This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 as vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 22:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable vanity friendity. At least she's not frugly, though.-Splash 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yet another unmaintainable list - all nations on earth, every brand of fizz, tea, coffee, energy drink (do we then include supermarket own brands too?) ...... --Doc (?) 00:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
A little bit vanity, a little bit neology. This band has been around since 2002, I'm a little skeptical of them creating a genre since then. Googling finds very little on the genre. The band may be notable, but the genre is not.-- BMIComp (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 22:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. NN.-- BMIComp (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Roughly 29 keep votes, 21 delete votes. Cleanup take will be added - I'd suggest possible attention tag too. Hedley 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Always going to be POV; limited encyclopediac value. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This Vfd has gone through 1 week of voting, and appears to be a close match. I suppose we could err on the side of 'caution' and completely redesign the article, with some help of course. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect (10 redirect to existing page, 4 delete). - Mgm|(talk) 22:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (likely copyvio and lyrics are not an article). - Mgm|(talk) 22:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable. Is this a copyvio? Exabyte (talk) 01:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nothing but a vanity page. 24.143.142.212 02:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. The article now describes a nationally broadcast TV show from Australia. - Mgm|(talk) 23:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
This disambiguation page seems to serve no purpose. of the four entries, the last two are simple dicdefs and clearly should be deleted; and Google research implies that the Australian program is not particularly notable. Delete carmeld1 02:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (8 delete, 2 keep). - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Less than 100 Google hits and below the 100K radar for Alexa. Denni☯ 02:52, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete.. - Mgm|(talk) 23:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Created by User:Kojangee to illustrate a point. Foreign language dicdef at best; I do not see any potential for this to become encyclopedic. Therefore, delete. Visviva 02:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was listed as copyvio. - Mgm|(talk) 23:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Libraries are great, but this one seems unremarkable (and is not listed in the List of libraries). Delete. Nukeqler 03:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 00:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Created only by Statistics Canada for census purposes, little to no local knowledge of census divisions. List of attractions, etc, can easily be integrated into the Calgary or surrounding towns articles. Kirjtc2 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not too interesting, but nonetheless it exists, it's probably going to be around for a long time, it's probably going to be referred to now and again, and it's something somebody may need to look up. Might be a candidate for a merge, though. Gzuckier 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is still being worked on and is part of lager a series. (template:alberta)Series does not yet contain other articles, but I bet it soon will. May be up for a merge, but Alberta and Calgary are large enough already that they don't need to be filled with a bunch of statistical data. Zhatt 05:37, July 15, 2005
Keep. Equivelant to a county in the U.S. Please do not waste our times! -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually not equivalent to counties. Alberta has counties that StatsCan counts as CSDs. This would be like an article on a school district. Kirjtc2 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Youngamerican 13:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep logical way of breaking down articles that would otherwise probably become too massive Sam Vimes 16:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --Simon.Pole 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to support keeping this; whether it's common knowledge or not, it is a region with definable boundaries which serves an important purpose that fits within the definition of what Wikipedia is supposed to cover. Bearcat 17:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think what's unfortunate here is that Alberta has chosen to number its census divisions. Snickerdo is right that many Calgarians do not know what Div. 6 is while most Ontarians know the "Peel Region" and many Vancouverites know the "GVRD". HOWEVER, even though names like Peel Region and GVRD make much more sense than Division No. 6, they are NO different. They mean exactly the same thing to StatsCan. All census divisions in BC are "Something Regional District", most census divisions in Ontario are "Something Region" (GTA is not quite the same thing) and all census divions in Alberta are "Division No. #". It's not very descriptive, and so nobody pays much attention to it. However, since it means exactly the same thing as something like the Greater Vancouver Regional District, then it should stay in Wikipedia for exactly the same reasons. Modify the article if necessary, but I have voted to keep it. -Tyson2k
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 - Mgm|(talk) 23:17, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Not Encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 03:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate wasNo consensus (you can't merge to a category!) humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this article particularly encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov 03:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable/vanity. Last I checked, gets 21 hits on Google -- all from the same site. Delete. Alynna 03:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally useless.--Kit fisto 19:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a flattened (and outdated) version of Category:Comparisons. Why maintain two versions? minghong 03:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (14 delete, 4 keep). - Mgm|(talk) 23:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The article is innately unable to achieve a neutral point of view. The concept of "unsolved problems" in religion is without basis, and may well be a contradiction in terms. Alterego 04:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
