< August 25 August 27 >

Purge server cache

August 26[edit]

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 systematic element name

Untribium and others[edit]

NN hypothetical element. 9 googles. Didn't we go through a bunch of these before? ~~ N (t/c) 23:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 10:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS Household[edit]

The article doesn't strike me as being worthy of an encyclopedia entry.--Hooperbloob 20:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the article was tagged by hooperbloob on August 13, and never added to the main list. Adding now, Joyous (talk) 00:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 - creator blanked it. FreplySpang (talk) 01:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Advanced Placement English Language and Composition[edit]

Appears to be a chunk of someone's term paper. While it might be the basis for an article on pathos (or maybe not), it is certainly irrelevant to the stated topic. Denni☯ 00:38, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 11:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Heavyweight[edit]

Too bad it's a hoax - one of these bouts might be quite entertaining to watch. Denni☯ 00:44, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 wasdelete. Woohookitty 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Britannia Fair[edit]

This is an unverified 'article' with a wholly inappropriate tone. Googling the term produces 3 hits - all to this article! Eddie.willers 00:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Do feel free to edit. --Tony SidawayTalk :25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

David Osborne Hagger[edit]

Not quite sure what to do with this. It is clearly not an article on the person stated in the title, and appears more a collection of statements from various public agencies on the topic of bovine-sourced materials designed for use in health care. While there may be some basis for an article on BSE and bovine insulin, this is clearly not it. Denni☯ 00:57, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 16:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most developed country in central america[edit]

Non-encyclopedic GinaDana 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-verifiable, and if it can be, the article needs a whole rewrite. I doubt it can be salvaged from this condition. --Titoxd 01:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 16:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best city in centralamerica[edit]

Non-encyclopedic GinaDana 00:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. (after being BJAODN'd) Paul August ☎ 20:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Band manager[edit]

A wholly inappropriate tone for a Wiki article - a thorough cleanup would mean a rewrite so why not delete & start again? Eddie.willers 01:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 +9/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»=

Ajitha[edit]

Doesn't require encyclopediac entry rail 01:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Florida State Road 300[edit]

I'm unsure if this should be deleted or expanded. What is the Wiki policy on roads? Is this particular road notable in any way? (I'm new to Wiki, please excuse me.) Fang Aili 01:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 rewritten version. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Fonte[edit]

I would have speedied this as vanity, but the article appears to place her on the razor's edge of notability. What say you, brethren? DS 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 BJAODN. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suavecito[edit]

Thought this was about the song of the same name. Not sure exactly what this is. - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bozulich[edit]

The subject of this article appears to be notable, but according to the author, has requested that this article be deleted. My vote is to keep based on his work with go, but there may be some validity to granting his request. I dunno. Denni☯ 01:24, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 20:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax skate[edit]

Advertising, POV, unsuitable for Wiki, balh-blah... Gnarly, dude! Eddie.willers 01:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here and there[edit]

A fine band, I'm sure, but only locally notable. With no album yet recorded and no extensive tours yet conducted, I must vote to delete. Denni☯ 02:05, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 20:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gross, Minsky & Mogul[edit]

vanity, advertisement nominated by Quuxplusone 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This firm was added to the "Law Firms" article. It is a well known law firm in Maine and New England. I will delete it if that's what people want, but it's not an advertisement, no more than the article for any of the other law firms. There's not solid reason to delete this page. I will continue to expand it and improve its quality, if allowed. I've started other articlessuch as the University of Maine School of Law and greatly expanded Searsport, Maine. If given the chance, I'll make this just as good as those. Please let me know when this is resolved so I can remove the tag and continue my work. Thank you. AFethke 02:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like,I can cite the hundreds of times the firm and its members have been mentioned in various media outlets, the countless appellate cases they have argued and the case citations, (meaning the firm has been instrumental in shaping the course of Miane and federal law) the fact that their members are (were) the Presidents of the State Bar Association, County Bar Association, Maine Trial Lawyers Associaiton....balh blah blah. It may be small, but all firms in Maine are considered small. In fact, Gross Minsky is condered a medium sized firm in Maine. If firms have to be over 50 peoples to be notable that knocks out every firm in Miane, NH and almost allof Vermont. That's not right. How else could I prove it its notability?AFethke 02:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will probably be the only person voting for the article, given the small legal communbity here in Maine, so delete it if you will and I won't argue anymore. I just think it would be a mistake. Just mentioning in the list of law firms on the law firms page would be fine I guess. Just think about it and don't be so quick to judge.AFethke 02:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Most Vfd nominations come from people doing new pages or recent changes patrol, so they are usually made soon after the article is created. An advantage is that it keeps the contributor from investing more time on it if it's going to get deleted. Niteowlneils 03:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After sleeping on it, let's just delete it. I'm tired fo fighting. I do believe it should stay listed on the "Lw Firms" article, as it is one of the best known firms in Maine and is well known throughout New England,but that's it. Thanks.AFethke 10:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why are we still going through this? I am in favor of deleting this, I was the one who created in the first place and no one else has said to keep it.....what's the hold up? There is a clear consensus (unanimous actually) would an administrator please do what was done 2 or 3 times already, just delete this. ThanksAFethke 23:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 20:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kingler's kingdom[edit]

Vanity/advertising of non-notable website. Delete. - choster 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 20:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Too Many "Mustangs" on Western Ranges[edit]

An unformatted rant on the Bureau of Land Management's efforts to save wild horses. There's an article in here somewhere for one brave enough to rescue it from this morass, but it needs a new title and a complete rewrite - best to start from scratch. Denni☯ 02:25, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 20:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comparison between Star Trek and Doctor Who[edit]

Delete because it is original research. Also, many of the comparisons could apply to any two series, and there is some wrong information anyway. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Ya could always put it back into VfD if you wanted to. --Apostrophe 02:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to assume the people who voted Keep the last time have seen the light. Trouble is that that comparison debate is at least borderline sourceable, though nobody really cares enough to do it. This one definitely isn't, though. JRM · Talk 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
High hopes, I suppose. --Apostrophe 03:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 02:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hannah Hubbard[edit]

Non-notable and/or unverifiable--zero hits for "Hannah Hubbard" miami or Kook Klutzes Klant-Do-Anything-Right and nothing relevant for "Hannah Hubbard" miami. Contributed by an anon that keeps vandalizing Saturday Night Live. Niteowlneils 02:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 02:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Dammsworth[edit]

