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. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay, highly POV, tagged disputed for a long time and no efforts to mediate or resolve have been successful. No references. The subject itself seems borderline encyclopedic, but the article is entirely not so. WP:ISNOT a soapbox nor is it a repository for original research. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:12, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(a) So far mainly contains biblical quotes, (b) Seems pretty redundant with Christianity, and possibly other topics, and (c) hopelessly ambitious given the general title Cheese Sandwich 00:45, 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 Gantz. - Mailer Diablo 05:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because the title is misspelled and there is an article more complete already with the right name (Gantz) JocPro 00:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing an album by this name released by a band called Tool, meaning that it is not an official release. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unverifiable; possible hoax. Wound up over at votes for undeletion, but in the interest of fairness, I've posted it here. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable? Google search turns up nothing PhilipO 02:37, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Take it from an old homemade-explosive expert, this is a load of hoo-ha. Potassium nitrate plus sugar gives an impressive pile of smoke but not serious thrust. The "physics" comments about diameter of truck wheels vs. terminal velocity are sheerly comedic in their seriousness. This is flat out foolish. Denni☯ 02:37, 2005 August 22 (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 merge. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect The information on the Nermal page is already on much larger Garfield page. Character may not have enough information to add ot make it worth giving it a seperate page. Should be deleted and redirect to Garfield, just like 'Odie' does. Boycottthecaf 02:45, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and/or unverifiable band. Only hit for "Liquid Spears" "Monique Willemsen" is Wikipedia, and "Liquid Spears" doesn't fare much better. No allmusic.com listing. Niteowlneils 02:47, 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 keep. User:Zoe also wishes me to point out that there was no consensus, which I'm happy to do. Even taking into account some socking, there just isn't consensus to delete this. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional? PhilipO 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly commercial, but they do offer free downloads and have some positive comments made about them on Google. Dlyons493 12:36, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Yahoo! mailing list. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:53, August 22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No claim to notability. Martg76 03:02, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be parts of two different articles. the one about Musa Syeed seems to be about a non-notable person -- exactly one google hit on "Musa Syeed" + Producer, 9 hits on "Musa Syeed"+film. Delete unless notability better established -- in any case cleanup. DES (talk) 03:36, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Who's Who of the moderators a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to maintain membership rosters for their discussion forum. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:05:57, 2005-08-22 (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of members of a discussion forum that post the most, with their posting counts. As the discussion forum members will continue to post, this information will be out of date as soon as it is written, and thus is both worthless and unverifiable. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:04:04, 2005-08-22 (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 deleted A7 (Geogre deleted "Xan Phillips" (Only says he used to be a videotape editor and now has a podcast: spam + vanity (click here!))) - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. 474 Google and zero Alexa. Delete - brenneman(t)(c) 04:24, 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 delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete: this page already went through VFD and was nuked. Hoax page about a UK Simpsons spin-off. Speediable? JDoorjam 04:25, 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 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
nonnotable songwriter. IF his group is even notable, merge; else, delete (and somebody take out his group, too). JDoorjam 04:34, 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 discussion aborted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination). --Tony SidawayTalk 17:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opening abbreviated VfD. Original vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff.
Abstain. brenneman(t)(c) 04:53, 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 Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
junk/vanity/non-sense Rkevins82 - TALK 05:10, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an ad. Compare copy with their web site ;Bear 05:31, August 22, 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 Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:29, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:33, 28 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. --23:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-encyclopedic PhilipO 06:23, 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 KEEP. -Splash 05:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient notability. Circa 500 hits on Google. PhilipO 06:50, 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 Early keep. Totally rewritten. No more dicdef. mikka (t) 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. dicdef MCB 07:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For deletionists I would advise to learn how to use google. mikka (t) 18:18, 25 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 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, non-notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity and advertisement. Seems non-notable, and refers to website for any actual information. Uppland 07:38, 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 delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a clue what this is. It appears to be a fictional accounting of a large scale gang war of some kind. It's not encyclopedic, appears to make no distinction between fantasy and reality and cites no sources. In a Google search for "Illuminati X", I could find no results that were relevent to this. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Peace during the Elitez Gangbang" "Illuminati Victory in the First Ivy League War" "Emergence of the Bots and the NATO War" Those titles had me gut-laughing! My advise to Robert Pierce is to set this shit up on your own homepage or something, and at most include that there was a massive MMOPG battle feat. 50k people here on Wiki, the total breakdown and prose is unneeded though. -Wiffle0rz 09:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was worth a try.
