mariah Carey Singles.
  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Uncle G 13:34, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Keep; perfectly legitimate contribution if a little dull. jamesgibbon 13:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable album by notable artist. Capitalistroadster 16:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable album. DS1953 18:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the record comes out week-after-next, and the lead single hit the Top 40 already (although I am a little peeved that there's only two Timbaland-produced tracks on the LP). --FuriousFreddy 19:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for obvious reasons. Silly deletion nomination. Volatile 29 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)
• Super Keep! Many albums are listed before release! Super Orange! 4 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Puppet state[edit]

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)

• Comment please take note of this excerpt from the article States or governments accused of being puppets since 1900, word accused has been bolded emphasis. Jtkiefer 05:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Stupidest VfD nomination ever. — Phil Welch 05:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the shape of the article, VfD is tempting. I do no object to keeping the article, though, unless that awful original research "list of countries accused of being puppet states" list is restored. 172 05:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How about verifying it instead of blindly destroying information? — Phil Welch 05:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not need to verify it, and indeed I should not. Wikipedia is not the place for original research-- not mine nor anyone else's, as it lacks the capacity to develop its own criteria for such categorization schemes and then apply them. See my comments on the VfD page for Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War for the same argument. 172 05:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That is absurd--the list simply correlates known accused puppet states with occasional evaluative input as to the validity (in more famous cases). You might have a point at least in asking for cited sources, though I am not going to take responsibility for the material I didn't add personally. --TJive 06:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's a matter of historical record that North Korea considers South Korea a US puppet state, and that the US made the accusation that East Germany, Poland, et. al. were Soviet puppet states. That much is easily verifiable. Why not let others verify it instead of just destroying information? That's tantamount to vandalism. — Phil Welch 06:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that the nomination brings up some excellent points about this article, but the concept of the article itself is a good one. I just think it should be changed from a list to just a discussion of the concept of puppet states and possibly some historical examples. The beginning of the article is on the right track. (But to call this the "stupidest VfD nomination ever" is ... odd. User:Jtkiefer makes a decent argument, this isn't a nonsensical nomination.) kmccoy (talk) 05:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I would like to clarify my reasoning behind this VFD, I have nominated due to the fact that this lists blind examples of accused puppet states, if this were about the concept of a Puppet state then this would fall right under wikipedia guidelines. Jtkiefer 05:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The comment, "States or governments accused of being puppets since 1990," is a precondition to neutrality on the matter for including examples--the point is rather elementary, and it preceded any input of mine. You say that, "almost none of these puppet states have ever been proven to be puppets," but refrain from giving criteria as to what constitutes such as proof--the point of the article is that it is an accusation leveled by individuals, organizations, and/or governments against other governments. It is hard to see that one may credibly deny that this is so, regardless of whether the accusation is true or not, and in several cases within the very list the quality of the accusation is lessened by a brief recount of the relevant history.

For an example take China; the communists receieved substantial assistance from Stalin and played a subservient role to its policy in the communist world from the establishment of the People's Republic, yet it came to resent its secondary status as well as Khrushchev's "revisionism" and broke in the coming decades, with an attempt to achieve an hegemony all its own. Hence, "Red China" was often considered in the west to be the Kremlin's implacable ally but this later proved to be farcical, and the point was played upon by American strategists from the Nixon to Reagan administrations.

I also took consideration into the matter of neutrality as it regards the order and listing of puppet "groups", with a simple chronological outlook--the first listed accused puppet state came from the US, then the USSR, and so on (as well as which state came before another on the same list). More groupings could be added, such as with France's colonialism, the coups, and counter-coups, but this is not an area I am knowledgeable in and requires that others participate, not simply vote to delete the matter.

Finally, the supposition of deletion itself rests upon the mere listing but the same attributions of semantic, relativist, propagandistic, and emotive rationales for terms can be found in the existence of articles for kulak, treason, freedom, resistance movement, freedom fighter, enemy of the people, satellite state, aggression, genocide, dictator, terrorist and numerous others--this should not imply that the existence and importance of the term be negated nor that it may actually be applied in many cases with species reasoning or not. In short, this dispute is more appropriate for the talk page and not at all proper in deciding for all-out deletion.

--TJive 05:48, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep I realize now (after discussions with wikipedia users) that this article does have hope if changed and that I probably made a mistake listing it for VFD in a case where I could have been Bold and edited it myself and with input of other users reworked this into a good article on the concept of a puppet state. Jtkiefer 06:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and NPOV it. - Sikon 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• puppet government and puppet regime redirect to puppet state. The last section of puppet points to it.) Anthony Appleyard 06:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Sean Robins[edit]

Nominator did not add this to VFD log, doing so in is place Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No noteable achievements. Likely a vanity page. Billhpike 04:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Sean has done nothing encyclopedia-worthy, sorry. humblefool® 04:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a vanity page. Especially since the last edit is by User:Sean R. PdDemeter 06:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's vanity, and I hate articles made by the person in question. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. CanadianCaesar 08:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete waste of time and diskspace jamesgibbon 13:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nothing notable here. --Etacar11 20:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity. -Splash 23:51, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity, and last edit by "Sean R" looks a bit malicious. Monicasdude 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Harmisajedi[edit]

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)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Could it be a botched attempt at creating a legit user page? CanadianCaesar 08:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, probably the creator didn't understand the wikipedia system. Kappa 09:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, probably an innocent mistake jamesgibbon 13:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Clear userfy to User:Harmisajedi. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. An honest mistake made by a new user. Rentastrawberry 17:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy since they actually have an account, with an appropriate version of a ((test1)) message. -Splash 23:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Author has made other contributions to Wikipedia. Userfy. Uncle G 14:56, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Why is his user name red? Has he gone or is he from another language wiki? Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 07:18 (UTC)
  • A red username simply means that he has no user page (like how article links go red when there is no article on the other end). It's not really significant :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | June 28, 2005 21:49 (UTC)
    • The information in this article has now been moved to the contributor's user page. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 00:58 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Saint-Chély-d'Aubrac[edit]

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)