falls under original research and is clearly NPOV, also non encyclopedic and cannot be accurately fact checked due to the fact that facts change from school bus to school bus Jtkiefer 04:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
*This seems like an informative article, I vote for this to stay. (Unsigned vote by 205.188.116.65)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Obvious advertisement. Notability not established in article for the subject, and a google search pulls 328 hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 23:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Neither the fact that they're simply quadruplets, nor bit parts as extras on Friends, makes them notable or encyclopedic. Suggest delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as obvious vandalism and recreated as redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism Hansonc 04:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Hedley 23:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Far too much crystal ball and reliance on rumors and speculation. "Revolution" is a code name not the actual name of the system. See Nintendo Revolution for an actual list of games that have been aknowledged or confirmed by Nintendo. This page is no where near ready and far too soon for a system that won't be released till 2006. K1Bond007 04:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
And now, it turns out that there are five more games announced. This article is no longer speculation, if it ever was. -- A Link to the Past 21:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable; possible attack page Madchester 04:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Verging on nonsense. I'm not sure if this is a band or a fan group, but there's hardly enough information in here to make a stab at judging verifiability. Joyous (talk) 05:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
vanity / not-notable Tobycat 05:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus for Ong, Sweeney or Ogonowski, transwiki for the rest -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are all the remaining 9/11 casualties I could find who haven't yet had their articles transwikied to the September 11 memorial wiki (which was set up a long time ago for the hosting of these pages, and to which nearly all articles like this have been moved), and who didn't appear to be notable in a way that would merit their inclusion in the main part of the encyclopedia (I was quite conservative about this and decided not to VfD many borderline cases). My vote is not to delete, but to transwiki, as has been done with all the others, so that these brief articles can grow into more extensive pages on a wiki specially created for the purpose. Wikipedia itself is not a memorial, and the people listed here are unfortunately not notable except for the tragic circumstances of their deaths. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 13:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I debated whether or not to go ahead and nominate this page. It's a large text addition by User:Adisaji, who joined Wikipedia today and whose sole contribution is this article. Because it's a large text addition to a new article, I suspected copyvio, but I was unable to locate the text anywhere else on the Internet. I still suspect it may be Original Research. I don't know enough about what the article is talking about to really know, but it just feels wrong. I've added ((cleanup-importance)) and ((cleanup-verify)), but I'm going ahead and calling the VfD and asking for other editors opinions...particularly anyone who might be more knowledgeable about this subject than I. If it's legit, great, let's keep it and make it great, but I'm very dubious of this page. )) EvilPhoenix talk 06:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm changing my vote on this one. Adisaji has made an effort to improve the article, and has contacted me to ask for help. I believe user is editing in good faith, and I am willing to give this article a chance to grow. I would ask other editors to consider this when voting. EvilPhoenix talk 03:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Repy to Dragons flight I have not been able to find the book you referenced by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilber entitled "Ecologics". Can you provide the ISBN or publisher or the website you obtained this information from. If validated I will include it in my revised submission.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Author Agran, Libbie. Title Ecologics / written by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilbert ; with the help of Joyce King & Penny Kamin. Publisher Los Angeles : Barbara Gilbert and Mary E. Agran, 1971. Description 102 p. ; 28 cm. Note Cover title. Language English Added Entry Gilbert, Bobbie. Format Book
UPDATED!!!--Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)== Strong Rebuke == Amicuspublilius Your comments "pseudointellectual claptrap" were insulting and actually a violation of the "professional" and "non-attack" basis of wikipedia. I hope other members report you. I checked YOUR USER PAGE, and you DO NOT CITE, where you received your degrees in Philosophy and I find your claims of academic excellence flawed and dubious. I'm sure online pesudeo academic degrees are common and easy to obtain. You obviously have deep seated biases/prejudices (ie. comment Dianetics)and perhaps you need to go back to school to learn standards in professional objectivity. For the sake of harmony, I am removing these earlier statements that have been misconstrued as a 'personal attack.' --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, wikipedia editor does not have spellcheck/grammer check functions. I will attempt to make corrections as found. Rather than making blank criticisms, spend your time providing the specific sentences that have errors.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note from page author:
Talk:Ecologics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ECOLOGICS
I am responding to those citing the submission for "deletion" on ECOLOGICS. I spent a lot of time preparing and researching this submission. Yes, it has historical relevance and I am prepared to offer copies of news articles and clippings that would substantiate this claim.
