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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a neologism, although I can imagine the concept may exist. I get no Googles for either spelling, so it is at best unverifiable, and might be original research. -Splash 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP not a memorial - he wrote a book with an real ISBN that in itself is not notable --Doc (?) 00:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. If someone finds any albums by this group, then write... feydey 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either unverifable or made-up. I can't conjure anything relevant from Google using either his full name, alternative spellings of Gorgi or just his surname. Could be wrong, though, but the bit about being drunk in Ireland doesn't instill me with confidence. -Splash 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a band that only ever made one album and don't have any other apparent claim to WP:MUSIC, which asks for at least 2 albums. There's a lot of fluff in the article, but that doesn't change much. I only get 70 useful Googles, too and I would have supposed the frenzy about reforming recently would have helped them to Google. -Splash 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an individual nightclub is not notable. This name is impossible to Google for, so I cannot find any claim to fame, even if it was very large. -Splash 00:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of the constitution (of a Dental Alumini Association) is not, I think, encyclopedic. --Doc (?) 00:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Extreme Keep. Redwolf24 03:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a nn hockey player who "isnt polished in the defensive zone". I brought it here since I presume this doesn't fit nn-bio. -Splash 00:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An internet phenomenon - with about 12 googles doesn't look notable (soory for the all the VfD's - I'm cleaning up in dead-end pages) --Doc (?) 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by another admin. Redwolf24 03:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing all the best to this ambitious 14 year old speed skater, her Wikipedia page will have to wait till she's older. Vanity. Sabine's Sunbird 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad for a nnnightclub on a campus. -Splash 00:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting I'm sure - but nn --Doc (?) 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, though, surprisingly, the creator didn't bother to link to their page. Zoe 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable, vanity page. Googling for "Captain Starfat" returned 8 results. Celzrro 01:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant dictdef.-- malathion talk 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would had liked to contribute to the artice, giving examples of proponents of various things, but since someone suggested a copyright violation even though the definitions of words can not be copyrighted, it seems I can not. Oh, and to that special someone, MSN, Google, and Dictionary.com all share the same definition. Gee, are they all committing copyright violations against eachother? Can you even provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted? Since the US Supreme Court and the patient office both seem to dismiss attempts to copyright any definitions (typically by corporations like Microsoft) I highly doubt it. --Lucavix 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a minor question, what does someone vote if they do not want it deleted? I would also like to note that a few of the votes to delete gave reasons which have been debunked (such as the transwiki argument). --Lucavix 00:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: Is there issue here rather or not the definition is copyrighted (and since the definition of a word can not be copyrighted in the United States I highly doubt that it is) or rather or not it violates the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy? Futhermore, why can a dictionary definition not be given as the basic introduction to an article that may well be expanded? Unfortunately rather or not I can make any contributions hinges on rather or not this article is deleted, were the article left alone it may have well expanded to far more than just a definition (If I had my way for example). --Lucavix 12:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is a hoax, but I found nothing on google, nor do I know any in the state/county/nation of TAR. I guess they could mean Star City, Arkansas, which perhaps no longer qualifies as a city. Unless they mean the paper is defunct, not the city, in which case this article is too subliterate (as well as unverified) for inclusion. -R. fiend 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable; Google results for "Hyung-Dae Shin" are few in number, and all are either from WP or a site using its content. Delete. Joel7687 01:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person --BaronLarf 02:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The comments that follow, apparently part of an email exchange between David Nelson and Kat Walsh, were pasted to this VfD by David Nelson at 2005-08-21 00:57:05 [11]
Hello and thank you for your message, Kat.
I wonder if those who wrote the messages that you described as "unkind" and "uncivil" will be treated as I've been by receiving warnings about their unapproved writings, temporary suspension or permanent cancellation of their publishing abilities, or other equitable restrictions for their actions that have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
If not, why not?
If you agree, as others have, that my submission was "well-written," why delete it? This kind of policy of strict democracy and majority rule seems egalitarian, but, as some of those who voted to delete my submission also wrote, they know little if anything about the topic of gay politics. What other topics are they judging from a position of little or no knowledge? I wonder if the idea of "tyranny of the majority" is a Wikipedia topic.