Comment: Author attempted to remove the VFD tag. — Kjammer ⌂ 09:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, real place. Kappa 10:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Redirect to St chély d'aubrac which I have just spent some time cleaning up. Perhaps it should be the other way round. I don't think that towns have to be notable. Cutler 11:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We can have small French towns, just as much as all those one-horse places in the USA. Charles Matthews 11:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Saint Chély d'Aubrac and move to Saint-Chély d'Aubrac. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have followed DoubleBlue (Talk)'s suggestion and tried to write something sensible at Saint-Chély d'Aubrac. Will it do? Cutler 15:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Works for me. Now all the others should be redirects. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep Saint-Chély d'Aubrac article with others as redirects and expand. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect, I suppose. We have myriad nearly-nonexistent town, hamlets and outposts from several countries and France should be no different. I'm concerned that the new article is one long list of links with little actual material, but that's a different discussion. -Splash 23:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as for other such places. First time contributors are not bad people who should be punished for any mistakes they make. CalJW 00:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD is by no means punishment. It's just the community's way of maintaining some sort of standard in the 'pedia. -Splash 00:35, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

List of programs released under the GPL[edit]

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)

• Keep. As much as I might disagree, if we're gonna vote to keep the List of unusual personal names, we should keep this, no? --Misterwindupbird 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is more suitable as a category, not as an article. List of unusual personal names is not suitable for a category probably because you'd have it hanging around at the bottom of the articles and whatnot. But categorizing GAIM as GPL'd makes perfect sense, and categories automatically act as lists. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |
• Keep, but change the title to include 'notable' or 'well-known, otherwise it's misleading jamesgibbon 13:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Categorise it. --Celestianpower 13:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Categorize it. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 13:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jamesgibbon. Kappa 14:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, do not categorize. Rename and/or add a header to indicate that not every single GPL program needs to be on there. But subcategorizing programs by license is overcat'ing. Radiant_>|< 22:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Unmaintainable. Categorize. Haikupoet 23:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the nominator. This sets a precedent for lists of software released under all the available licenses, and you've only got to look at the image copyrights page to see what a mess that would make. If kept, do not categorify. -Splash 23:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Categorise. As a matter of policy every GPLed program with an article on Wikipedia is "notable". Tverbeek 00:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What policy is that? Uncle G 13:41, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Categorize. This is good information but would be much more suitable in category form. The suggestion that people use What links here on the GPL article is ridiculous; that's non-obvious, additional work, and will give lots of irrelevant results. Nickptar 07:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong categorize. This is why we have categories. — Phil Welch 14:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Categorical keep, do not categorize. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:07 (UTC)
• Categorize - easier to maintain. -Seth Mahoney June 29, 2005 22:19 (UTC)
• Categorize. Some pages don't make it clear that they're talking about GPL software. A list on another page does not make that clear either. Categorization would. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
• Categorize - this would be perfectly appropriate as a category. That would also guarantee it only included notable programs. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 16:02 (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 a deletion review). 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 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)

Pattaya today newspaper[edit]

• Delete - straightforward advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the Eastern Seaboard?? This is just an advertisement, probably written by an editor of the paper. Redwolf24 06:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "Pattaya Today has been improving all down the line. It has more 'real' news than its competitors." Gee, do you think they could have made the advertisement a little less subtle? In the second section they drop the facade altogether and refer to the newspaper as "we." Delete this insult to our intelligence. CanadianCaesar 08:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No need for an explanation. Rentastrawberry 17:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and never, ever buy their newspaper. -Splash 23:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Sanskriti O Biddya CharchaPit[edit]

Non notable group, the only google hits all show exactly same information which look promotional.

Correction: Google returns no hits other than promotional material inserted into Sufism. All google hits link to that promotional part or wikipedia mirrors. No separate reference to article found anywhere. --Ragib 07:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete:Non notable, vanity, group trying to promote itself. --Ragib 06:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo for a non notable group. JamesBurns 06:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep : notable group. already entried in sufism. - aminul Islam, Dhaka, Bangladesh <nazirbd@gononet.com> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.138.110 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of verifability. Also, delete references in Sufism as this for above reasons. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promocruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Super Smash Bros. Melee Trophies[edit]

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)

Comment: To be fair, a little research could have told you what this is. Have a look at Super Smash Bros. Melee#Trophies. I would support a merge, but the completed list is about 300 trophies. So I am not sure what to do with it. Sonic Mew 09:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I edited the article so it would be a little less of an eyesore, and provided a link to Super Smash Bros. Melee, It should probably be re-titled List of Super Smash Bros. Melee Trophies, since the article would be mostly a list. — Kjammer ⌂ 10:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This should be merged, but how much? Should we give the Trophy descriptions? -- A Link to the Past 13:48, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, not a comfortable merge. Kappa 14:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see the value in keeping such a list, particularly given its gross incompleteness at present. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This information can easily be displayed on the page Super Smash Brothers, but I do not believe that it should have its own page on wikipedia. So merge or delete but preferably merge. Rentastrawberry 17:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: the information is already covered at GameFAQs, which Wiki Is Not; and besides, and do we REALLY want to be responsible for maintaining a list of three hundred trophies? Marblespire 18:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. The trophies in SSBM are just "souvenirs" that don't actually do anything; the vast majority are characters and items from other games by Nintendo. Nobody will need to look them up, because the descriptions are available from within the game. Title goes against guidelines. — Gwalla | Talk 20:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Super Smash Bros. Melee Satanicbowlerhat 22:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Also, this list would be way too big if completed. I mean, 300 entries? Nestea 00:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a GamesFAQ. JamesBurns 04:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs, but parts of it are (and should remain so). Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft of the worst kind. WP:NOT GameFAQs. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Chilipina[edit]

Dicdef, if not a neologism Cutler 09:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Author claims word is fictitious. Pburka 16:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 35 Google hits. Delete this non notable fiction. CanadianCaesar 23:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Haikupoet 23:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, I think. Wasn't this one of Bullwinkle J. Moose's "magic words"? Monicasdude 00:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Google doesn't seem to say it is. It sounds like something he might say, though. At any rate, delete as neologism. --Idont Havaname 04:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Redirect to Chilipino if Chilipino is kept. (See my new vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chilipino.) --Idont Havaname 04:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Edgar Aranda[edit]

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.