I think it is unfair and unreasonable to delete an article submission just because the reader has NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject. If you don't have knowledge about this topic then you should not comment. I would appreciate any serious contributions and help in editing this material since I am brand new to the Wikipedia community.
I really think this online source is important specifically because minor topics or information often ommitted in commercial dictionaries or encyclopedias can be now be viewed by researchers.
Thank you. Adisaji
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecologics"
Comment: "Black Ecology" appears to date from 1970 [10]. This doesn't seem consistent with the article. William M. Connolley 21:10:35, 2005-07-17 (UTC).
I really found the assistance of EvilPhoenix very helpful and supportive. The "comment" by William M. Connolley seems well-founded. I am trying to locate the actual article by N. Hare so I can determine whether the term "black ecology" was used in a generic sense in the journal article or as an actual introduction of a new english word/term. It is possible that both N. Hare and R. Davis both began to popularize the term. For example, the 1960s black activist Stokely Carmichael is largely viewed to have introduced the term 'Black Power.' However, the term 'Black Capitalism' is accredited to former President Richard Nixon, and there is some indication he (Nixon) might have also introduced the term 'black power' preceding Carmichael (see book "Star Spangled Hustle" -- I'll cite detailed references later). I have located several scanned copies from the following presses: The Washington Post, Bronx Press Review, Our Daily Planet, NY Daily News and Cornell Daily Sun which all pertain to the material in the article -- Ecologics. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW I CAN UPLOAD THIS IMAGES, so interested parties can review them and assist in the ongoing discussion. Natalinasmpf Your comments were I believe a violation of the very Wikipedia policies you accused me of violating. It seems you just want to emotionally dismiss the submission -- for the record, I did not attack an editor. I'm trying very hard to be polite and scholarly.
(Updated!!!) I think at this point ... maybe the article should just be DELETED. I'm feeling so pressured to revise this article before your "five day review" deadline. The nature of this research for acquiring citations will take time, since the material is not easily recoverable and deals with material over thirty years ago. This was well before the digital age and internet age -- so most citations will have to be manually researched at the libraries -- not Internet. Before, I take time and money to do that (often to get archived reprints from journals or newspapers cost money) PLEASE MAKE THE DECISION TO DELETE OR NOT DELETE. --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) I will revise the submission as needed "as a work in progress" in good faith if I can just have some patience from all you editors and respondents. Thank you. --Adisaji 09:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Adisaji[reply]
The below images have been uploaded to wikipedia. I have not posted them at the article site or revised the actual article until I receive clear support for completing this submission. --Adisaji 00:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article was proposed for deletion in May, but after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus. This is a non-notable conlang ("known by an only guy" according to ArnoLagrange) that has managed to sit on Wikipedia and become spread around the internet in mirrors and apparently by other self-promotion. Part of the reason people objected to the suggestion that it was original research last time around was that there are three interwiki links, though people didn't seem to appreciate that it's possible to create articles worthy of deletion in multiple languages. The French and Spanish versions of the article are extensive but have unanswered questions about such things as just how significant this language is on their talk pages. After the last VfD func put various questions on the talk page relating to verifiability and notability. These have not been answered. This article has sat around for far too long and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 6 Keep votes last time, three were based on its having interwiki links. One makes the claim that "conlangs are a special case", not backing it up with any reasoning. One is from an anonymous user claiming that it is a "well-recognized auxlang name"; when challenged, produced a Wikipedia mirror as more evidence of its existence. The last claimed it was a userful article even if the subject was not widely known -- taking the position that all original research should stay if the articles are good?