Non-notable and/or unverifiable--zero hits. Contributed by an anon that keeps vandalizing Saturday Night Live. Niteowlneils 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no one by that name writes for the Toronto Sun. Adam Bishop 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 07:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sparrow[edit]

Vanity bio Samw 02:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 MOOT. Article was speedy-deleted. --MarkSweep 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange proverbs[edit]

POV to declare a proverb strange in a title, the article borders on nonsense, are these even well-known proverbs? --Mysidia (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. The article was merged and redirected during the discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOSP[edit]

Scientists estimate that there are enough IPv6 addresses to uniquely identify every atom in the universe. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said for unreleased now-defunct open-source software projects. This just isn't notable. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:59:59, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

The game was released obviously, just not the source code, that has nothing to do with deleting the page or not. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean many people didn't enjoy playing it.. Keep Yonir

I would generally interpret Alpha as unreleased in any meaningful form. For that matter, Google doesn't see any relevant reference in the top 100 apart from the developer's personal page and the project host. I did see the League of Ordinary Shuffleboard Players, though. If notability can be established, I'll be happy to recant. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:09:43, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Well, The name "Alpha" doesn't represent it well, if you want to find more relevant google results search "losp liero open source project". Can I remove the VfD status now.. ? Yonir

That string you suggest gives 27 hits before Google lapses into similar pages. Seeing correct results for the full version of the acronym does suggest that, if it survives, the article should be renamed. Regardless, the VfD needs to run its course. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 04:02:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

I realized that I'm not supposed to delete VfD status now reading in the "Guide to Votes for Deletion".. So you're saying that a page must be named after the search line that will make google give the most relevant results.. ? If the League of Ordinary Shuffleboard Players want a wikipedia page they can make a "ambigouty" (sp) page.. (well, they don't "deserve" a wikipedia page I guess though :p) Anyway, I don't think that "LOSP Liero Open Source Project" is the best string for results, as it is usually reffered to as LOSP, this just gives only relevant results. Yonir

btw how do you add the "personal info" line (such as "— Lomn | Talk / RfC 04:02:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)")

Since LOSP is pretty much a thing of the past, cant it just be moved in under Liero just like Joosa was? Wikipedia is suppose to have everything right? But now it doesnt if things get deleted. So at least put it somewhere else. Either with Liero or with Gusanos. Ulvbot 06:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


Anyhow i copied all the stuff here to Liero Wiki so nothing will be lost. Ulvbot 06:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

hmm, sounds like a good idea. Yonir 11:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

though both Liero and gusanos refer to "LOSP", that's what made me create the article on the first place.. Yonir 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gusanos deserves his own page on Wikipedia, since it's actively being developed. LOSP however, can be moved under Liero or (even better) Gusanos. -- Sander 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (yes, still alive ;) but not on GU recently)[reply]

ok, I merged LOSP into Gusanos (I think it's better there, since the games are merging too, makes sence to merge the articles ;o) and changed the links for LOSP to the gusanos section on LOSP (gusanos#LOSP). I guess this article can be deleted now :<. Yonir 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

btw LOSP should still redirect to gusanos I guess. Yonir 00:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the help page on merging.. already changed the page to redirect, I hope it's ok to change it even though it was in VfD status. :S Yonir 00:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 07:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Traks[edit]

ad for Trek parody web site. WCFrancis 03:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fanfic, sorta. Promo for site, certainly.-WCFrancis 03:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. There was small support for delete, some for redirect, but no overall consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Corridan[edit]

Apparently a contestant on Survivor 11 (although the article states nothing of this), judging by a quick googling this may also be a copyvio (unless other sites mirrored this article already), not really notable IMO, you decide ShadowStaller 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, do you have any examples for copyvio? I did a quick copy/paste search and didn't come up with anything. Second, he is a contestant on a popular reality TV show. Regardless of whether he's notable in the smallest way, or the largest way, he is notable for that at least. I think there will be some people looking for the information when the show starts. --Wolf530 05:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 07:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chirp_software[edit]

Advertising, just barely, what do you think? inks 03:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments by page creator, batsonjay)
Keep - I intend to make it less an advertising page, and point out more *pedia concepts. lnks just reviewed the page after I'd made my first editing/creation pass but hadn't finished the process.

I intend to:

Finally, I know Microsoft Project is a well-known application, but if Chirp software gets deleted for "Advertising" reasons, then so should the Microsoft Project page out of fairness. Batsonjay 04:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 07:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Horak[edit]

Delete: Not verifiable. I ran across this article doing RC patrol, and attempted to verify it via Google to no avail. I left a message on the talk page with no response on August 10. Given that, I'm bringing it here. Wikibofh 03:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 for inappropriate use of namespace. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project management software/Chirp[edit]

This page should be deleted because it was created inartfully. I tried to create it hierarchically under the "Project management software" page for two reasons: 1) The product name (Chirp) is the same as an existing page for the word Chirp which deals with a completely different subject. In order ot create a disambiguation link, I first created the Chirp page "under" Project management. 2) I then decided to create a page called Chirp software that was NOT under Project management software, and point the disambiguation link there. I think this is a better placement. Therefore, this first page ("under" Project management software) should be deleted. Batsonjay 03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 07:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellsatan[edit]

Not a notable individual; apparently a vanity page. 24.34.190.187 04:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Sex in Brasil[edit]

Not quite nonsense, but close; I don't see how this can become a worthwhile article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am just pointing out (no-one else has) that anal sex is pretty much considered totally normal and done a lot in Brasil much more so than in places like Argentina and the U.S. You should try it sometime. We even say in Brasil that if you dont do anal on the first date you are doing something wrong thank you Obrigado!Wiki brah 04:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine use in Brasil[edit]

Unexpandable stub consisting of one datum and a bunch of unsourced speculation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources on the talk page did you check themWiki brah 04:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may well develop into an interesting article - cocaine use in Brazil is obviously rampant. I would suggest renaming it to Cocaine in Brazil, or perhaps something broader on illicit drug trade and use in Brazil, but with a bit more referencing, and some cleanup, this could be a good article. Trollderella 07:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had a crack at it anyway, since I think it's a legitimate topic. Let me know what you think. Trollderella 15:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyons & Lyons, Solicitors[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable law firm Cnwb 04:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article still doesn't establish notability for this law firm. Its founder, John Lyon, might just scrape in, but the article isn't about him, it's about Lyons & Lyons. Cnwb 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very vocabulary and VeryVocabulary.com[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sacre Bleu![edit]