• Delete - Possibly vanity, but definitely non-notable. Aecis 18:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. BCRCornet 22:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Khoonda[edit]

Appears to be complete gibberish - delete ChrisUK 09:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Much as it pains me, it appears to be something to do with Star Wars. Send to WP:Cleanup Cutler 09:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable KOTOR II plot point.
• Delete If its not furries, its star wars. This minor goo isn't just cruft, it's the dried leftovers from a fanboy circle jerk. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Chilipino[edit]

Dicdef, if not a neologism - see Chilipina Cutler 09:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Pburka 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Idont Havaname 04:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This term gets about 1200 Google hits. Could it be merged into list of terms for multiraciality? If possible, i.e. if anyone notable is Chinese and Filipino, then this could become its own article. (Most of the terms in list of terms for multiraciality do have their own article.) If we make Chilipino its own, valid article, then Chilipina should redirect there, since Filipina is the feminine equivalent of Filipino (and Filipina redirects to Filipino). --Idont Havaname 04:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Most of the Google hits (at leasts on the first few pages) seem to be usernames, not actual uses of the term. Therefore, I'd vote Delete. Monicasdude 15:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the list of terms for multiraciality. --eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Stark Commercial Combine[edit]

Doesn't warrant a whole page - put content into a star wars page ChrisUK 09:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. smoddy 09:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 04:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. — Phil Welch 14:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Naresh verlander[edit]

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)

• Delete - the above would be a case only for a redirect but in fact this is a vanity page of a non-notable photographer. Only 15 Google hits [3], most of which are the same sort of self-promotion as this. Cutler 10:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 20yo photographer of rock bands. His work looks good, but hardly encyclopedic. Andrewa 11:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Zybez[edit]

Judge for yourself 82.50.55.105 10:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Entire content Zybez is a RuneScape fansite, plus two external links, one of them to the site itself. No evidence it's encyclopedic. Andrewa 11:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: As a speedy delete, this falls into the "no content but external links"/Spam category. As a regular delete, it's an ad, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 13:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with both above statements. Atomic Cosmos 16:27 25, Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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[edit]

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)

• Weak keep - you may be correct or the article may be. Either way, an article that told us the correct answer would be useful. Perhaps in the end this is a redirect. Cutler 11:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Walt Disney Company, if that's the lemma: They're just DVD's, but Disney is trying to broaden the folk-derived term "Disney movie" to the DVD. I.e. they want it to be a type of film, but, since it's never released to the theaters, a type of DVD. It's a marketing ploy. Geogre 13:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur jamesgibbon 13:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. It's just a brand name, not a new format. 23skidoo 15:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Brand name for the Walt Disney Company. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Where do you find proof that Disney DVD is equal to DVD format? I've never seen a Disney DVD with the standard DVD logo. Neither did I find a paper published by Disney, that would reveal them to be equal. Has some one solved this by reverse-engineering all Disney DVDs to prove they all are standard DVDs, even if they don't have the DVD logo? If we are going to claim they are DVDs, we have to be absolutely sure! That is why I did not claim so in the first place. Any suggestions on getting proof are welcome. Otherwise I suggest we keep it the way it is. --Easyas12c 16:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Breathe, friend. It's gonna be okay. --FuriousFreddy 18:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See my comment below. I think people may be missing Easyas12's point. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Walt Disney Company, no merge. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, uses the same MPEG-2 format, AC3 files, and interface design as a duck, and is for all intents and purposes compatible with duck-playing devices, then guess what? It's a duck. "Disney DVD" is really nothing mre than a marketing term for all DVDs released by Disney (except the Pixar films, which carry the regular "DVD-Video" logo, yet come from the same distribution comapny, Buena Vista. Hmmm...). Also, I have listed Category:Disney DVD releases at categories for deletion. --FuriousFreddy 18:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect per FuriousFreddy. The standards for CD, CDV, DVD etc are well-established, and Disney is not breaking them. Radiant_>|< 22:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article could be rewritten with no change it contect to one sentence. "Disney-DVD is the same as regular DVD." Tombride 23:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- marketspeak. Haikupoet 23:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh please - surely a 'Disney DVD' is just a DVD released by Disney. Easy, really. If they had a proprietary format, they would have had the good sense ot make sure it wasn't compatible with all DVD players so that they could charge us all for buying a new player just for their DVDs. Do not redirect, since Wikipedia is not a place for mysterious, unfounded conspiracy. In response to the comment by the author above - the burden of proof is on verifiability of the article, not on all the possible alternatives. The article needs to establish its meaning itself (either by revision or evidence in this VfD).-Splash 00:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Walt Disney Company. It's just Disney's branding for their DVDs. Sheesh. tregoweth 00:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless marketspeak. JamesBurns 04:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that Disney's video discs bear a different logo than the standard DVD logo might be worth mentioning in some article in the proper context, but I will leave it to Easyas12c to do so. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment I think many voters have, however, missed the point. I think that Easyas12c is suggesting that if they do not bear the standard DVD logo, it may for a reason. Various companies have introduced copy-protected or otherwise restricted formats such as Flexplay and copy-protected CDs. The protection mechanism requires the format to differ from the standard, and therefore these formats are never in strict compliance with the standard. Standards organizations seem to be taking the principled (and realistic) stand that these products not really be reliably playable on all standard playback gear, and therefore may not bear the trademarked CD or DVD logos.

Exactly --Easyas12c 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Easyas12c is insinuating that consumers should regard"Disney DVDs" with suspicion, and that they may contain some kind of stealth DRM or copy protection or copy tracking mechanism which may be revealed at some later date. Since Disney is extremely assertive about IP protection, this is not a totally paranoid speculation.

I happen to agree that consumers should treat the absence of a standards logo as a red flag. Unfortunately, as far as I know any notion that Disney DVD's are not standard DVDs is speculation. The fact that Disney DVD's do not bear the DVD logo is a rather trivial fact, unless Easyas12c or someone else can cite credible sources that suggest that there's more to this than Disney corporate ego. In that case, the nonstandard logo becomes an important fact. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having an article on the subject could lead to further examination, thus having written down what we already know is not a bad idea. There is no reason why Disney could not have the standard DVD logo beside their own, other than the discs not really being DVDs. --Easyas12c 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Splash, and stick to my original Delete.

If there were such a thing as a Disney DVD that wasn't just an ordinary DVD made by Disney with their custom logo, then an article that actually explained this would be great. As it stands, the current article is just speculation that Disney DVDs are somehow different without offering any explanation how.