I don't care about Comunleng; I just want to make the case that the renomination is not out of process (and yes, I will kick the WP:ASS of anyone who renominates GNAA anytime soon), and that the previous default keep should not be a reason to dismiss this nomination entirely. This is the sort of article Wikipedia:No original research was meant to provide justification for deleting; there's a conlang Wikicity here for just such things. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
brenneman(t)(c) 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT, already merged. -Splash 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. brenneman(t)(c) 06:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising! (comment added at 06:35, July 15, 2005 by User:Prescott
Delete per Brenneman. See :) Hiding 07:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Malathion 06:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Forum vanity. "WinMatrix (commonly abbreviated WM) is a self-described desktop customization community, launched on April 29, 2003, which currently boasts almost 15,000 members." EvilPhoenix talk 06:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Dunc. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Should have been speedied but author is stubborn and there seems to be a lack of admins so here's my last option. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is believed to be a vanity page, and according to Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Vanity_page does not belong on the Wikipedia. In addition parts of the entry is fiction. (Sorry, X, better luck with your next article) GSchjetne 07:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
After a quick googling, most of the hits seem to refer to a photographer, not an inventor. Hence, delete as a vanity article. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I came across this using Wikiwax when I made a disambiguation page as a result of another VFD. Delete as blatant advertising please. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Notability not established. Sietse 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Complete fancruft, not notable, no better than putting a random fan fiction in. Delete. A Link to the Past 09:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity/Advertising of local church youth group. Article originally had duplicate links to the external sites embedded in the text. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
No hits on dictionary.com. Looks like a faulty dic def. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Morwen. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing sitting in the article. Unless someone can contribute more worthwhile information to it, I do not see why it exists. TheMonkofDestiny 10:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
This article is almost certainly a copyvio. Also appears to be original research in places. Delete Dr Gangrene 10:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted by User:Morwen. - Mgm|(talk) 13:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Questionable notability. Anonymous IP 68.191.163.243 created article 04:29, July 15, 2005. Article tagged speedy shortly thereafter. 68.191.163.243 removed tag. Multiple users replaced tag, 68.191.163.243 has repeatedly removed tag. See also comment from anon on talk page. Admins, please assist. EvilPhoenix talk 10:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (8 keep, 3 delete; if margin is not large enough it defaults to keep due to lack of consensus anyway). - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef of a derogatory word; it is already in Wiktionary and I don't see it having encyclopedic potential. Radiant_>|< 11:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Morwen. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Nonsensical, not encyclopedic.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio and recreated as redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 13:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Original research, very probably a copyvio too. (Includes copyright notice.) Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 13:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Transfer from WP:PNT. Physchim62 11:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transwikied article has survived Spanish RC patrol and been marked as wikify. The article here could be speedied, but I have chosen to list it on VfD as it seems a less clear-cut case. No vote. Physchim62 11:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Term: Munted is used within New Zealand culture. To describe the destruction of a car or other comparible object. I believe this is a case of double meaning. Where one word is good in one culture and highly insultive to the next, aka Culture Clash. It shouldn't be deleted but noted down as a offensive word in some cutures and the cultures the meanings belong to, be applied. T94xr 29th July 2005 - New Zealand.