Vanity and advertising Scott Davis Talk 05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Cabbage[edit]

vanity and advertising Scott Davis Talk 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Freestylefrappe has taken up the subject of the splitting of the article on Talk:Judiciary Act. There is also a discussion there about renaming the article and restoring the previous equal-weight disambiguation. Neither the nominator nor anyone else wants an administrator to delete this article. (The only help from administrators that may be required will involve moving an article over an edited redirect and a history-only undeletion, for which Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Deletion review are the places, not here.) Uncle G 01:03:42, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Judiciary Act[edit]

This page says nothing about what a Judiciary Act is. Each individual act should be split into individual pages. Please Delete and Split. freestylefrappe 05:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crushi[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. (one probable troll vote and one anon vote discounted) Rossami (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Harp[edit]

Non-notable "model and actress" known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly. 190 unique Google hits, her website gets an alexa ranking of 1,139,850. Zoe 05:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's factual, and verifiable. Trollderella 07:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So are a lot of things that aren't notable and aren't encyclopedic. --Charles O'Rourke 07:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
That may be so, but 'notable' and 'encyclopedic' are not deletion criteria. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming that that is somehow a keep criterion, when it is not. Where does the deletion policy say that everything that ever existed in the world which is factual and verifiable is a candidate for keeping?
I am not, there is no 'keep criteria' as far as I can see. If it does not meet the criteria for deletion, I do not see the issue with my voting to keep it. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trollderella, as I said yesterday on a different VfD, notability as an inclusion critereon is clearly inferred from the following section to the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.". If I own a cat, and take a picture of that cat, then I could make a factual and verifiable article entitled I have a cat, and you would vote keep for it because it is both factual (one can look at the picture in the article) and verifiable (if you don't believe the picture, you can come to my house and the cat will be there). Your inclusion criteria makes does not take into account whether a subject is encyclopedic or not. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Fernando, WP:NOT is not deletion policy, and I am choosing to try dilligently to assess articles against deletion policy. It may well be possible to find things in all kinds of bits of policy that depreciate one thing or another, that does not make them deletion policy. As Kappa points out, with your cat, you are doing original research, there is nothing to reference except your photo of your cat. Trollderella 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC) PS. I'm sure it's a wonderful cat - we could probably benefit from a picture of it on your userpage! ;)[reply]
It may not be deletion policy. But it is very basic Wikipedia policy like WP:NPA. It supersedes the Deletion criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 07:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
You'll forgive me for attempting to make a joke; apparently it failed. (Note to self: Kappa and Trollederella do not dig cat jokes). Outside of the specific cat example, I do believe my point still stands. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I can't see how, you're constructing a strawman about a silly article that can't be verified without conducting original research, and trying to make the argument that articles that are referenced and do not need original research to verify are not valid because you might write one about your cat. Am I missing something? Trollderella 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're missing a joke. Relax. I was trying to point out what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning by means of a light-hearted example. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry! I am sure it's a great cat! Trollderella 17:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entirely hypothetical cat. :p Now back to your regularly scheduled VfD. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crushi.com[edit]

Not notable, and probably spam. See also Crushi. Finbarr Saunders 05:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Radiant_>|< 08:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

FilePile[edit]

First attempt at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile closed as hopeless. Abstain brenneman(t)(c) 05:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Xed 08:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after more research. --GraemeL (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And to look at the some of reasons given by Xed to keep: first, we have no idea how many members the site has, it being private. Re: Points of Rock, the criteria for maintenance of geographical location stubs has no bearing on the criteria for maintenance of pages about non-notable subjects (i.e., my house has seven residents in it, should I put a page up on Wikipedia?). Parodies don't make a site notable in an of themselves. And mention by Jason Kottke doesn't make a site notable (or if it does, we have a lot of work to do cataloging all the sites, memes, people, places, and other subjects he's covered and adding those citations and references to those articles). Jason 11:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The last VfD saw an overwhelming number of Delete votes, but the process itself was a train wreck that ended with an admin decision of no consensus. After further discussion and a RfC on the page, there developed a near consensus that the subject was non-notable and unverifiable, and the article was re-nominated. --tranquileye 16:21:38, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
I tend to agree. This VfD seems to have happened because of pressure from sockpuppets and filepile users for another vote. Wikipedia should resist such pressure. - Xed 17:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 a recreation of previously-deleted content by Zoe. android79 15:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Kelly Penguin Girl"[edit]

Kelly Penguin Girl was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-31. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kelly Penguin Girl.

Seems not to qualify for notability, unless her podcast is heard by 5000 people. Can we quantify the number of listeners of podcasts? Zoe 05:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy on jeff[edit]

Classic band vanity. No Googles. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oft[edit]

Move to Wiktionary and delete. Zoe 05:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa baryan[edit]

For a famous child prodigy, she sure doesn't have any Google whatsoever. Neither does her father. Aussies/Kiwis, is this for real? - Lucky 6.9 06:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Get rid of it. The same user has made Amber Baryan, which smacks of nonsense also. Dysprosia 06:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That information would be better on their userpage.--inks 06:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Tara Undercliff and Dance under the pretty trees. Zoe 06:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. HappyCamper 06:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rigmare[edit]

Neologism. Zero relevant Google hits. Bovlb 06:13:02, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 m/r votes are clearly towards the news network, but they are significantly outnumbered by simple keepage. -Splash 00:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Linder[edit]

Non-notable hatemonger. I would say userfy to User:Amalekite, but he already has a user page. Zoe 06:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, I, for one, would appreciate it if you could try to remain civil. I don't think it costs anything to refrain from personal abuse, and it certainly improves the likelihood of reaching agreement. Yours, Trollderella 21:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, troll, I, for one, would appreciate it if you could try not to ascribe motives to me which are not correct. Zoe 04:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Zoe, I think the only motive that I ascribed to you was that you were trying to reach agreement. Sorry if that is not true. Trollderella 21:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Inconclusive. No VfD tag or any other notice was displayed on the article at any time during the discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cayden Boyd[edit]

Well, it is in her right to vote for the article (or have the rules changed so new users can't vote?) Dysprosia 06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbable[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carey y Cía. Ltda.[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SFTPPlus[edit]

Advertising. I suggest to remove the article. Prikryl 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also would-be comparison at List of SFTP clients.