Instead of deleting my submission, why wasn't there any official Wikipedia opinion voiced during the voting to consider EDITING? Your policies often and strongly encourage this approach lest the submitter take the path of least resistance and simply leave Wikipedia altogether. That's exactly what happened here.
As for the frequent claims that my submission violated the policy against vain and non-notable submissions simply because I wrote it myself, I wonder if all submissions are held to the standard of no autobiographical information. Too bad. I guess the autobiographies of Helen Keller, Benjamin Franklin and Marilyn Manson would be equally substandard for Wikipedia. I can point out several topics that would be equally vain and non-notable, but enjoy publication by Wikipedia, so it appears that the policy is applied arbitrarily.
Furthermore, would my submission be alright suddenly if I asked a friend to publish it?
Do you see where the policy of strict democracy and majority rule gets us? It's at best clumsy and at worst punitive. Hardly the stuff of "bringing encyclopedic information free to the world."
Finally, I believe that the Bomis ownership and management of Wikipedia and its subsidiaries is an uphill battle without the added trouble of appearing to censor information that is published elsewhere. But that's just my advice.
Meanwhile, I'll be working with other online pedias which take a less strident approach of exclusion.
-- David Nelson Salt Lake City
+++++Original message++++ From: Wikipedia information team <info-en@wikimedia.org> > Dear David Nelson, > > Thank you for your mail. > > david.nelson22@att.net wrote: > > > *Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified. > > > > You have received the following link from david.nelson22@att.net > > > > ******************** > > > > If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the > > URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom > > of this email. > > > > Title: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David Nelson (Democrat) - Wikipedia, the > > free encyclopedia > > I'm sorry your Wikipedia experience has been a frustrating one. > > This discussion on this article will remain open for five days, according to > our policies, and may remain open slightly longer until an administrator comes > around to close it, at which time it appears that the article will be deleted. > > I'm disappointed to see that you were addressed unkindly here; uncivil > statements are discouraged but they do appear on occasion; on a public forum > there will be all kinds of people not all of whom are interested in productive > discussion. The article was well-written and I'm sorry to hear you don't > intend to return, and would encourage you to reconsider; however, I do > unserstand if you don't wish to do so. > > Sincerely, > Kat Walsh > > -- > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity-- malathion talk 02:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 REDIRECT. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
D'Artagnan already exists and the "a" has to be capitalized. The small "a" is never used (I think that the deletion is a little bit better that the redirect because the redirect would make people believe that both forms are possible, which is wrong Poppypetty 02:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's by no means a common term, and this article is just a quote anyway. AdamAtlas 02:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find in any search engine, tried Cyrillic letters too. Maybe a hoax? --Irpen 02:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Suvorova Alyonushka Born Alona Kuprienko, 18th july 1973 in Chernigov, Ukraine. Star reporter in Hit FM in Kiev, Ukraine, and also in TV programs. Well known all over Ukraine. Currently preparing to live in Spain and work from there.