They found the cure to cancer.... well only breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer, and ovarian cancer.... its a common virus... it was on CNN about a month ago. RX something..... its going through FDA testing at the moment to be put on the general market. The virus by itself does not kill regular cells, only the cancer cells, but in conjunction with another virus it can cause regular cells to die.
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 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
133 Google hits for name. Sample from text shows obvious self-promotion: "Rivaji is not new to politics and Congress. he is a born Congressman." delete
lots of issues | leave me a message 08:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, August 27, 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 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like self-promotion for a local business offering dance classes since 1966 in a town (Tsawwassen, British Columbia) with a population of 25,000. See also links from 56th Street. Uppland 08:56, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is either 1. Totally Fake or 2. Real and thereby so flagrantly homosexual we can not alow this shit to stay and must delete it at once. Wiffle0rz 08:56, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't shed light into the affiliated organization's significance. Google results for "Indian National Congress" and "IT Cell" total 64. Article created by an officier that started a vanity article for himself. delete
lots of issues | leave me a message 09:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i agree - page should be deleted its not from a neutral POV and does not give much information Vino s 19:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, August 27, 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 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable joke religion (Thwog returns 9 hits on Google if you exclude it's own site, all false positives by my count.). I was tempted to list it on speedy, but I'm not sure it would fit any criterea, anyway to quote the creed of Thwong: "Creation Is An Accident of Thwog.", I think that pretty much sums up this article. Delete Sherool 09:37, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity/linkspam for a non-notable group that gets one Google hit and no Alexa rank. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:39, 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 Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She used to sing in a band and is now solo. I could find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, however (I did find some googles in Spanish but I can't read that). Notable or not able? Radiant_>|< 09:47, August 22, 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 (talk) 00:43, 29 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 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two-piece experimental band from Australia. Fails WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 09:50, August 22, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
A wiki about gardening. 32 googles. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 22, 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 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is kind of messy, but it appears to be a summary of the research paper of two people about material slippage. WP:NOR comes to mind. Also, the article claims to be copyrighted, which is kind of odd. Radiant_>|< 10:01, August 22, 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 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wife to a 17th century settler. Article lists her children and says nothing much else; WP:NOT a genealogy database. Radiant_>|< 10:05, August 22, 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 blatant vanity per CSD #A7. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Obvious vanity. About as notable as my left foot. — JIP | Talk 10:16, 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 Been merged, therefore I must redirect per GFDL. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an awful minor character in Pokemon with little to say about. I vote delete unless there's a list of minor characters I don't know about in which case, I'd agree to a merge. (Was incorrectly tagged as a speedy because a lack of context) - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, August 22, 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 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was originally unformatted and signed by anon contributor. It was also tagged as speedy vanity, but I believe the Young Scientist Exhibition mention may be an attempt at assertion of notability. Still delete because I don't think entering or even winning that competition is notable enough in itself. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, August 22, 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 article significantly altered since listing, discussion no longer necessary. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the popularity (read: notability) of this popular American country singer. He seems to have left neither a trace on Google (unlike the British author of the same name), nor will amazon.com sell any CDs of his. nn-bio. Unverifiable. No context. I'm almost inclined to speedying it, but for the time being, I'll be satisfied with Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 11:11, 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 KEEP. -Splash 05:48, 28 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 05:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged as speedy, but being the first in a large region to provide wireless internet to students, would make a university notable in my opinion. Abstain unless independently verified. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, August 22, 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 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, at best. Sietse 11:28, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Al 12:15, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A college kid. He is a friend of mine but I don't think he warrants an entry into Wikipedia. __earth 12:21, August 22, 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 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable web forum, Alexa: 379,797. Also vanity and promotion feydey 12:29, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 29 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 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
original research. Appears to exist only in the one old (unpublished) preprint referred to in the text. Salsb 12:42, August 22, 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 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Al 12:45, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is a fun one. I'd never heard of a band called Koldfusion despite knowing the Oxford music scene pretty well, so resorted to the dreaded google. Only music related hits I got were for 'Kold Fusion' - who have a stubby allmusic page and one electronica/dance EP release, on the orchard. So, in short:
- Koldfusion seem to fail WP:MUSIC
- Kold Fusion also seem to fail WP:MUSIC, having only one release on a 'digital label'