Moreover there was considerable number of ad-like insertions into various pages from the same IP (82.153.185.73) refering to the SFTPPlus. Most of which were removed as vandalism.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linux blogs[edit]

A chatty definition of Linux, and a list of three blogs "of repute". Not encyclopedic it its current form, and I'm not sure it has the potential. Bovlb 07:18:29, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turla[edit]

Long-winded advert for a Yahoo group for people who share a specific surname. Bovlb 07:21:27, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squodge mcdodge[edit]

When I cheked this out I originally listed it as a speedy delete as I was unable to find any reference to Squodge mcdodge anywhere. This was removed later. Later after I asked for references the blog link was created. The blog was created in August. There was also three email contacts. One was not valid and eventually I got replies from Steve Harris <stevharris@gmail.com> "If this is about the wiki thing, then Squodge wasn't really a major thing, surprised it was put on wikipedia. Suppose i could get pics and stuff if you relly wanted" and Chris Sawyer <sawychris@gmail.com> "i can provide images. blogs arnt good enough apparently". Even if this stuff is true then it's non-notable as it's only available in Northern Ireland. CambridgeBayWeather 07:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. 2 deletes (including nom) vs 7 keeps. Adding ((cleanup)) per several recommendations by keep voters to do so. Tomer TALK 07:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas[edit]

It's a minimally-informative essay on the use of electrical equipment in areas where hazardous vapors may be present. I'm sure we've already got a better-written article or two on this. --Carnildo 07:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

  
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 title+moved =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Air-India passenger airliner hijack by Taliban from Kathmandu to Kandahar[edit]

I object to the title of this redirect. Where is the evidence that the Taliban was responsible for the hijack ? It is true that the Taliban seemed to be a far warmer host than many countries for the hijackers but that is not sufficient to imply the Taliban did it. Manik Raina 08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assmonkey[edit]

While it boasts a whomping 5000+ results on Google, I wonder if Wikipedia really needs this. Acetic Acid 08:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical musicology[edit]

This article has nothing to do with the academic discipline of historical musicology

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 DIAMETER. -Splash 01:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DCCA[edit]

DCCA has now become RFC 4006, the draft doesn't exist anymore. But it contains so little text, and I don't think it can be expanded anymore. It should be folded back into DIAMETER.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 08:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter use in Brasil[edit]

Dottore So 19:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This has just undergone an extensive rewrite and is no longer an article but a factoid (see its talk page). I stand by my delete comment above and vote to Merge copy and paste the contents to another page, but only if the facts can be verified. Paul Klenk 17:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC) + Do not hang on to the redirect page -- get rid of it. Paul Klenk 01:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, the article was written before link was added. Kappa 20:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Exactly right, and possibly added partly in response to my first post (unsure, above). However note another has subsequently commented This is not unverified, the article has a reference (also above). The point several of us have made is that this reference does not actually support the claim. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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.

Note: The opinions of many anon and sockpuppet votes were steeply discounted during my decision. However, the facts presented by the new users were considered.

Rossami (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 139 club[edit]

Not sufficiently notable This is just one student club at Glasgow University, there are a few dozen such clubs at GU alone. Some of the more important student bodies e.g. Glasgow University Union are encyclopedic this is not. I suspect an attempt at POV-pushing in relation to the historic mixing isse, this is reasonably dealt with in the GUU article, anything legitimate should be added there. PatGallacher 10:10, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The 139 Club has no official links with the GUU and is completely independent. I think the GUU management would prefer this page to be seperate as not to confuse the issue. It would be best to contact their president. Thank you Robert Marrs

1) The Dialectic has history from before 1861. The earliest paper records show somewhere before 1770.. although it could be older still, and no doubt is (i.e. it is unlikely that the first ever record would be kept etc).

2) On the Dialectic page, it should be 'Reftable Debate' not 'Refutable'.

3) I think student societies should be separate from unions they may or may not be affiliated to. They are, after all, separate organisations.

4) If someone created a page for the Hawks Club (i.e. the sporting blues assoc. at Cambridge) there wouldn't be such an outcry. I am surprised there isn't a page for this historical society.

5) I would also point to the TCD Phil and TCD Hist societies - why do these have separate pages, when they ostensibly do the same thing - why not merge the pages? I don't think mere 'age' is a good enough reason to keep some things, and remove others - it is somewhat arbitrary.

6) The 139 plays a very distinct role, one clearly different from the student union it might happen to use for it's dinners.

R Marrs

R Marrs is running several issues together, some of his comments about other pages should be dealt with on their own merits, not dealt with here. There is not yet a page for the Hawks Club, I reserve judgement on whether to treat it as notable. I can't find the pages for the "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" societies, could he point us to them? The crucial point he is missing here is that if the 139 Club is notable, then every student club at every university in the world is notable. PatGallacher 23:26, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Hawks Club - from my understanding it is a club for all the Blues at Cambridge. This would include some sporting stars such as Rob Andrew, Gavin Hastings and some not so sporting stars such as Hugh Laurie. I presume this would be dealt with separately from say the Cambridge University Sports Association, although they are obviously linked together.

The crucial point PatGallacher is missing is that there is no reason as to why every student club at every university isn't notable. Will The 139 be allowed on here if one of their alumni becomes a Captain of Industry or a politician etc? I would argue such arbitrary distinctions are nonsense. If people are arguing for it's inclusion, surely that alone nearly makes it worthy of inclusion?

Would it not make Wikipedia a more vibrant encyclopedia to include quirks such as The 139? I don't think we have heard good enough arguments from PatGallacher - and surely, it is for the 'deleters' to prove their case.

Moreover, the real fact of the matter is that not all societies will fill up the pages of Wikipedia. For example, Eton College has it's own entry but is really only an educational establishment which happens to have had a few old boys go on to do a few things. Would you object to this because every school in the world might want an entry? No clearly not, because clearly not every school in the world wants a page on Wikipedia.

Sock Puppetry? I'm not exactly sure what that is being relatively new to the Wikipedia phenomenon. Niall Rowantree is the current president of the Union, and I think was the person behind the original 139 entry. I would get in contact with him, his details are readily available on the GUU website.

I think this comes down to simple snobbishness. 'GU Dialectic has a lengthy history and organise some sort of intellectual activity, not just a booze up once a term, several student clubs at GU do more than that'.