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 Speedy deleted as nonsense. "James Marcel was the product of an experiment in which a human embryo was planted in the uterus of a horse", indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, nonsense--BaronLarf 03:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete Not worth cluttering up VFD for, this meets speedy delete criteria. - Chairboy 03:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems non-encyclopaedic. An unsuccessful election candidate who is not even currently a PPC. Matthew Platts 22:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is non-encyclopaedic. Constituency agents and parliamentary researchers are not notable or even public figures. YBF is of minor importance in itself and Mr. Smith's greatest significance is as a board member of a Conservative Party pressure group. I also suspect (I can't determine this because it's transwikied from wiktionary) that it's autobiographical. Matthew Platts 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Parliamentary researchers are not notable. Being a parliamentary researcher is this person's sole distinctiveness Matthew Platts 22:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This person's main distinction is being a CF branch chairman. Non-notable. Matthew Platts 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. He is a board member of a minor internal pressure group. Matthew Platts 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Keeping this twice failed candidate would set the precedent for all candidates to be entered here. Regardless of the Party, this candidate has no valid status here, unless they are exceptional examples - such as former leaders of Parties or notable national or international figures. The English Wiki would double in size with half-page election addresses if this kind of thing is not stopped. Strong Delete dok 14:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC) This does not satisfy the criterion for notability; her primary distinction is as an unsuccessful election candidate Matthew Platts 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This does not satisfy the criterion for notability; his primary distinction is as an unsuccessful candidate Matthew Platts 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No redirect required. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 04:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is an article on a game based on the sixth Harry Potter book; the fourth video game won't even be released until this November. The article consists of three templates and a category – there is no non-template article text. I can understand having an article on an unreleased video game or even on an untitled, unreleased book, but this is too much. Recreate this when there's some definitive details about the game, if it ever gets announced at all. android79 04:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense. – malathion talk 05:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to speedy delete this, but it does make a lot of claims of notability ... Zoe 04:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The Talisman Centre is a recreation facility in Calgary, Alberta, Canada." Recreation facilities are not notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I rewrote the article a little bit, to somthing that we all might find more agreeable. --Cloveious 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity forumcruft of the worst order. Forum-goers interested in the TV show "24" reenact the episodes. Take inspiration from their subject matter and delete within 24 hrs. Lomn | Talk 04:28:35, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable outside of one forum. Zoe 04:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personal theory, not encyclopedic. Can't verify information in article. Article is biased or has lots of POV. 68.218.17.9 04:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN- A mix between nnbio and vandalism Karmafist 04:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable original research. Andrew pmk 04:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate article Actual effects of invading Iraq, which is actually better written and more up to date, is up for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Actual effects of invading Iraq. I am going to take the liberty of using Doc's words over there over here because I cannot say them better (except to delete one minor word :) ). If Doc objects, his comments can be removed or expanded. --Noitall 04:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
This article is even worse in "predicting" a laundry list of POV items. There are no sources and no quotes from valid sources.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable vanity. Created by User:Djgrothe, who had his original vanity page userfied, went to the Help Desk to complain, was told to read WP:BIO and then came back and created this again anyway. Zoe 05:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's just made up. Google yields no relevant results [14] (which seems to have been taken into account in the article). Mysid (talk) 05:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merge. Redwolf24 05:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is non-encyclopedic nonsense. There is no context. The author just banged out a few sentences and left us with a mess to clean up obviously.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like some kind of fan project. Weak delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 05:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not substantive enough to warrant a separate article. Merge at best, if not totally delete. Bad faith addition by someone who just wants to see their name in lights.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
not notable GangofOne
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement, Non-notable, Non-significant. Wikipedia is not a list of every common area in the world. Nothing happened there.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 05:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable, See Wikipedia Music Guidelines. Rainbowwarrior1977 06:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Keep, or someone else may Merge. The article will stay as is. Redwolf24 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic article on a retraction made by the journal Science. The poor opening sentence: "This article concerns problems with a paper, 'Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")' that appeared in the leading journal Science, treated as a case study in scientific method." The article certainly presents a good "case study in scientific method," but its not encyclopedic, and studies an incident of marginal notability.
The result of the debate was Unanimous Keep. Redwolf24 22:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, sub stub and potentially jinjoistic/nationalistic overly POVRainbowwarrior1977 06:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 KEEP. Howabout1 Talk to me! 02:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC) Please note, I am not an administrator. I close only keep debates.
Definately not notable, not verified, unnaceptable pseudo-english grammar.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 22:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, not informative, not funny either GangofOne 06:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Redwolf24 23:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contains neologisms and dubious reinterpretation of information already presented in Sense Manning 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear this nomination by User:The Killer was ever completed, so I am posting it here. I vote keep myself and it seems this could be closed as a speedy keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
Keep, agree with MysteryDog. Xaa 20:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant link spam in user space. User pages should have a link to the project and not be used as a hosting service. According to this help desk request the user has no other useful edits. - Mgm|(talk) 08:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. The correctly spelled redirect already exists, and points to the same target. I've fixed the double redirect caused by the capitals.-Splash 21:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
wrong spelling (should be "constituency"), no pages link here, page with correct spelling exists =Travisyoung= 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 million Alexa. A Final Fantasy forum.