It is quite common for CDs and DVDs to not carry their standard logos without necessarily having DRM present. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary (on Google, or on Slashdot, where people have often mentioned creating backup DVDs for children to use without damaging the original) that a Disney DVD is anything other than the standard format described here. Novakreo 28 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

I have also backupped my copy controled audio cds to my computer, and there still is DRM present, right? --Easyas12c 28 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Easyas12c, the fact that the Disney DVD's carry a substitute for the DVD logo is a bit of subtrivia. It might be appropriate to mention it briefly in the context of some Disney article. However, DO NOT include any personal speculation about the significance of the fact UNLESS you actually have a verifiable outside REFERENCE you can cite as to what that significance might be. You could quote speculation by someone notable but you can't put in your own speculation. Dpbsmith (talk) 28 June 2005 10:05 (UTC)

I was browsing DVDs at a store today and noticed that at least two Disney releases (The Pacifier and the Mickey/Donald/Goofy version of The Three Musketeers) carried the standard DVD Video logo. Also, if there were truly any special DRM voodoo, it seems that they would create similar names for their other labels—Touchstone, Miramax, etc. tregoweth June 29, 2005 02:06 (UTC)

Good point. I'm sure the DVD Forum does not require licensees to carry the logo. On the Diskey disks, it is probably just Disney ego. I'm not a Disney-watcher, but I could easily imagine their having policy of never allowing any non-Disney logo to appear on their stuff. Certainly, I could imagine them thinking that having a special Disney DVD logo enhances their brand more than the lack of the regular DVD hurts them. Whatever... just musing out loud here, of course. Dpbsmith (talk) 29 June 2005 09:55 (UTC)

• I changed my vote from keep to redirect. (overstroke my keep above) I still think it should be mentioned somewhere that Disney DVDs usually don't have the dvd logo on them (what ever is the correct expression to say that), but more as a sidenote. --Easyas12c 28 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

• Delete outright, unless there is (for sure) some technical issue that needs to be mentioned. We already have The Walt Disney Company and DVD separately. Peter Grey 05:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Disney or its redirection- Whether or not Disney DVD is, in fact, a different form of recording, it is used only by Disney. The mystery as to whether it is a different media type is notable, and Disney's need to separate themselves from the rest of the media industry (*cough* separtists) is also a notable facet of the corporation. I think this article should fall under its own section on the Disney article. Gemini6Ice 29 June 2005 00:51 (UTC)

• Redirect not really notable, just a silly big-business practice. A spade is a spade and a DVD is a DVD, no matter what other words you put in front or behind it. Volatile 29 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Delete, ratcruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
• Redirect Ashibaka (tock) 3 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Waiste-shake[edit]

Dicdef/ neologism Cutler 10:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Neologism that lives in a very small community on the Internet. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Geogre 13:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- neologism. The article is poorly written anyway. Haikupoet 00:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Naresh Verlander[edit]

Non-notable/ vanity - see Naresh verlander (sic) above Cutler 11:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. 20yo photographer of rock bands. His work looks good, but hardly encyclopedic. Andrewa 11:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Author - This is fair enough, and I must admit knowing him personally, however, might I point out Andrew Kendall's entry? Subsequent research from his site shows that Andrew Kendall began at the age of 19. I did not want to add personal spin to the article, but within my own experience he was a tremendous influence to the photography team at King's College London during his time there and has made a deep impression on at least the twenty photographers that he has worked with and trained personally there while rising to the rank of Photo Editor within his first year. That is only one instance of his influence, and for a man of 20, is already impressive, in my humble opinion. On the other hand, if it is commonly agreed that the 'notability,' (which, without malicious intent, seems to be based here on a Google search), of Naresh is not worthy of Wikipedia then perhaps it is too early for an entry? --193.61.200.140 12:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The problem with the analogy to Andrew Kendall (and I could add several other photographers, and many other artists, to this list... maybe I'll just cite J. S. Bach as one) is that you're asking us to predict the future. Neither of these was encyclopedic at age 20, except in hindsight. Yes, the Google test has its limits, and we have a chronic problem keeping to these and explaining them to enthusiastic newcomers. One often proposed unofficial motto of Wikipedia is we do the Googling for you. Googling is not just a matter of designing a search, most of the skill in using Google is deciding how significant the results are (like most sources of information). Speaking for myself, I often use offline sources and think this is important. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. I.e. we have to rely upon the general world to have already documented and discussed a figure and to some great degree before we include him. The point is that we are never supposed to be the first place to talk of someone or something. Thus, we have to wait for a photographer to have already made a name for himself or herself. It may be likely that this person will become notable, but he is not at present. Geogre 13:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Author - Sure thing, I understand, feel free to delete both the erroneous entry and this one at will. Thanks for explaining George, I failed to think outside of the scope of Britain, and will take care in future. (Edit: Just read George's article on VfD; I should leave it up to others to determine 'deletability.') --193.61.200.140 13:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please do consider getting an account and sticking around. We desperately need more fine arts content. Forget how little we have on emerging artists: our coverage of established artists is rudimentary for all folks after 1940. In other words, don't get discouraged. Keep the guidelines in mind, and you can always ask for proofreading or help from others. Geogre 13:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've just been referred here by the author and I'd like to put in my vote for delete, I'm not worthy! I am intrigued by the wiki system though and hope to make some contributions. Thanks guys (sorry Fred). --Naresh 14:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 20:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Funnel Effect[edit]

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)

• Delete: Could well be a speedy delete for nonsense, as it doesn't identify that it's fiction about fiction. Geogre 13:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; probably doesn't even merit a mention in stargate jamesgibbon 13:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Luke Taylor, Mike Arscott, Amy Burford, Tom Marshall and Murder, She Spoke[edit]

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)

• Added nomination for Tom Marshall and vote delete for all I didn't nominate - IMDb yeilds nothing so that makes them nn. Cutler 13:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn student film and actors. --Etacar11 20:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all nn. -Splash 00:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all non notable vanity. IMDb's got nothin'. CanadianCaesar 00:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 04:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable-vanity. Gblaz June 28, 2005 19:53 (UTC)
• Delete all, cruft en masse. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Books on Japan[edit]

Not quite a speedy. A directory of book reviews. smoddy 13:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Too broad, or at least unmanageable. Also, it is based on speculative opinion as opposed to supportive facts/references. --Naresh 14:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintanable, and better as a category. In its current form it is wildly POV.-Splash 00:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even worth merging...--GrandCru 01:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 04:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Julia DeMato[edit]

Contestant in a telly program. Francs2000 | Talk 13:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Person in question is listed on American Idol, anyway. Michael 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• I think I came across a similar substub on Ricky Smith. Merge back in American Idol and tell user to write more substantial articles (not primarily duplicate info from other article) - Mgm|^(talk) 17:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep minor notability. JamesBurns 04:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Lukewarm keep. Expand. Rinse and repeat. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:08 (UTC)
• Keep. She was also a judge on another TV show. There's probably still a lot more to say about her. Factitious June 28, 2005 10:20 (UTC)
• Tell user to expand article or delete it. The basic information is already available in other articles, so there's no sense in keeping it. Volatile 29 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)
• Keep. Over 5000 hits on Google and niche stardom due to nationally televised exposure. Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
• Keep. Why this fascination with trying to delete American Idol contestant articles? I don't see what harm it does to have entries for Idol contestants...at least for now. We can debate deleting them a few years from now if Idol is off the air or something. --MatthewUND July 2, 2005 07:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