Neologism used at a single school. Oliver Keenan 12:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what this is about, but I know it's not encyclopedic and likely a copyvio as it largely contains a translation of copyrighted material. Delete. Nature in Ramayana is the correct place should it be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band, doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Also the redirect: "The Biscuits". TheMidnighters 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
non notable Elfguy 12:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to John Q. Public. -Splash 00:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef for 'the average guy' and already in Wiktionary. I don't see how this can possibly be more than a dicdef; it may be possible to merge/redir it somewhere but since I couldn't find a suitable place I'm nominating it for deletion. Radiant_>|< 12:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Small list of some magazines that appear four times a year. Redundant with List of magazines. Radiant_>|< 12:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. This is the name of the person who patented the products this guy is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Total vanity page and deleted. Manning 13:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP: 6k, 2d including original nominator and completor. -Splash 00:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing VfD for another user..., Comment: Keep Weak Keep. (N.B. Although the article has some crystal ball-like qualities - released in sept. 2005) Feydey 13:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merge to Children Act 1989. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Text is so incoherent and fragmentary that I first put a (db) on it, which was promptly removed by the author bob tillings ; I'm putting a Vfd mostly to call it to the attention of Wiki pros who know how to deal with it. This said, although it must have some basis in fact, I think if I knew what it was, I'd still vote Delete. Bill 13:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 13:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this - it was a no brainer and no discussion needed.Manning 13:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 13:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
No reason for this article to exist - non encyclopedic. -- Cnwb 13:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopedic article. At the least, could be merged into a bird article. Elfguy 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This smells of vanity. Delete Alynna 13:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an advertisement. User 217.30.116.158 Special:Contributions/217.30.116.158 continually adds a link to moneynet.co.uk to the Credit Card article. User has also been blocked for this behavior User_talk:217.30.116.158. Monkeyman 14:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Pseudo-linguistic nonsense. Joyous (talk) 14:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Poorly written article. Not Notable Oliver Keenan 14:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. Joyous (talk) 14:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No notoriety, no verifiability. -- DrTorstenHenning 14:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork, essay, etc. The title says it all. Meelar (talk) 14:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Recent college grad, which seems to be the highpoint of his career. Calton | Talk 14:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page for a civil engineer. Features a mug shot bigger than the article text. Calton | Talk 14:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep (with suggestion to merge to etiquette) Also, I'm going to excercise my editorial (and not administerial) prerogative and move it to Office etiquette (lowe case) per naming convention. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to ettiquette. Howabout1 Talk to me! 04:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Merge Not my cup of tea - the phrase honour among thieves comes to mind -- but merge with etiquette. --Simon.Pole 08:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with etiquette. It'd be worth keeping if there were massive improvement of content beyond its present "behave as is polite for where you are, with whatever extra rules the company has". This is a complex area: it needs stuff like cultural differences, the crossover with office politics and netiquette, reference to people like Robert Townsend who tried to alter office culture (seeing etiquette as one of the ways inefficient business practice is propagated - as Simon says, honour among thieves), etc. It also needs quality sources (anyone can sit down and write a list of things not to do in the office, and most such online guides are just personal views). Company etiquette summaries like this umass.edu one are worth reading as objective sources. There are plenty of topic ideas at the office etiquette section of the Wall Street Journal's executive careers site here. Tearlach 17:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent vanity page, no Google hits for Kevin Dienst other than to wikipedia/mirrors, no Google hits for Veritas Arcanum. I'd tag it speedy but I don't want to waste some admin's time relisting it here. Delete Eliot 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (more or less). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