lots of issues | leave me a message 08:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. P.S. Sockpuppet votes are teh sux. Redwolf24 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, internet based group. feydey 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems/reads like nn vanity or self promotion. I'm not sure how exactly to verify the notability of life gurus but a google search of kishor "life guru" only returns 1 result. If notability is established I'll gladly change my vote, but currently the subject's importance seems questionable, especially since the author only has two edits: creating the article and placing a link in guru. TheMidnighters 09:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why the page should be deleted. Seems an advertinsing page of an unknown artist and his soon to be released debut album. the same appeared quite at the same time on it:, es: and el: Snowdog 09:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-verifiable and highly suspect, reads like a self-promo, looks like a person of no real prominence except a few posts on some far fringe UFO conspiracy sites. GeneralPatton 09:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia being used as an advertising forum? Manik Raina 10:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I came across a debate in wikipedia vfd where the conclusion seemed to be against retaining unmaintainable lists. It is my belief this list is one of them. For example, what is the criterion for someone to be included in this list? Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this isn't a copvio (only one, irrelevant, Google hit for "Edward Keenes" and none for the article title) it looks very much like (badly formatted) original research Loganberry (Talk) 10:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the manager of a bank in one particular city can be notable enough for an article. Yes, the president of the bank (which is Dutch by the way) would be notable, but he isn't and there's surprisingly little info. I deleted a list of languages, which I assume he speaks, but I couldn't verify. Delete. If kept it should be renamed to follow naming conventions. - 131.211.210.12 10:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 23:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Badly written and non-verifiable article on a supposedly high ranking terrorist in Babbar Khalsa terrorist group in India. I found no hits on google except some similar pages calling him shaheed (martyr). What useful information does this page convey ? His list of friends ? Not encyclopadeic enough. Manik Raina 10:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Keep Redwolf24 09:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hay everyone! Im new here and new to this deletion stuff. I think this page should be deleted because it is just nasty! I mean, what kind of woman does that to herself? She is SO ugly. Also she is very non-notable, she is just here so sicko-nerds who dont like to surf out of wiki can come here and masturbate I think. Also we shouldnt promote this kinda harm, she probably has back problems, what if some woman comes here and thinks "id like to be like that" and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Wikipedia? Also, what if kids come here, they will be shocked and traumatized by those sick breasts. I also heard that a lot of libraries and stuff block Wikipedia (which is a great tool!) from there computers because it has porn on it like this "lady". Delete her! She is no good! DavidsCrusader 10:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 speedied as only a single external link. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Content is a single link to another website - no other text.
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 No consensus. Redwolf24 23:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was nonsense, I tried to improve it, but its still basicly worthless. It seems to be about a non-remarkable canadian(?) wrestler anyway. Jack Cain 11:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax, see talk page at Talk:Brian Torby. Evercat 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MaKe sure you get all the spin off fake articles. Like the organizations he created and any pages that link to this article.--Gary123 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern however is all the spinofff pages on the interent that use wikipedia as a source. A simple google search is flooded with wikipedia articles on this guy at hundreds of sites. Does anyone know whether or not they'll go down. I hate to see wikipedia responcibble for spreading false info throughout the interent. On a side note I just wanted to point out that the Egypt/Libya example was added by the same guy who started saying this guy was fake. Also I think this might be a reason to beef up our security. I mean look how many people edited a completely ridiculous article and with all those edits look how long it lasted. And the only reason it ever got deleted was because some rogue pointed it out, if not for that it probaly still wouldnt have been deleted. --Gary123 13:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax, insufficient Google hits. See the discussion at Talk:Brian Torby. Evercat 11:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax, see Talk:Brian Torby. Insufficient Google hits. Evercat 11:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Keep. Redwolf24 09:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know my reasons, they are the same as the ones I gave in the Chelsea Charms VfD. I mean, this is just lunacy. Plus one more very important additional reason is that she is even LESS notable than Chelsea Charms because she is not as big as her and is not the biggest in the world or