PHPDoc[edit]

Advertising. smoddy 13:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral Perhaps a little sparse...If there was more information, this article's existance might be validated. --Naresh 14:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've never heard of it (coming from a PHP background) although that is probably irrelevant. Alexa rank is 166,441. Google search does reveal some interesting hits: it's made its way to the official PEAR page as well as into Debian. As a result of that, I'd have to agree with Naresh that it is sparse. I think it is worth an article, but definitely needs some NPOVing and expansion. One could include how its project history, how it works, future plans, et cetera. Perhaps a job for the Cleanup Taskforce. Ben Babcock 17:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if cleaned up. Minor Alexa rating but this article looks like a promo/ad. JamesBurns 04:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

MD Anderson[edit]

Non-notable hospital. No, don't even think about it! Cutler 14:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Hospitals may not be inherently notable, but a leading institution in oncology research is. There seems to be enough material on this page alone to forge a decent stub, although I don't have the time just now. [6] Also, the vast majority of the six hundred thousand Google hits for this name appear to relate to this hospital. Most hospitals have about 0.1% of that online presence. -- Visviva 14:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable. Kappa 15:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, redirect. Charles Matthews 15:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Capitalistroadster 16:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect — more delete-aholic mania. :) — RJH 18:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above comments. --eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Art of detection[edit]

It's an essay about Sherlock Holmes. Goes down as original research. Cutler 14:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, also low quality text. Pavel Vozenilek 17:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Smells like a book report by an inattentive student; the author merely talks around his subject. The articles on scientific method and criminology cover this subject sufficiently. --Tysto 20:54, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 04:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Five Bucks an Hour[edit]

Webcomic hosted on keenspace, a free comics hosting space, not a notable webcomic, delete--nixie 14:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Until Kelly marries Homestar Runner. --Tysto 20:10, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete. Most 'space comics aren't notable, and those that are can wait until they've moved onto the 'spot or their own page before they're listed... -- Grev -- Talk 04:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• User:Celestianpower/Delete
• Delete, comicruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Only 56 strips (although they've stuck to a schedule), and only 22 members on their fan forums. Bit premature for a Wikipedia entry. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Future Stars[edit]

Day camps are noy encyclopedic, delete --nixie 14:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree, unnotable. -- Cabhan 14:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Until it produces a star, it is not notable. --Tysto 20:08, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Pamela Slaney and Jaddah Loder[edit]

Vanity articles for this duo, delete--nixie 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity/ nn Cutler 15:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I wish I was "influenced by [my] surroundings to become involved in many different projects." --Tysto 19:59, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity for both. --Etacar11 20:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete nnanity, and pretty airheaded at that. -Splash 00:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• D, nn. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Enigma development team[edit]

Self-promotion for a possibily joke company established in May 2005, delete--nixie 14:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity/ self-promotion Cutler 15:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if it's a real company, it doesn't warrant an entry. --Tysto 19:58, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

DeskSwap[edit]

771 hits for a peer-to-peer application, does not seem sufficiently notable to be encyclopedic.--nixie 14:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - And the primary site for the software is down... --Naresh 15:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Alexis Lieberman[edit]

Resumecruft, delete--nixie 14:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn Cutler 15:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nice enough, I'm sure, but not notable. --Tysto 19:54, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 20:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all articles that are nothing more than a resume since WP:NOT. -Splash 00:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

MrDungX[edit]

Vanity, not notable, useless. KFP 15:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - The creator of the article, 203.122.81.9, just vandalized this VfD page. KFP 15:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn Cutler 15:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No convincing claim of notability. Fredrik | talk 15:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, vanity. Doctor Whom 15:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As much as I have long wondered what MrDungX's previous nickname was, he is, alas, not notable. --Tysto 19:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Bishel dragon[edit]

Cyber pets, only 100 adopted since 2001, article does not go any further to establish notability, delete--nixie 15:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nixie. Pavel Vozenilek 17:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Detele Web site claims it is not dead. Methinks it doth protest too much. --Tysto 19:50, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Clags[edit]

• Delete unexceptional university clubs.--nixie 15:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nixie. Pavel Vozenilek 17:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A noble institution, I'm sure, but not a notable one. --Tysto 19:46, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• One Google hit. Delete non notable. CanadianCaesar 23:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable student club. JamesBurns 04:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Sporge[edit]

Usenet neoligism, delete--nixie 15:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nixie. Pavel Vozenilek 17:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Tysto 19:47, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Jacob eapen[edit]

Graduated from college in 2004, vanity, delete --nixie 15:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nixie. Pavel Vozenilek 17:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The field he helped to pioneer existed before he was born. --Tysto 19:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 21:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity. Doesn't even capitaliz/se his name properly!-Splash 00:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Deakin Christian Union and Deakin Law Students Society[edit]

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)

• Delete per nixie. Pavel Vozenilek 17:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Tysto 19:41, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete both, non notable student clubs. JamesBurns 04:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Fakirs[edit]

• Delete - The article is innacurate - See the Google Definition. --Naresh 15:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, but turn it into a redirect to Fakir. Phoenix-forgotten 15:55, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete; there's already a (far better) Fakir article jamesgibbon 15:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fakir and merge anything that's novel. Cutler 16:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Phoenix-forgotten's suggestion. Ben Babcock 17:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Jamesgibbon. JamesBurns 04:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect: We should have redirects at plurals in any case. Although I'm no fan of keeping this in edit history, it's not likely to be recovered or reinstated. Geogre 05:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to fakir. Capitalistroadster 10:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Ideological villain[edit]

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)

• Delete - well it makes sense but with so few Google hits and no academic references, it will have to go down as original research or neologism. Cutler 16:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Pavel Vozenilek 17:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Concept has some merit, but the term is not standard in the filmmaking industry or psychology, as far as I can tell. Plus, pretty severe POV. --Tysto 19:33, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 04:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 keep, but the article remains under review as a possible copyvio. -- BD2412 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:00 (UTC)

Blizzard (comics)[edit]

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)