If The 139 held debates, political rallies or brainstorming sessions would a page be approved? If PatGallacher had any contact with either the Dialectic, or the Phil and the Hist, he/she would know that rather a lot of their activities are based around 'booze ups'. The fact that something is new should not preclude it from entry, and the fact that something is not 'intellectual', and I don't know where that allegation comes from whether it is true or not, should preclude entry either.

Robert Marrs

Robert Marrs (acting as an anon user) deleted the whole of the previous discussion to enter this, I had to retrieve the previous version and add his comments. This smacks of vandalism, but it may just have been a mistake by an newbie. PatGallacher 18:39, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry didn't mean to delete the entire thread of the debate - I was just trying to clear the screen so I could type. I didn't think it would actually delete the whole thing from wikipedia. I hope my incompetence doesn't count against me! Robert Marrs


Furthermore, I notice the Glasgow University Shinty Club has it's own page. Neither particularly historic, promotes drinking far more heavily than The 139 (which bizarrely seems to be a criteria) and probably not particularly noteworthy under most people's definitions. I'd keep it, but I think we have a precedent for University Clubs at Glasgow getting their own page.--86.130.145.220 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Equally his argumentation regarding "Eton" is self-defeating. Arguments against the inclusion of other schools would clearly be if they were "not sufficiently notable"; the very same charge being leveled against "the 139 Club" entry.

His points regarding "booze-ups" and linking "Glasgow University Dialectic Society", "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" are unconvincing. While drinking may occur in those other institutions that is not their primary activity nor constitutional function. Their role is a public one, which "the 139 Club"'s is not: to debate.

Despite Mr Marrs's comments: newness should preclude entry, unless the institutional is unusually notable.

There is no "right" to be included in "Wikipedia". Instead there are criteria which make inclusion worthwhile to a global community. A primary one being "sufficiently notable". Brown27 11:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've had rather a lot of experience of TCD Phil, TCD Hist and the Dialectic, I wonder very much whether you have? If not, your opinion is somewhat valueless. You are assuming things that might not actually be true. 2) I would say a decent definition of encyclopedia means 'A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically, usually dealing with the entire field of human knowledge'. Surely including The 139 would make Wikipedia more 'comprehensive' and such articles would meet the criteria of a 'wide range of subjects'. Limiting things on somewhat arbitray bases such as 'newness', 'fame' and the 'activity they do' is somewhat snobbish and prescriptivist. Why is boozing any less valuable than some students debating, if this is what The 139 actually do? Why is the relatively new (and non-historic, non-famous) GU Shinty club allowed a page? 3) The 139 isn't even particularly new, as it is based around a historical event - highlighting how important that event is to some people. However, as they are independent of the GUU they should not be lumped together here. --RobertMarrs 12:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it says somewhere. I would regard Glasgow University Shinty Club as only borderline notable, but it has been in existence since 1901, represents the university at a recognised sport, and has had some significant successes over the years. Merely commemorating a notable event does not make you notable, I suspect POV pushing. We already have the "average professor test" i.e. to be notable you have to have done more than the average professor, I suggest we add the "average student club test". PatGallacher 16:44, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

But if this test was to be brought in, you would have to delete GU Shinty as they aren't terribly notable - 103 years old, a few successes, hardly Kingussie Shinty Club. Surely POV pushing is what this is all about - you think it should be out, I think it should be in. POV pushing by using the page itself is nonsensical, there is no point of view pushing on the page it merely relates facts. Unless, you think that the club itself has an agenda - which would make nearly every club in the world not worthy of inclusion.--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On another point who actually makes the decision here?--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interest that this has ignited is reason enough for keeping it!--Niallrowantree 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, do we accept votes from people with no name? Because surely that is more likely to involve sock-puppetry? On the last post, it seems to me we have a classic example of POV pushing. 1) No name 2) Allegations that, let's face it, cannot be upheld. Debate the issue on it's merits (which on the whole have been widely sidestepped) not on whether you like the club or not. --RobertMarrs 07:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I can vouch for brown27's remarks as to these debating societies. Mr Marrs' argument, such that it is, that "I have considerable experience- do you!" is not only pathetically childish it is also exposes the duplicitous nature of his whole approach here. Perhaps to Mr. Marrs debating at Glasgow University is only about gettign drunk, but to the vast majority there is a higher purpose, as exhibited in the Constitution and in the long, long, honourable traditon and history of the Society. The fact he refuses to admit this- despite his great experience- is quite scandalous and undermines his case. The argument, at any rate, was not about whether there is drinking but if that was the primary purpose. It evidently is not in the case of the Dialectic Society but is in the case of the 139 Club.

The reasons to delete it are so numerous. The reason to keep it seems to be based on the merits of non-existent entries. Perhaps that tells us something. The 139 cannot claim anything to the public good, the public interest, the public knowledge- it is the definition of without note.

--Brian Roberts 12:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok good some actual arguments. Thanks Brian. Firstly, my points regarding my experience with the societies (GUD, TCD Hist and TCD Phil)were that I had direct first hand experience of those societies, I doubt very much whether 'Anon' does. If they don't have experience of these societies, how on earth can they claim to know what they do or how they operate? They cannot - surely? Moreover, my point for the Hist and the Phil was that there was a precedent for two linked societies having separate pages (i.e. they do the same thing at the same university), and I also pointed out the precedent of The GU Shinty club - which would also meet your criteria of being without note. I think my knowledge of the society in question is shown above, where I've tried to correct factual errors on the GUD page... On drinking - ah reductio ad absurdum, the old classic. My point about GUD drinking stands. 45 people speak in a GUU parliamentary, double that number (at least) go to the after debate drinks. Moreover, for many of GUD's members are there primarily for social reasons - only between 8 and 10 debate competitively outwith the GUU. So for many members, as these examples show the main point is the socialising. Nothing wrong at all with being a social member, I am happy to say while I was at university I enjoyed both the debating side and the social side.

On your point regarding the original 139. Many refused ever to set foot in the building after the mixing issue, so it would be a bit difficult to keep things going. Moreover, there are other societies that keep such traditions at Glasgow alive but aren't quite as public as the 139. I point to 'The Lion and Unicorn Club' amongst others, so the spirit has indeed lived on.

I think the encyclopedia definition that I gave is a more compelling argument than your definition of 'without note', but at least you have been good enough to give one.