whatever, which is a horrible title to have anyway. Who here finds her attractive? I just cant believe it. She looks like shes 30 and shes had a kid and shes just fat and people find this stuff sexy? Well, like I said, she is not notable, also look a her page, it says NOTHING about her, just advertisements and stuff about sex dolls and I dont know what else. I really wanna hear from women here because I think some men who have deviated from a godly path might be attracted to this kinda junk so we need some less-biased voices around here to show their opinions, I think theyll agree with me. Thanks and let the Wiki keep rocking! DavidsCrusader 11:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, non-notable, Non-NPOV Al 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was that there is nothing to see here, move along now. The nomination was made in error. No-one wants an administrator to delete the article. Uncle G 16:20:07, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
The talk page says to VfD this but I dont think the man who wrote that knew how, so I am doing it for him -DavidsCrusader 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC) DavidsCrusader 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Keep. Redwolf24 09:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GOOD GRACIOUS, look at that, that is hideous. What has become of modesty? Since when did breasts become these sick things? Do these women find that showing themselves like this is good? What of the children in their community? This is not even notable at all, not notable at all to be on here, less than the other two harlots DavidsCrusader 12:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks ANY verifiable information. Not ONE citation. Subject is a completely unnotable pornographic star with very internet presence other than her own pornographic website (with a completely low Alexa rating), and mirror sites. Only notability seems to be 1. Her extremely large breasts 2. Being one of the few neo-fascist big breast stars 3. Her heroin addiction, none of which qualifies her whatsoever under current AfD rules. Should be speedy deleted but I knew some would complain KingCobra666 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
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 Delete. And for the record, I hate socks. Redwolf24 00:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, if you are looking at 165.21.154.114, give it up. P helped edited my english. Did i answer any question of yours regarding why IPs happen to be the same? -Xeon
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contains nothing that couldn't be said about ANY other number. Either needs something notable adding about this number (as a number), or a bot to create a couple of thousand other pages... 62.173.111.114 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google search: "Omega Rooms" forum; gives 4 hits, looks like another web forum, not notable. feydey 13:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising Al 14:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet any points at WP:MUSIC, not notable local group. Releases are self-releases to cassette [17]. feydey 14:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 keep, the nomination was withdrawn because the band passes WP:MUSIC with top 10 hits and a top 1o album in the UK. - Mgm|(talk) 07:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable Al 14:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Redirect. Redwolf24 00:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a page on "Booty" :)
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 Keep. Redwolf24 00:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising from nn 'standards' company (actually a for profit group), whose impressive at a glance website doesn't actually assert their claims of being important, or of being responsible for any kind of real, recognised standard, at all. Anon IP currently pimping his company all over the Business continuity planning page and associated articles. Delete. Proto t c 14:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an amazingly jaundiced comment. I assume that I am the 'Anon IP' to which you refer. My apologies for not having registered: I thought this was not a requirement to comment, and I can only say that my IP was withheld by employers firewall. I am now at home, have registered and I am very happy to defend myself against your flaming. I am not an employee of, nor am I currently even a member of the BCI - to allege that because I mentioned the BCI once, this amounts to me 'pimping' all over the Business continuity planning page and associated articles is ludicrous. The entry itself is not a good description of the BCI - describing it as a 'for profit' group selling business continuity plans is completely wrong. It is a member-owned professional body. Sneakysnaga t c 20:36, 16 August 2005
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 Speedy delete, under criteria #A7: It does not assert the importance or significance of this person. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing format, no vote from me at this time. --Etacar11 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? (Unsigned vote and nomination by Phoenix orb (talk · contribs))
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a zero-content article requested for deletion by its sole editor (other than the speedy deletion taggers). Uncle G 16:47:29, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
I wanted to make this page for french users, but it seems I'm on the bad part of the Wikipedia. I'll try create it on fr.wikipedia.org
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While there are vendors of hot nuts in Manhattan, I think the rest of this entry may be nonsense.