• Agree with Mackensen Delete --Naresh 15:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable comic hero. Kappa 16:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable Marvel comic hero. DS1953 18:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not much of an article yet, but if Jimbo Wales says every Simpsons character can have an entry, surely a comic book character can. --Tysto 19:30, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:FICT, add cleanup tag, wikify tag and category. Radiant_>|< 22:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable superhero but the article needs major clean-up and possible copyvio trimming. 23skidoo 23:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just a transcription of a page from one of Marvel's "Handbooks" of its characters. Copyright violation, for sure. N. Caligon 00:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's a copyright violation, see [7]. JamesBurns 04:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio, keep temp page. -Sean Curtin 06:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article is valid but copyrighted text taken from Marvel Universe Handbook should be removed, at least revert to prior version and wait for cleanup. --JRT 13:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article, and eliminate the copyvio. Cleanup's a very good idea. Phoenix-forgotten 22:01, 2005 Jun 26 (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 a deletion review). 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 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)

Jeremy Nuger[edit]

DELETE' Obviously a vanity entry.

it wasn't listed on the deletion list.--Melaen 16:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, NN vanity. KFP 16:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/ nn Cutler 16:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shouldn't such obvious vanity be speedy? Pavel Vozenilek 16:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Technically, no, vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion, no matter how blatant. However, there is a proposal to make unsourced bios of people under 25 (or where the age cannot be deduced from the article) speedyable. — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Tysto 19:26, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, no claim to notability. --Etacar11 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing notable --billlund 04:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Carajo[edit]

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)

• Delete --Tysto 19:25, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even enough info to justify a move to Wiktionary. Pburka 21:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Um... Clean up, move to Wikitonary? Satanicbowlerhat 22:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why waste the effort? Wiktionary can do a better job than this stunningly uninformative article starting from scratch. Lo and behold! Delete. Uncle G 14:07, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 04:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Krishek[edit]

poorly written and little encyclopedic value ChrisUK 16:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Kind of on the fence here, but I couldn't find reference to him with a quick search and the article is of no value in itself. --Tysto 19:24, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a published author. One of his books is listed on Amazon (but search for Arieh Krishek, not Aryeh). Pburka 21:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published author. Kappa 02:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 04:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep delete: This is one that does no harm, really. It's NPOV, at least, and doesn't try to make him bigger than he is. However, he's an author pretty much unknown in English, and this is the wiki.en. Two books (no indication of sales or significance or impact in Israel) isn't a great claim for encyclopedic coverage, though. Geogre 05:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A published author IMHO merits an article, though that may be inclusionism talking. Either way, adding him to some lists of authors would be a good idea, if he's not listed already. Phoenix-forgotten 22:11, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

David Seivwright[edit]

• Delete. Clearly vanity. Absolutely no relevant google hits. Forbsey 17:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — looks like the equivalent of a college rookie in American football. We can add him back in when he's famous. :) — RJH 18:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Tysto 19:22, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, little info. --Etacar11 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --billlund 04:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Jerry Giorgio[edit]

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)

• Keep Not a very good article yet, but a quick search indicates that the subject is a former police detective who became an author and Hollywood consultant and well known enough in his field to be referred to by the nickname indicated on several web sites. --Tysto 19:21, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete Minor Hollywood consultant 200 google hits- no further information after several weeks request.--Porturology 03:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but only if expanded. If he's a published author then that satisfies notability - but let's have some titles. And if he can be linked to any film or TV productions, great. If it stays an unexpanded stub, it can go. 23skidoo 04:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor consultant, agree with Porturology (even if my dogs wears sunglasses). JamesBurns 04:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't establish notability, delete. --W(t) 05:01, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete: No information presented at all. He was a cop is all the article tells us. We delete articles, not topics. A proper article on the guy may or may not be possible (200 Google hits is tiny, but there may be hidden depths that an expert author could give). The "article" looks -bot made at best. Geogre 05:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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]

Team Britney Spears[edit]

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)

• Delete Not again. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Britney Spears[edit]

Guess what? It's err... deletable Frenchman113 17:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• How so? Kappa 17:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - While I won't pretend to understand what it is, I do not see how it qualifies as deletable. I'm gonna attempt to research it, and see if I can't improve it. -- Cabhan 17:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - After doing some Google work, it is unnotable, and I can find no mention of this team on the drivers' websites or through a generic Google search. -- Cabhan 17:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Nonsense. --Tysto 19:19, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. NatusRoma 20:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if not speedy delete: All articles must be verifiable. If you simply read this, it's an obvious prank. List of the NASCAAR team songs? Huh? It's the "most defending" team? Geogre 05:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Andrew Kendall[edit]

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)

• Delete --Seems like a fine photographer with a nice website of his own; he doesn't need a vanity entry here. --Tysto 19:18, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 21:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Portobello (font)[edit]

nonsense ChrisUK 17:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied as patent nonsense. — Gwalla | Talk 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

List of university economics departments[edit]

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)

• Delete — while I'm sure it took a fair bit of work to assemble, there doesn't seem anything encyclopedic about this list. Agree with Uppland. — RJH 18:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Kind of a shame, since it's probably useful information, but lists of external links are not encyclopedic. And it was created all at once, which suggests copyvio, not independent assemblage. --Tysto 19:16, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete. Nah, I doubt it's a copyvio. (Unless you can prove he copied it from another source of course. Also, it's POV towards the US and Canada. But all that doesn't matter. Wikipedia isn't a list of external links. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Uppland - a much shorter and more manageable list would note Universities without any economics department. By the way, even if directly copied from somewhere else, it can't be a copyvio if it's just a list of locations, per Feist v. Rural. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:19, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintanable list. -Splash 00:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: maybe userfy? It'd be a shame for the author to lose all that effort. ~Mbsp
• Keep or Userfy. Useful list. Klonimus 19:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hard to maintain, fuzzy classification, no idea what how could be useful for Wikipedia reader. Pavel Vozenilek 01:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy so the author doesn't lose his work - but this is something that you can get off of Yahoo! doing a search under their schools category, so delete is also a possibility--eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

B.J. Barner[edit]

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)

• Delete --Tysto 19:14, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete for an internet rapper, I get nothing. --Etacar11 21:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established (or establishable at present). -Splash 00:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, probably vanity. JamesBurns 04:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have seen it with my own eyes. unsigned vote by 68.193.103.52 (talk · contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Fair use day[edit]