TTFN--RobertMarrs 13:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Rob's post. There are numerous all-male societies around campus for undergraduates and graduates, and many of the original 139 attend these dinners. The Diners Club (I think now defunct) operated for a good few years; The Winers Club (still in operation); the LAMB Club (still in operation, standing for Last All Male Board); The Lion & Unicorn (still in operation although numbers are drastically down); The Jolly Rodgerers (now defunct, ran by a board member throughout the 1980's and 1990's); The 139 Club (as discussed above, relatively new although admittedly thriving); The 21 Club (rather unsavoury even by University drinking standards, I think now defunct)the Monkey Steakers (I think disbanded, but ran for many a year).

Also, of some importance, is the Girlie Dinner. This dinner is run by girls in and around the GUU, and has been running for over 10 years. However, it does seem to have taken a nosedive in recent years and does not have the 'fervour' of The 139.

A number of those clubs appear to be defunct. However, of course if students are offered a chance to get drunk for very little money people are going to come. The other clubs mentioned are old boy clubs- which are different entities. But none of this undermines my point- the purpose of these "societies" appears to be to drink. However many people who ATTEND debates go for drink, that is not the point of debating. And if it is then that is truly sad. I will also add that the number of people who can go outside the university to debate competitively is rather limited due to places available and funding. I would 10 was a very high number indeed.

Secondly, as to other pages like the Shinty club. No-one has claimed that this society is the definition of a club of note. We are not discussing the nerits of the Shinty club entry, rather the merits of this entry. The fact there are other illegitimate entries uncontested does not mean this illegitimate entry should be allowed.

--217.43.198.2 19:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Causes[edit]

Vanity band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC standardsZeimusu | Talk page 11:14, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Waters[edit]

Vanity. The assertion of notablity made, but seems weak. see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Natural CausesZeimusu | Talk page 11:13, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Rosi[edit]

Delete - Non notable musician. One relevant Google hit, which is his own Geocities site. PubLife 11:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thesubmachine[edit]

Secret society of 30 members, on the internet you say?!. Delete PubLife 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Rossami (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Russell[edit]

Suspected vanity or advertising page. The anon creator of this page first added link to website on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then created this page, then added a comment on the discussion page that the subject is notable because his website is listed on Wikipedia's H2G2 page. In any case I think the community should be asked for consensus on his notability. RobertG ♬ talk 12:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antimaniax[edit]

"Antimaniax is a four-piece skacore band from Austria." That's all the article says, no evidence of WP:MUSIC or anything. Radiant_>|< 12:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC) Keep as rewritten. Radiant_>|< 12:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 08:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Hossain[edit]

Non notable politician. Finished 5th out of 8 candidates in the only contest mentioned. Delete. 86.131.78.149 12:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry - I thought I was logged in! I am the nominator. --Cje 12:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 08:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabelle Gish[edit]

Unverifiable. Two Google hits, both of which also feature Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Given the shortness and overall quality of this article, Delete seems to be the least painful remedy. --DrTorstenHenning 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Sasquatch讲看 03:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Halfhide, Amsterdam Songwriters Guild, Reaganesk, Arthur ten Cate, Robin Block and Selma Peelen[edit]

No evidence of notability. The search term "Halfhide" gets 13,000 hits but few of them are him. His blog is titled "When will Halfhide be famous?" and says "Producer, musician, labelmanager... Eventually I'll turn these words into careers." I think he is jumping the gun here. -- DS1953 12:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Per the suggestions below, I am adding the other pages to this nomination.
Oh, likely to be Userfy. Alf 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And all the links from there, some stubs started in March. Alf 22:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A nod to DS1953. I formally extend my vote to delete all of these entries. Dottore So 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 but REWRITE (including VFD nominator). Will add ((cleanup)) tag pending the invention of a pertinent ((rewrite)) tag (I don't think the current ((rewrite)) applies to the outcome of the below discussion)... Tomer TALK 07:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Asrat Woldeyes[edit]

Not-notable. Only notability assertion here is that his Father was killed during the Mussolini occupation of Ethipia. Tragically many Ethiopians have Fathers killed during the Mussoloni occupation. Delete. Cje 13:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 08:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astroknotics[edit]

Two students having a lot of fun does not establish notability. Only Google hits appear to be from band members. Non-notable band. Delete. Cje 13:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 (done by Ambi, I'm closing this as s/he didn't). ~~ N (t/c) 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atixive[edit]

Does not establish notability. Yet another snippet of fan/game-cruft that means nothing to the non-initiate. Delete. Alright merge into the appropriate page for that game. Cje 13:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 08:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn ul alam Hunza[edit]

Hoax? Vanity? Googling for "alam Hunza", "alam Hunzai", "alam Sani", "alam Hun" gives nothing to support article's claim of notability. Also, claims of defence of "ethnic Pakistanis" seems suspicious, since "Pakistan" is an amalgam less than 60 years old. DS 13:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Arms[edit]

I think I've been there - nice place, as I recall - but I can't see why this is especially notable Finbarr Saunders 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that he does, but notability is not part of the deletion criteria. Trollderella 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, however, when something is non-notable, it is often a good enough reason for many Wikipedians for the reasons given in WP:N. I'd also recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. It's worth noting that in music and in vanity articles, non-notability is a sufficient reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Blackcap | talk 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
So you keep saying Zoe, but the word 'notability' does not occur in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I know, I know, you're going to claim that some kind of verbal tradtion handed down from father to son, or argument from inference from some other page that has nothing to do with deletion policy means that it really is. However, in making my votes, I have tried to assess the article against Wikipedia's actual deletion policy, and in making comments, have made them about what is actually deletion policy. Trollderella 21:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat resent the fact that, every time it is pointed out that nowhere in deletion policy is 'notability' mentioned, the discussion is taken immediately to 'oh, then you must be a lunatic who wants to keep absolutely everything, no matter how stupid it is'. That's simply not true, and not a fair characterisation of my position. If there is some synonym of notability that is, in fact, in the deletion policy, then why not use that? To demolish that extremely common and frustrating strawman, again, I really suspect that there is not enough documentation on the fire hydrant outside your house to write an article that would give information about that fire hydrant that was not true of any other one, except it's location. It would have no possibility to grow beyond a sub-stub, and would be better being merged into an article on fire hydrants in general. I am not advocating maintaining a list of all fire hydrants, this is clearly one of the things that wikipedia is not. A pub is a differnt class of creature, having unique attributes that we could write an article about. Trollderella 21:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's up for VfD, too. Pilatus 16:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I merged it anyway. See Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The King Street Run. Flowerparty talk 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. It says at the bottom of the VfD not to do that, and for good reason. If there were now a consensus here to delete the page, which there could be, you'd have invalidated that vote by merging it for us, The GFDL insists we keep authorship history. Being bold is all very well, but not when it cuts out half the voters in a discussion. -Splash 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, oh dear, you're quite right. Sorry about that. But since they're both up for deletion it seems sensible to point out the other discussion. Flowerparty talk 21:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 08:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orxonox[edit]