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 speedy deleted by another administrator. Redwolf24 00:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be a personal entry, and confusing. the closest i can get on a yahoo search is phillipines long distance company Nelgallan 16:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Speedy delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Nn --GraemeL 16:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 00:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is an advertisement, and is unformatted to boot -- jiyTalk 16:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article created to describe a non-existent revolution Average Earthman 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable Telsa 17:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (My first VfD, be gentle.) Delete as unverifiable. See Talk:Branin for a very long list of queries I had about the article and its sources. It has been two months and not one has been addressed. I can't find the Austrian city mentioned in the article and I remain unconvinced that you can take three languages and four etymologies to come up with multiple spellings and call them variant spellings of the same surname. I spent a morning in the local reference library with some very large dictionaries indeed and was unable to confirm a single assertion of the article except that brenin means king in modern Welsh and that brân means crow. Which is not really a lot. Telsa 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. mikkalai and Russ Blau have collaborated to perform mergers and to create disambiguations. Good work! No-one now wants an administrator to delete anything. Uncle G 11:55:59, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
"Dials are device in the manga and anime series One Piece" – my vote is Merge into One Piece and Delete. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
In light of the comments below, I withdraw this nomination. Russ Blau (talk) 11:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Additionally, WP:NOT a crystal ball or a discussion forum. Delete. Lomn | Talk 17:30:02, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this is. It seems it's an effort to expalin that big cities are bigger than small cities and the like, but I have no idea why it's called "Albaran". Pretty useless under any title, really. "Thank you for reading this page." -R. fiend 17:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 KEEP. -Splash 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an advertisement. Andrew pmk 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 01:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 REDIRECT to Recess (TV series). I count 5r-2k. The "merge or redirect" vote implies a redirect either way. As for Maoririder's vote, well, he added the VfD tag in the first edit, and then voted keep. That seems pointless to me; I'm not of the opinion that the nominator gets to cast a straight keep vote in the absence of extenuating or procedural circumstances. -Splash 00:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Maoririder 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable advertising Gblaz 18:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently a single-sentence stub, and in my opinion there's not much more to say about it. The current Jacob's ladder disambiguation page deals with the subject as fully as necessary, and actually includes more information than this article (and two pictures). PeteVerdon 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think I need to say anything more than delete. I would, however, remind the author that Wikipedia isn't kindergarten, we can say ass. Soltak 19:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really my friend and kindergarten kids say ***. --Maoririder 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 speedy deleted --cesarb 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense; probably a fork of User:Attackoftheshow --BaronLarf 19:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No conensus. Redwolf24 01:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written, unformatted article on a dicdef topic. -Satori 19:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, as is made quite clear by its extremely close similarity to biographical information Sherland has posted elsewhere on the internet about himself [22] [23]. --Michael Snow 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. --Wtshymanski 22:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is simply an episode listing for a TV programme made up of video clips linked by a presenter in a studio. Any given episode is therefore essentially the same as any other, just with different clips. Silverhelm 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that we already have articles on the subject: see Greatest Hits (Queen, Elektra), Greatest Hits (Queen, Hollywood) and Greatest Hits (Queen, Parlophone). Also, this shouldn't be changed into a redirect as the name of the group isn't mentioned in the title. The sales information (the primary content of this article) could be included in the proper articles if it proves to be accurate. -KFP 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, vanity jengod 19:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it's a small community website. Alexa rank of 1.5 million +
lots of issues | leave me a message 20:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. Al 20:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Low/moderate traffic site (Alexa 50k) Article states the product they offer for free. Advertising. Delete lots of issues | leave me a message 20:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 MERGE to Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka). Already done. -Splash 00:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Low traffic (Alexa 1 million plus) site that exists to counter Godhatesfags.com Merge into godhatesfags.com lots of issues | leave me a message 20:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright taken care of. lots of issues | leave me a message 21:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delisting - this should have just been done, or be taken to Category:Articles_to_be_merged. I'll do it myself, as soon as the page is delisted. JesseW 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing your example about "anyone involved in an election" with this as a basis, it can be seen that though the newspapers may write about the election, if they don't write about the specific candidate then there's no source material for a biography. Mere involvement in something that newspapers cover is not enough. People generally don't get encyclopaedia biography articles for passing out leaflets, because newspapers generally don't cover the individual people that pass out the leaflets, and there are thus no sources to be cited.