Not notable. --W(t) 18:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Keep --Not much of an article yet, but it's a real thing that deserves an entry. --Tysto 19:13, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• delete total 600 hits on google--Porturology 05:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porturology (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2005 Jun 26

• Delete You have to be kidding me. --Hottentot
• Delete Not notable? Try crystal ball, vanity, soapbox, not notable, unverifiable future event. -- Jonel | Speak 05:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can you believe someone went and read this one-word article and posted a spoken version? Unbelievable. — Phil Welch 14:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The edit summary for the spoken version is "(add spoken version. it is a test of recording, not an endorsement of this article.)" I still think a better article for testing could have been found... -- Jonel | Speak 18:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see nothing wrong with the idea. More people should take an interest in this issue
  • Unsigned comment by 68.53.45.0. User's 6th edit - 4 to sandboxes, 1 to Fair use adding the external link that used to be on Fair use day, then this VfD
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 20:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I see nothing to suggest that anything about it is more than 1-2 hops away from the creator of the website. The website's bulletin board has 41 posts total. ps. I hope you enjoyed my spoken version of the article, it is not my only attempt. ;-) DanielHolth | talk. Nothing wrong with the idea of course, I just think the article smells of self-promotion.
• Speedy the article and the recording. — Chameleon 2 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Apro[edit]

Nn ad. --W(t) 18:45, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Merge with Ragnarok Online. It smells like a copyvio, but I can't track it. Bovlb 19:09, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete Simple "fanvertising." --Tysto 19:12, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete: Spam/advertising. The copy here is 100% advertising and therefore 100% deletion policy violation. Geogre 05:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam and vanity. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Pylly[edit]

Move to wiktionary and delete. --W(t) 18:54, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Delete If anything it should be in the Finnish wikipedia. --EatAlbertaBeef 19:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 04:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Pignosehappyface[edit]

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)

• Delete Not exactly something you'd see in an Encyclopedia. --EatAlbertaBeef 19:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a howto repository. --W(t) 19:13, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete as how-to. If you want to write a how-to on drawing, you better head to wikibooks and include actual drawings. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyc and a completely fake title, too. -Splash 00:31, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even encyclopedic enough for wikibooks I'm afraid. JamesBurns 04:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Star wars villians[edit]

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)

• However someone deleted the correctly spelled version of this just as I was redirecting it, so this is the only one with the original content in the history. Not that I think we need to keep that though, delete. Also, if anybody wants to sort through and homogenise all the starwars fancruft that's been added lately, it'd be much appreciated. --W(t) 19:26, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, that would have been me. I was about to move this page into the gap, then you came along as I did so and created the redirect. I guess I got into a bit of a mess there. As it is, I have now undeleted the history, so that's in at the correctly named version beneath the redirect. Anyway. smoddy 20:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 05:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — we don't need redirects for all the improper spellings. — RJH 03:23, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Trinity Preparatory School[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 19:35, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Keep, no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:00, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Keep. Can we leave the schools alone already? Pburka 21:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. DS1953 22:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 23:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No evidence that it should be deleted any more than all the others we've voted to keep. CalJW 00:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 19:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. --Carnildo 03:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Say, all you keep voters, could you tell me how many other Trinity Preparatory Schools there are in the US? How many in the UK? How many in Australia? How many in New Zealand? Does that mean anything to you? What, in the article, sets this particular usage of the name from all the others? Is it that X and Y (wikilinked, of course!) gave the land? Is it that this one is in Florida? (How many are in Florida?) Have any of you looked at Peterson's Guide to Private Schools? Delete on the grounds that the article does not establish any discussion or contextualization of the subject and the subject is not presented in a way to make clear any significance. Geogre 05:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When another Trinity Preparatory School gets a wikipedia page we can turn this one into a disambiguation page. And the land wasn't donated by Lake Martha as far as I can tell. Rather, she appears to be a large geographical feature which, in my opinion, is inherently notable. Pburka 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've thought about those points so you needn't mention them again. CalJW 18:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • These are valid points but are reasons for expansion and improvement, not deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:37, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • Geogre, if you're actually concerned about other Trinity Preparatory Schools, be constructive and create some articles about them. Let me know, and I will work on expanding any such stubs you make. Factitious June 28, 2005 08:35 (UTC)
• Keep — although this page could be readily merged with the town page. — RJH 03:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:52 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable, encyclopedic. No advantages to deleting this information. Factitious June 28, 2005 08:35 (UTC)
• Keep Inherent notability of schools. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:35 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

All Squished[edit]

It's absurd, not at all notable or recognised industry terminology Tverbeek 19:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, little odd that. redirect to Aspect ratio just for the heck of it though. --W(t) 19:43, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Abstain. It is an informal jargon term, but I don't really care if you decide to keep it here or not. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: You say "informal jargon term"; I say "combination of everyday adverb and adjective". :) Tverbeek 23:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: (How do you vote an abstain?) Pretty much self-explanatory phrase. That it's used by graphic designers is not a particularly special usage that would render a definition necessary. Geogre 05:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Bloggernacle[edit]

Non-notable neologism. --W(t) 19:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Delete non notable neologism. JamesBurns 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The article itself uses that wiggle word of "some": It's a term used by "some" Mormon bloggers. Could that be 2 buddies? Wikipedia is not a web guide, nor the Jargon File. Geogre 05:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: No, more like over one hundred buddies. Here's where it started http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000562.html and here are some other uses of it on the Internet http://www.google.com/search?q=bloggernacle and here is where the New York Times used the term. http://web.mit.edu/21w.780/Materials/blogs%20and%20religion%20NYT.html - Kmsiever 02:43, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Unencyclopedia and unnotable. -- Cabhan 02:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like to vote for keeping the term. It's become well known online. A google search for "bloggernacle" pulls up 18,800 hits. It's the Mormon equivalent of the Catholic term "St. Blog's Parish" which has a wikipedia entry. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Blog%27s_Parish ). The blogger conference (BloggerCon) run by the Pew Forum discussed faith-based blogging communities, and included the bloggernacle in the list. (See http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:kSKOjCDsRPQJ:blogs.law.harvard.edu/bloggerCon/2004/04/07+bloggernacle+jblog&hl=en ). It's a term that is used by enough people that it should have an entry. (And by the way, I apologize if I'm doing the voting thing wrong. I've never voted on wikipedia before. I didn't see a "Vote" button so I clicked "Edit" and I'm putting in a comment that way. Is that how I'm supposed to do it?). Thanks. Kaimi W. --User:Kaimipono
  • This vote is Kaimipono's first and only edit on Wikipedia --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Keep it. Neologism but notable.
  • Unsigned vote by 208.27.203.128 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Delete non notable neologism. Toasthaven 28 June 2005 16:39 (UTC)
• Keep -- Definitely notable as per Kmsiever (used in NYT article) and by Kaimi (see his comments above). To be sure, the word "Bloggernacle" is synonymous with LDS/Mormon blogs.
  • This unsigned vote is Bduffin's first and only edit on Wikipedia --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Keep -- Used by blogosphere godfather Dave Winer and by New York Times.
  • Unsigned vote by 69.140.41.228 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Keep- used by many, provides a meaningful label to a well established and prevalent community