Still in development, not yet playable. Massive number of Google hits, mostly on their personal mailing list. Come back in a year, kids. DS 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 08:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His Essence[edit]

Article about non-notable item; essentially an advertisement. —Preost talk contribs 14:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of hosts of the Oscars ceremony[edit]

The information for this page was obtained from (and sourced to) answers.com, which in turn got it from another Wikipedia page, since answers.com uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. So this is duplicate (and incestuous, sort of) information :) Readparse 15:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of The Giant Golden Microphone[edit]

Microfaith, high school prank that got a little passing publicity. Few googles, most are dead-end, suggest few heard of it, and most are forgetting fast --Doc (?) 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed --Doc (?) 17:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of the Giant Golden Microphone should stay! It is this type of eccentricity and humor that keeps East Tennesseans laughing at themselves and their unique architecture.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. For a non-admin, this is a tough call, so I hope I don't get called for making it...but I'm calling this one "no consensus, therefore send it back to the drawing board". I feel fairly confident in doing so, since even the nominator noted that the version at the time of closing was significantly different from the version at the time of nomination. I'm going to close the VFD, because I don't see that the later discussion was even mildly contentious, but I'm also going to add a ((cleanup)) to the article, and let those editors working on the article itself decide when to remove it. Tomer TALK 07:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


English on the Internet[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . Wikiacc (talk) 16:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

(Note: This was the article in question at the time of its listing.) --Wikiacc (talk)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mule (smuggling)[edit]

Just a dictionary definition and an unimportant reference to some film. - Centrx 16:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug mule redirects here. Trollderella 16:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, if drugs were the only things that mules smuggled. I don't think they are, so the best thing to do is have drug mule point to the more general mule (smuggling) article. Of course, if there are any places where mules are contraband, we can always start a mule smuggling page too! Trollderella 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're prob right there, I was thinking from a "I'd probably type.. to find it", so redirect the other way works anyhoo. Alf 18:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

In light of the poverty of some of the countries that sponsor this kind of smuggling; these drug-mules often have no idea that what they are doing is bad. I would suspect that many of them are stupid pimps or whores who are desperate for more drugs

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.

Note: one probable sockpuppet discounted. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rojo.com[edit]

NN, was originally on speedy claiming to have failed Google Test. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The aggregator is unique in its use of tags and a social network in one web app. Here 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria guidelines.
  1. Alexa Rank 10,000 or higher (18,762 -- fails, but close)
  2. National Press Coverage (definitely true)
  3. 5,000 aparently unique users (definitely thousands, not sure of user base)
Here 20:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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: +10/-1 =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Minnal[edit]

Old-time honest cop in India who has since retired and is a minor official in a religious charity. His nickname "Minnal", meaning "Lightning", is ungoogleable, and both the spellings I tried for his full name returned barely a dozen hits that seemed unrelated. Honest cops may be rare, but they're not inherently notable. DS 16:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jambo_Networks[edit]

Advertising Grayum 17:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go motorcycle[edit]

Notable? ' "go motorcyle" evel' Gets two Google hits, including the site itself.DJ Clayworth 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 09:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Toad[edit]

Delete. Probable hoax which has survived eight months. Intro states: "The identities of its members are unknown to this day. The trio identified themselves only as D, Patty and Kirby. Although the band was short-lived, few musical acts have had as much impact on the underground music scene." Google gives nothing. Marskell 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 to delete. Page was hacked down to remove advertising component. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plum_Canary[edit]

Advertising Grayum 17:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close Quarter Battle K-9[edit]

advertisement Quicksandish 17:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 10:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andurna[edit]

I noticed this short stub on Special:Newpages, and was cleaning it up, when it was tagged for speedy for reason "unverifiable". As I believe WP:V is not a criterion for speedy deletion, I'm moving it here. Honestly, I don't know if it's verifiable or not, though a google search was unsuccessful. -Satori (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupor[edit]

No valuable content Groeck 18:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Cashin[edit]

Person does not really seem to exist; the alleged town of origin does not seem to exist either, and this article is the first hit on Google for both. --claviola (talk to me) 18:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tustena[edit]

No notability established. Was an add, remains mainly as linkspam. --S.K. 18:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard Link Theory[edit]

nn personal essay Dlyons493 18:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neogeography[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication for Youth Institute[edit]

Lack of context; not notable Groeck 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 deleted already. Woohookitty 10:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular Slinky[edit]

Vanity Robert Harrison Talk 18:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Luckabaugh[edit]

Not notable Groeck 18:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast in bed for 400,000[edit]

Not notable Groeck 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satco[edit]

Satco is not a commonly accepted term, found ~50000 Google hits, but couldn't find any that used this definition. johnpseudo 19:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentisoft[edit]

Delete - This is a non-notable company with only 104 google hits. Its description is identical to the company profile page. It looks like an AD. Marco ✉ 19:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Pretty easy call here. Tomer TALK 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Anna Chakvetadze[edit]

del nonnotable tennis player. "World #28" IMO is hardly a distinctive feature. mikka (t) 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please reference [13]. On that page it shows she won two ITF titles as I noted above. That information might not be in the article, but it is true. --Durin 20:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please indicate what world tennis ranking you would consider sufficient to justify inclusion and your rationale behind the metric? --Durin 20:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC) --Durin 20:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write an article, we could vote on it, my vote reffered to this article. I think that the article you are talking about would probably be deleted under vanity criteria, and more correctly belongs on your userpage. Trollderella 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 03:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sportsology[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB in every respect. Alexa ranking is 614,817 [15] (WP:WEB suggests 10,000 or better). To check for mention in national/internaional media, I searched for sites that link to the site www.sportsology.net. Result; 210. Of the first 50, none were significant media outlets. On the third point of WP:WEB, I counted the number of forum participants. WP:Web suggests 5,000 or more. Sportsology has 320. --Durin 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following me around commenting on all my votes Zoe, I feel very loved. The reason I think it should stay as a redirect is that, although it is not a word, it is a term that someone might possibly search for when looking for sports science, and so there is no reason not to keep it as a redirect. Trollderella 21:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 11:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mille passus[edit]