Any questions? --zippedmartin 12:55, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Kelly Martin 13:50, August 22, 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 05:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here that isn't already on the main Play for Today page already. I can't expand it myself as I've sadly not seen this Play for Today, and the stub seems to have been up for two weeks without anybody else being able to come along and expand it either. Angmering 14:25, 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 KEEP. -Splash 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity Page - nothing to see here. Benjamin Gatti 14:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete (again). -- RHaworth 06:17:42, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
This should maybe be a speedy, as it was almost unanimously VfDed before, but the content might be substantially different now. The guy who recreated it was, I believe, the same guy who wrote the original article, and a complete ass during the last VfD. -R. fiend 14:40, 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 COPYVIO, with no rewrite. -Splash 05:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Assert notability quickly, or delete. JDoorjam 23:30, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic. Gets 861 Ghits...but most of them aren't even talking about the comic. Several Times 14:56, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography PubLife 14:58, 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 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which 56th Street is this, you ask? Why, the one in Tsawwassen, British Columbia, of course! I mean, there aren't any other 56th Streets, are there? What we have here is a streetcruft article filled with a painful amount of trivia (including notes on where traffic lights are) on a road in a minor suburb. Mention a little of it in the Tsawwassen article, but this is ridiculous. I believe even the most inclusive guidelines for road articles don't include things like this. -R. fiend 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, do you people really think that someone would have the patience and time to write a lengthy and detailed article about just any old street, unless it was an important 'landmark'? I see no reason for people to want this article to be deleted. The author of the article is clearly trying to illustrate the importance of a street which is considered to be of some significance in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. No one should judge this article simply because they have never heard of it nor seen it. I'm sure there are many of you who don't know what the Blarney Stone is, but if I told you it was a mere rock that was of historical and mythical value to the people of Ireland would you all vote for that article to be deleted? Piecraft 03:04, 25 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 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV/OR essay, duplicate of Epistle to augusta which has been redirected as per a recently concluded VfD. This title isn't worth redirecting. --IByte 15:17, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable "band from the MK area", could not find any Google hits except "the official site". -- Mormegil 15:37, 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 speedy deleted as nonsense. (00:10, 23 August 2005 Geogre deleted "National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria" (Not a VfD! Contents were fgfgh)) - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an actual company, I'd say edit it. But as it stands, gibberish. Christy747 15:44, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article claims "Super Fries & Dogs is an American fast-food restaurant chain that serves hot dogs and french fries, located in most United States shopping malls"; Google shows that it has one or two locations in the San Diego area. Non-notable; from Ddespie@san.rr.com, formerly MascotGuy. tregoweth 15:50, August 22, 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 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poorly-written, content-free article about an airline that doesn't seem to exist. The external link to their home page is broken, a google search for "X airways" turns up nothing, and no one answers the phone (there's a generic voicemail message) at the number listed on the domain registration. Steve Summit (talk) 16:00, 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 Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. -Splash 05:59, 28 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 Move. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't belong in the main article namespace. Delete or move to the project (Wikipedia:) namespace. Mindmatrix 16:28, 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 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
nn. seems to be an ad for their website. 202.156.2.74 16:32, 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 delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Band vanity. Most of the 400-odd Google results for "Cosmic Cock" are unrelated. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:40, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable hoax by known vandal. Another one of this guy's plausible-sounding hoaxes is on VfD as well (see "O.A. Ruscaba" below). - Lucky 6.9 17:06, 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 Power (international). There's nothing to merge. -Splash 06:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This entry's topic encompasses too much information, and, since each of the topics listed within here are discussed elsewhere (and would be more in-depth in their own context,) I find this topic to be non-encyclopedic. Jolb 17:19, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, neologism. -Satori 17:32, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to be nonsense, possibly slang used by some tiny group of people
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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the article does not seem to be verifiable. See Talk:Tino rangatiratanga. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:39, 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 KEEP. -Splash 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of this page? List all the articles that have subarticles? This page could include all countries (History, economy, culture...), languages (Grammar, alphabet, pronunciation...), wars (causes, casualties...) ... CG 17:49, August 22, 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 per WP:CSD clause G1. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be nonexistant device; no source provided A2Kafir 17:59, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Too weird for Wikipedia. Advertisement for nn language (very few google hits) Punkmorten 18:04, 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 delete. Woohookitty 07:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:23, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Advertisment for a podcasting site established less than a month ago. Site has no Alexa ranking. GraemeL (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Vanity? How about giving suggestions on how improve instead of destroying it? Creating is lot more work than destroying... what suggests do you have on fixing it instead of marking it for deletion?