• • Unsigned vote by 66.238.118.146 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• keep - it is becoming the key term for the Mormon on-line community
  • Unsigned vote by 70.149.73.144 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Keep. It is the most-used term for Mormon bloggers, and as Kmsiever's information shows, it has made its way into the mainstream media. I think it's notable, and unless you're also going to delete St. Blog's Parish as not notable, it should stay. Oh, and this is not my first and only edit on Wikipedia. --EricJamesStone 5 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppet limit exceeded. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Cocklefighting[edit]

Not notable. --W(t) 19:52, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Delete non notable gamescruft. JamesBurns 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some online game. Such things have been named Legion since the web took off. Geogre 05:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Crystal Insight[edit]

just an ad for a web ad company. commercial GangofOne 20:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising for a non-notable company. Pburka 21:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising. You can spot it when it claims the corporation "believes" in something warm and fuzzy. CanadianCaesar 23:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Desruction Karroww-feelt[edit]

One line of garbage is all it contains ChrisUK 20:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll just copy/paste what I wrote on its talk page: Some reference might be good for this article.... eg which fictional universe it's set in. I won't touch it, because I have no idea what it's about. But googling on Desruction Karroww-feelt, Desruction Karroww feelt, and Desruction Karroww don't return anything.. So yeah, likely just random stuff invented by the author. - Jacen Aratan 20:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Parker wilson[edit]

more star wars garbage - doesnt warrant its own page ChrisUK 21:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Doesnt need its own article, and is poorly written as well. Satanicbowlerhat 22:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - User:24.5.226.74 blanked this VfD subpage to say" "this guys brillant we need more stuff like this" - FreplySpang (talk) 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of minor Star Wars characters, assuming he really is a character. CanadianCaesar 23:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I just edited the article to replace the deletion tag, which was "mysteriously" removed. CanadianCaesar 00:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I also edited this page to replace the nomination and first vote, which were "mysteriously" removed. CanadianCaesar 00:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Inasmuch as funny business on this page and on the article screams vandalism!, and inasmuch as Google returns seemingly nothing relevant about this character, I'm changing my vote to a very, very Strong delete non notableCanadianCaesar 00:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a hoax - "Look ma! I'm a Jedi!" -- BD2412 ^talk 02:47, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Speedy: hoax, nonsense, fancruft, nn, the whole list. Lucas almost never uses actual English-language names on his characters (the sole exceptions being Luke and, to a lesser extent, Leia which is an alt-spelling of Leah), and most Star Wars fans are at least smart enough to preserve that theme. The fact that this guy isn't is just another point he loses. Marblespire 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Article now tagged thusly. — Phil Welch 14:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unsigned edits by 24.5.229.96 — Phil Welch 14:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This character should be merged into minor star wars jedi characters
  • I Have heard about this character hes not exactly cannon but he should be merged with the list of minor jedi characters
  • this is awsome cause i read this charecter in a sw book and he was hecka tight so dont deleat it star wars forever
• I searched google and nothing came up but there also a number of other minor jedi that i have searched for and there not even in the sw databank i say we hault deletion until we find out if hes real or not. (unsigned edit by 207.200.116.136 — Phil Welch 00:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Character does not exist in the Star Wars universe.--Kross 04:28, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Michael Hristakopoulos[edit]

vanity page ChrisUK 21:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• it seems to have been created again
  • Original author just seems to have blanked it. Will => talk 21:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Although that has been reverted. Will => talk 21:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rampant vanity. --Etacar11 21:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established, and unlikely to be verifiable. Pburka 21:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Teh snappy[edit]

Neologism, not notable. Delete. Mr Bound 21:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete after ensuring that it is present in the list of internet slang. Concur with Humblefool. --Sn0wflake 23:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and don't add to list, as contained to a single few forums. humblefool® 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Geey[edit]

Unverifiable. Every school has its own set of epithets, but that doesn't make them notable. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete few Google hits seem to be related. Non notable. CanadianCaesar 23:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Any local slang invented a few months ago is not at all notable. Tverbeek 23:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I was the one who created this page and now I see it as pointless. Please delete it. Brimstone (edit by 80.42.27.154)
  • Inasmuch as you're the only one who has worked on this article, you can request a speedy delete. CanadianCaesar 01:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Tagged as such. — Phil Welch 14:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Biology Scam[edit]

Vanity page of some sort Pburka 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity about something I can't figure out. --Etacar11 22:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 2 Google hits, none of which seem to be related. Delete vanity CanadianCaesar 23:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's impossible to figure out what the article is talking about, it's speediable, even under the prevailing definition. -Splash 00:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete candidate, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 01:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bizzaro vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 00:51 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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)

Cuz[edit]

Dictdef entered by a well-meaning anon. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Since there are multiple meanings for "cuz", one redirect won't work, but there isn't really enough here to advance the article beyond a dicdef. --Idont Havaname 04:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 05:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Dab Don't delete it. It'll just get remade. It already is at wikitionary, so I threw up the wiktionary link. I also made it a dab as an apocopation to cousin. SchmuckyTheCat 02:32, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep SchmuckyTheCat's disambig. -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 00:50 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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.

Survivor Sucks[edit]

Delete for advert for forum. NN as far as I know. --Lord Voldemort 23:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Despite the seemingly "low class" site name and EZBoard, this is actually one of the biggest names in online reality show discussion (which of course these days is a huge part of TV discussion overall.) dcarrano 19:56, Jun 28, 2005
• Keep While I don't particularly think this is a good article, I've seen the website mentioned on a few shows. Not a horrible loss if it gets deleted, but it doesn't really seem like an advert and it is slightly notable. -- TommyP 20:19, Jun 28, 2005
• Keep notable, oft-media-mentioned web entity. Jgm 29 June 2005 05:27 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.