And basically every other article in the Category:2005 English cricket season matches, which is hundreds of articles. Wikiepdia is not: any spiel that comes out of the mouth of Bob Costas (or whoever his British equivalent is). I think several hundred thousand cricket games have been played in the world (multiply that times the number of sports out there) and we've got millions of poor articles, written in a completley unencyclopedic manner, that made the Tuesday paper and were lining parrot cages on Wednesday. Important games should have their own artciles, but these aren't them. -R. fiend 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all voters: These articles are temporary. At the end of the season, they will be merged, under the auspices of WikiProject Cricket into seperate articles (here, Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Glamorgan County Cricket Club in 2005, and National League Division One in 2005). Please take this into account when voting in this discussion. Cheers, smoddy 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a new heading here to make adding comments easier for we who have size limits with our browsers, and to try to open a discussion of temporary articles in general (see my comments above). I had never heard of such a thing before, and I think it warrants some discussion. While I think this is a good place to formulate such a discussion, I think it should soon be brought elsewhere. If I am incorrect and there is a policy or precedent for temporary articles, please point me in the right direction. Thanks. -R. fiend 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone except smoddy suggest these articles are temporary. If that is true then keep them in the User namespace, the Project Cricket (which I am not challenging) namespace, or anywhere but the main article namespace. Niteowlneils 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable. One edit on the page even says "A Quick Bio on a low-level artist in the nerdcore scene." (emphasis mine) While the people he's worked with are noteworthy, IMHO, it does not save this entry.--Mitsukai 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP
Seems to be nonsense, what's your opinion? Manik Raina 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and this could be a fine article, as mentioned above. Themindset 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A rambling, uninformative how-to of a "16 level program to transform into your inner animal or Meta animal, find true love, and join nature to become free - ascension." Non-encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 16:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC) Delete Meaningless screed from unknown source. --Lee Hunter 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP:8k, 2r, 1d. Anon IP vote discounted. -Splash 00:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious phrase. Sure it was used in the 9/11 report but in the same way that "brake failure" is used to describe the failure of brakes.--Lee Hunter 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP: 4k, 1d from original speedy (signed in user). Note taken of Tony Sidaway's point; today is 5 days. -Splash 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy delete with a reason given as being "not notable". Moving this to VfD to determine if the subject is considered notable. No Vote --Allen3 talk 16:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Injoke, non-encyclopedic and non-verifiable, no Google hits other than wikipedia/mirrors (and good god, there are 300 of them!) Delete Eliot 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a "vanity" article about a new software project which is not (yet) notable. The user who wrote the Wikipedia article is the same person who is the author of the project. The project appears to be a FUSSP -- an unproven attempt to "solve the spam problem". In any event, vanity articles and original research are both criteria for deletion under Wikipedia deletion policy. FOo 16:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it is only the reference to the antispam solution that is the reason to delete this article, we can just delete this aspect and focus on other aspects of this software, that can be interesting too ?--Spoirier 19:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
It's a scout troop. Not encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Move and Keep, I think. humblefool®Deletion Reform 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be nn vanity. Icelight 17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I vote against deletion. -- Joanne Jacobs
I also vote against deletion. This is blog is notable for her iconoclasm, wit, and insight.
Do not Delete People who are so quick to urge deletion have obviously not read her site much. Betsy may not be shy, but she is hardly so insecure as to post a vanity listing on Wikipedia.
I vote against deletion. I get so much out of reading Betsy's Page and think her blog deserves the recognition. -- Crystal
PULEEZE... what standards are being applied here? She is not writing about her sex life and her dog... she aggregates information, provides commentary and relevant links, focuses mostly on politcal issues, and does so with a high degree of wit and erudition. There is a personal touch also... but, I submit, no more so... and easier to endure... than Dan Rather's describing his wife's mastery of "Texas tact" as having learned how to french kissing a guy who chews tobacco...