Your arrogance and lack of flexibility will be your demise... and when do you see so much talent and creativity on a youth network? That's rare-- podcast directories have no spark. And since when was Alexa the big thing? Who exactly do you think you are? Members are the only one who know the history and what have you done for the Internet today? Deleting and destroying-- that's what...
John C. Dvorak was right-- the downhill of wikis are imminent due to the arrogance of the admins and the Wikipedia community. Leaving gracefully here, and you've given us a new mission statement: ""We're not the Teen Girl Squad. A non-notable site established less than a month ago with no Alexa ranking. Members of the site show clear vanity, self-promotion and self-love. We're unimportant and we love everyone on TPN." ---Wikipedia" Sneer.
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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB with only about 100 members. --Durin 18:13, 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 Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dictionary definition. --Durin 18:17, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
online casino adspam. No claim to notability. Sdedeo 18:18, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable online casino adspam; company is non-notable (170 employees.) Sdedeo 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clearification Please be more specific as to what exactly is wrong with this article? Is it that I mentioned the number of company employees? ,Lets try to improve wikipedia not by just deleting information, rather fixing it. Waiting for your kind reply. thanks Johny
Update Notice I have removed the so called "Non-notable" information about the number of employees altought I personally think its harmless. please advice. thanks Johny
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. Paul August ☎ 18:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Online casino adspam; no substantive claim to notability. Sdedeo 18:18, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Content has been moved to Wiktionary. Article isn't, nor couldn't be, encyclopaedic. KeithD (talk) 18:22, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a vanity page. Author 63.228.216.236 has shown his blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy with repeated vandalizations of the Chaos magic page. Denial 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: This is not a vanity page. This page was created by a fan of his site that felt is should be listed on Wikipedia. The edits to the Chaos Magic page were made by a different user of the same computer and I would like to apologize for them.
Listen, my jerk roommate won't stay the hell off of my computer. All of this is really pissing me off. I just wanted to make an entry about a site I felt deserved recognition. There are plenty of other personal sites (The Best Page In The Universe Homstarrunner) that have had entries put up. I've already kicked my roommate out, and if you'll notice I also restored your user page AFTER he went in and blanked it. I want to set things right and again I apologize.
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. Paul August ☎ 18:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Not a real person, though plausible enough sounding. No evidence of the name or the novels. Boojum 06:12, 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. Paul August ☎ 18:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
nn - no google hits for either team, no references to the ball field, either. Outlander 18:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I did locate a "Sara D. Roosevelt Park" , but it has only a running track and basketball, no baseball diamond. --Outlander 18:31, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a fabrication. Even if real, not important enough to save. (Unsigned nomination by Uucp (talk · contribs))
According to the deletion policy, "Can't verify information in article" is listed under the "Problems that don't require deletion" heading.