Taking another example: Ross Perot didn't win the election to national office, but there was extensive news coverage of him and thus extensive source material for an encyclopaedia biography article. "renown or notoriety" equates to lots of humans knowing stuff about him, those humans in fact having obtained that knowledge from the very news media sources as are cited by the encyclopaedia biography article.
In essence, our criteria for the inclusion of biographies try to approximate and to codify the notion that human knowledge about politicians is augmented through news media (the only source for unelected politicians) and through (for politicians that hold office) public records of their activities (such as voting records, official journals of legislatures, and the like). It is knowledge that we are here to collect and to summarize. Addressing the issue by asserting that "all candidates are notable" is to be building a directory of people (indeed a directory of people's autobiographies), not an encyclopaedia of knowledge.
Does that help? If not, start with Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Archive 0 and work forwards. ☺ Uncle G 18:29:24, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brian0918, closed by me. AlbertR 03:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Low traffic site. ~750k Alexa. Content thin - just publishes Wordnet, CIA factbook, etc content. delete lots of issues | leave me a message 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article (if it exists) on these sorts of leech sites that take PD content available on ad-free sites and serve it up with ads of their own. Otherwise, delete. Caerwine 13:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Speedily deleted by another administrator. Redwolf24 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17 year old Sk8ter Grrrl. This page is the only evidence of Audree on the web that I can find. Vanity. Sabine's Sunbird 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She was an unsuccessful candidate at the 2005 UK general election. According to the European Foundation website she isn't the editor of the European Journal. That leaves her only claim to notability the fact she is the daughter of her father. Sliggy 21:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dictdef. --Howcheng 21:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not need an "unofficial index to MSN Groups". Inviting users to "add your own site" this will be little more than a collection of external links, serving as a web directory. Not at all encyclopedic. UkPaolo 21:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Number of topics only in triple digits. Number of users only in double digits. Destroy plz. (that means Delete.) A Link to the Past 21:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem notable. I don't think we should have an article for every Master's program ever. Also, unless "i" is a Danish preposition, the title itself is misspelled. Delete. Joel7687 21:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Advertising. Ben-w 21:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax, both Google and Amazon turn up no references for this ridiculously-named author. --IByte 21:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 KEEP. -Splash 00:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album by non-notable band. Merge the article contents to the band page. SchmuckyTheCat 21:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 No Consensus. I will redirect to Daddy (poem). Redwolf24 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"original research, POV" Ben-w 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete and Redirect. Redwolf24 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~200 member forums about LotR aren't noteable or encyclopedic. Delete and consider a redirect to Rohan. --Lomn | Talk 22:12:03, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable neologism --IByte 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 02:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to send a message to Aunty? - nn d --Doc (?) 22:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Keep. Redwolf24 02:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 No Consensus/Keep. Redwolf24 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for CSD, but it's a band, no vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 02:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied but doesn't seem to fit any CSD. No vote as yet. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 REDIRECT to Ra-Tet. Information appears already to be there. -Splash 01:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we delete this? Minor buffycruft --Doc (?) 22:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems totally fictitious. I'm unable to verify any of the information in the entry through Google or IMDB. Bad spelling on the name or just vandalism? GraemeL 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Band vanity - no allmusic entry - big pics --Doc (?) 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted to submit this for speedy, but it's too big to be a solid candidate. Still, no context, no sign of notability, no indication that it's even real, i.e. a google search for Germanton Kyricks returns no hits at all. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 23:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable jengod 23:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a nonsense hoax that shouldn't be on Wikipedia one second longer. FCYTravis 19:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied but doesn't fit any CSD. No vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks. -Splash 01:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Space = Fire!" How about -- Wikipedia is not a game playing guide. Wikipedia is not a hint book. Wikipedia is not a replacement for RTFM. SchmuckyTheCat 23:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 KEEP. -Splash 01:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh SchmuckyTheCat 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 No Consensus. I will redirect.. Redwolf24 02:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
this is a POV/OR essay about a poem, not anything like an encyclopedia article Ben-w 00:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. Redwolf24 02:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
band notable, but individual song not notable, and article, brief as it is, is very much imbued with personal bias 68.161.44.106 03:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]