This is the same information dumping of already deleted content on many previous vfds of Rktect entries, most of the article does not even deal with the Mille passus supposed measurement standard. Delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now Im voting speedy delete per criteria G4 in WP:CSD. [16] -- (drini|☕) 01:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His last edit removed the most substantive part of the articleRktect 02:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

interesting and informative information and graphics.Rktect 21:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Take copyright concerns to WP:CP if appropriate. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Linares[edit]

Delete as the article is not written in English. Please feel free to speedy keep if there is a more appropriate place for these types of submissions. Hall Monitor 19:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 11:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam connon and Adam J Connon[edit]

Delete as non-verifiable and possibly a hoax. Hall Monitor 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and request to author (editing anonymously) - provide references to support the article. Otherwise there is no choice because it is unverifiable. --WCFrancis 21:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite the existence of a User:*Philip O'Sullivan user page, there is no such actual user on Wikipedia. See Special:Listusers. To the anonymous poster; feel free to create an account under that name by going to the login page at the upper right of every page you view on Wikipedia. --Durin 18:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David puga[edit]

non-notable person, after looking in Google, no such person of note at said university DeleteGrcampbell 20:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borka[edit]

Probable hoax, Google turns up no hits for Borka or Bacom except as last names. -- WCFrancis 20:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bacom[edit]

probable hoax, linked from Borka, also proable hoax. WCFrancis 20:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 deleted (and replaced with ((deletedpage))). Eugene van der Pijll 17:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hung_pork_50[edit]

It's been deleted several times already. This information is useless and unsuitable inks 20:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say the oppisite, how could it be unsuitable if something like this is really going on? People have a right to know what's happening. I find it informative and if it could be proven a true spot it should stay! Oh and USELESS? WRONG!!! If I find out where this sport activity is going on I will compete because I'm a contender!!!! - Mack Daddy

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 unanimous delete. Scimitar parley 18:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Kevin's Bar[edit]

nn in itself. Anyone want to create a list of Irish bars and merge it? Dlyons493 20:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggrepedia[edit]

Non-notable web site. No traffic. No inbound links. Vanity: page was created by User:Cochrate; site was apparently created by a Thomas Cochran, who is responsible for all 5 Google mentions. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Macrakis 21:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6,000,000[edit]

Delete This would be better suited to being under Holocaust, World War II or similar Grcampbell 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote Speedy Keep if kept as a redirect --Grcampbell 23:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Technology Temple[edit]

nn BBS - 5 Googles Dlyons493 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluzey[edit]

(1) dicdef (2) apparently hoax (I couldn't find anything relevant on Google or OneLook) (3) almost-but-not-quite patent nonsense. Delete. Nowhither 21:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 04:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Esquivalience[edit]

Dictionary definition.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

"The New Oxford American Dictionary, in August 2005, gained media coverage when it was leaked that the second edition contained at least one fictional entry. This was later determined to be the word "esquivalience", defined as the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities, which had originally been added in the first, 2001, edition. It was intended as a copyright trap, as the text of the book was distributed electronically and thus very easy to copy."
I've checked using Google, and it seemed to come up with the same thing. I am now changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel. --Blackcap | talk 21:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't exist, but it does, if you see what I mean. It's been in the news recently, which is why (presumably) someone put the page here... I'd actually been going to add a mention of it to the Nihilartikel page earlier but forgot until I saw this VFD. Shimgray 21:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Esquivalience. Note the nominator is the same in both cases. Somebody PLEASE fix the templates. -Splash 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) I made this page 2 days ago and it had 2 delete votes on it, it appears to have been deleted itself. The rationale was dicdef, neologism. I see someone has substantially expanded the article since then but I still vote to delete. TheDeletator (talk · contribs)[reply]

This is a relevant entry and deserves to stay. Not only is it interesting trivia but I thin'k it is important information regarding proprietary encyclopedias and their practices. I think the article is worthy of staying at its present state, but certainly needs more expansion. Wesman83 03:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Dublin Crew[edit]

nn admits its own obscurity. Dlyons493 21:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 but MOVE to Brett Buerck. Consider it done! Tomer TALK 07:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Brett buerck[edit]

Non-notable Congressional staffer. If we had an article on every Congressional staffer, there would be about 5000 of them, if not more. Zoe 22:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, had you read the article before listing it for deletion, you would have noticed that in its original form it did mention that he was aide to a state representative. I'm not sure why that makes him worthy of your contempt. His role in redistricting scandals, without doubt an important topic, makes this an important article to keep. Trollderella 22:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we should move it to Brett Buerck. ;) Trollderella 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 (3-0). Scimitar parley 18:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acopa[edit]

Advertising. The website has an alexa ranking of 2,860,510, the search acopa shoes gets 173 unique hits. Zoe 22:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is a poorly-written summary of a SpongeBob SquarePants episode. An episode summary like this does not require its own page, but rather should be listed with its parent article (the article for the show), if desired. Note that this request only refers to Hall Monitor with a capital M. There is a separate article entitled Hall monitor about school hall monitors that is fine for Wikipedia. Schuminweb 23:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am happy that Bob of Squarepants fame has an entry equivalent in depth to Sandro Botticelli. As you say, though, pov, all pov.  ;) Dottore So 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckily in the online wikipedia SpongeBob and Botticelli are not in competition with each other, so we don't need a POV on which is more valuable. The tricky part comes when they are in competition for space, such as for a limited-size downloadable version. I would gladly leave that judgement to others. Kappa 02:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only people who will see this are people who are looking for it. Oh, and about one in 100,000 of the people who are rash enough to press 'Random Article'... They will get a... shock horror... random article! Trollderella 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intermedia Studios[edit]

Delete as advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 23:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 (4-0). Scimitar parley 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedtree[edit]

This article looks like "Advertising or other spam". It is not an encyclopedia article. Andargor 22:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Nomination fixed by feydey 23:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ☎ 03:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Windsor[edit]

No Google or Yahoo hits for '"Nathan Windsor" NASA' or "Nathan Windsor astronaut', and a search just for "Nathan Windsor" doesn't bring up anything that verifies this entry. Zoe 23:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
More