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. Paul August ☎ 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough
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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable biograpy CH (talk) 18:58, 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 KEEP. -Splash 06:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the editorial board of Discrete Mathematics. Tomo 02:58, 27 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. Paul August ☎ 19:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
This page appeares to have been created in Error the actual name for the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was Hugh H. Rowatt, as verified by this link Commissioners of the Northwest Territories I think what happened was someone got confused between Hugh H. Rowatt and Roy A. Gibson Cloveious 19:23, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. Not notable DJ Clayworth 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect to Diff. Radiant_>|< 09:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The first deletion nomination was borderline by my count, and I decided to close it with a keep after a good rewrite by the author. This has been disputed and one sysop even peremptorily deleted it. I'm listing this for further discussion. I would like to ask the deleting sysop not to make further attempts to delete this without a proper discussion. It is in no way a candidate for speedy deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental point is that people, independent of the original author, have actually considered the software notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it, be those works magazine reviews, teaching courses, books, programming guides, or other commentaries. So, for example, if someone had written a book on ExamDiff for O'Reilly Media, or a teaching course that specifically addressed it as a topic, then those would be arguments that could be used to sway editors' opinions towards keeping an article on the subject. Uncle G 14:41:25, 2005-08-23 (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. Paul August ☎ 19:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Vain, nn. Erwin Walsh
completing VfD - nominator gave no reason. However, starts "Little known progressive rock band" WCFrancis 21:07, 27 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. Paul August ☎ 19:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
NN. Google produces 20 hits. Erwin Walsh
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 06:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, definition, "winning percentage" highly ambiguous. Erwin Walsh
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. Please do not bite the newbies, Erwin. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A very insignificant act. Suggest author listens to better music. Erwin Walsh
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. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, vanity, no place here. Erwin Walsh
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. Paul August ☎ 19:08, August 29, 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 (No consensus). No votes. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not important/famous enough --Hurricane111 20:31, 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
(Note: Page is now moved to RJ Harris. If it's decided this should be deleted, please, don't forget about the redirect.) Vanity page; poorly written; badly formatted. --Ian Pitchford 20:35, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
There is only one town named Gesualdo. There is a composer with the same name, but there is a disambiguation page at Gesualdo. I see no need for this page. Billhpike 20:37, August 22, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company? Their products get very few hits on Google. [29] Furthermore, the article creator is spamming links to their site from biological articles. PhilipO 20:48, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
finishing nom. not encyclopedic Ben-w 20:50, 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 Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish enough notability according to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Only notable member's two top 100 hits appear to have been after he left the band. Francs2000 | Talk 20:50, 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 KEEP. Paul August ☎ 20:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Another band stub that does not establish the notability of its band according to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Francs2000 | Talk 20:51, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity --Ryan Delaney talk 20:53, 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 KEEP. Paul August ☎ 20:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Satori 20:56, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing to do with an animal; it's a company vanity page. --Firsfron 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, I messed something up)[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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article is mostly just a copy of large sections of Eratosthenes, but spiced up a bit with the contributors ideas. Nothing points here. Delete -- Egil 21:03, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:38, August 29, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Political acusation of an individual. This page appears to be a poorly written ALL-CAPS stub on a person of questionable notability, and consists of what appears to be a political acusation of loyalties. Does not seem to have any factual basis, or usefulness. Either a real article needs to be written, or the page deleted. Dmeranda 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is bashing of a notable individual, delete and add his name to the requested articles list. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, August 23, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! I doubt that Juji wrote this himself, and he has done alot for the sport. nonsense, almost speediable Ben-w 21:02, 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could not establish notability; vanity page; contains little about the individual anyway. No links, and zero Google matches on "ascenzion freempeg4".-choster 21:18, 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 21:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Gaming cruft (Google isn't god - by 87 hits says nn) shoot it down --Doc (?) 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.24.136 (talk • contribs)
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 (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
nn-bio He wrote a how-to book on tinting photos and he has an online gallery of his photos. Less than a half-dozen relevant hits, most to his sites. No R/T gallery shows, no media coverage, no publication of his art, no noteworthy reviews. Outlander 21:38, 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 Keep (No consensus). You might want to relist this, since IMO it would be deleted if it got more votes. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Denied speedy as vanity. AFAICT a nn band not known outside Bristol; does not seem to meet any of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines -choster 22:08, 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 21:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The Article has been expanded to include educational and entertaining information from Beeswax On Parade with the kind permission of the author.
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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. Nothing on Google or Yahoo, nothing on imdb. Nothing on "Tiffie Risco" either. Created by a user with several warnings on their Talk page about inserting nonsense. Zoe 23:06, August 22, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new around here, so forgive me if this nomination is in error...but this page has no meaningful content at all. GinaDana 23:14, 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 13:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not encyclopedic. Original research (at best). Cleduc 23:24, 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 13:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
It's written in a non-encyclopedic way and is somewhat irrelevant. If someone wants to change it - that's fine with me, but I think it's stupid so far Dungo (talk) 23:25, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vanity, original research Ben-w 23:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedied as recreation of afd'd article [38] --Doc (?) 00:18, 6 October 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. Rje 01:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Only one result on Google. The article isn't even a complete sentence. Acetic Acid 00:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)