I vote against deletion. Betsy's iconoclastic blog allows me to see what's going on in politics and education in a new, better-informed light. She has a wonderfully independent way of looking at things that brings me back to her blog at least several times a day. She is, to my mind, one of the top three bloggers on the planet--and believe me, I read a LOT of blogs. --Barb Oakley
Strong Against Deletion - space is not a problem, so what's wrong with having entries that are relatively minor in import? Like it or not, Betsy's Page is an excellent example of the blog as citizen journalism. She is a regular poster, and has demonstrated the utility of blogs by her fisking of Kerry's Daniel Webster quote. [Linda F, Right As Usual, http://rightasusual.blogspot.com]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Band vanity - I can't find any listings on allmusic or any major retailers offering to sell me their music. And with all due respect to beautiful Conway, New Hampshire, being that town's "premiere metalcore band" just isn't very impressive. CDC (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable blog. Icelight 17:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Fetus-X kept, Monkey Day deleted, everything else smerged. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote "keep", because I can see that the only reason this article has got a lot of "delete" nominations is because it is about controversial subjects (fetuses, sex, politics) and it is about a controversial comics scripter, who American Christians, Catholics and many similar people do not like.
I am surprised that not more people listed above have the brains to be able to spot this, and instead put down pathetic reasons such as "non-notable" (a really stupid term, by the way, Wiki creators. As are some of your other bureaucratic neologisms.)
If I am researching comics or web comics, I naturally expect there to be extensive articles about anyone of note on the scene, such as Millikin - and his best-known comics. If Wikipedia deletes these entries, Wikipedia. is even stupider than I previously thought it was.
No, I don't like you guys, have never LIKED you. But you're free - that's the great thing - and constantly updated. Still. I frequently wish you'd get hacked. Especially when I see totally LAME attemps at censorship such as all the above. [User: Liz. OH - and BTW - what right have YOU people got to a) log people's I.P. addresses and b) publish them on the Web? None, I would bet.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.104.65 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 22 July 2005 Note: User's only post
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant vanity in Dutch. A rough translation: "Gein gemekker" is a group of friends that has existed for five years. They all come from Roermond. Their names are [list of names]. Sietse 17:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HansaWorld this should probably removed as well because no notability is established. Delete. --S.K. 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Mr. Concrete the best in his upcoming musical career. However, he does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines by a long shot. Even though he has his own message board. Delete Eliot 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A supposed 2004 cult, size unknown, started in England. Unfortunately, only 3 google hits for "Three beautiful things" +Cult, and only 8 for "Three beautiful things" +"Clare Grant" (the supposed founder). Non-notable, essentially unverifiable. Delete. Meelar (talk) 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Only reference is relation to a brother who is only slightly more notable. Icelight 18:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The vote was 15 for keep, 21 for delete and several for rename. Woohookitty 23:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why the page should be deleted NoahB 18:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's inherently POV. Before, at the earliest, 1920, most notable public figures in the U.S. and many other countries expressed white supremacist ideas. The number of white supremacists is so large that any list is going to be limited, which means that we're going to be unfairly singleing out certain people as racist. A related problem is that almost no one these days (not even David Duke) consider themselves white supremacist, so labeling them as such is POV. Finally, it has been suggested that the article be restricted to people notable for their white supremacist beliefs or who are leaders in the white supremacist movement. The problem here is, who decides who is notable for white supremacist beliefs and who isn't? Again, I don't see any way to put the list together that isn't inherently POV.
At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At any event, anonymous votes don't count.--Gramaic | Talk 05:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trovatore 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, orphaned, not notable DR31 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Someone seems to care about these guys, but that might just make it a vanity page. Icelight 18:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He is born somewhere and has a mother and a father. --Uppland 18:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a personal page. 202.63.160.146 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Local slang. DS 19:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Kirby. – ABCD✉ 23:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Searching google this internet slang word doesn't seem notable. Feydey 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was listed on VfD on July 9, but (despite some discussion) got no votes either way except for the nomination itself. Although that may technically justify deleting the article, I am re-listing it in the hopes of getting a broader response. -- BD2412 talk 19:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Spam. Stilgar135 9 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may have existed, but this is a page about a car in a movie that was never finished. As such, it probably doesn't deserve it's own page. Icelight 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, non-notability. See also California College Republicans and Maine College Republicans Gamaliel 20:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If College Republicans are noted in Wikipedia then why wouldn't you want the federated chapters information also? They are not bragging on accomplishments they are a legal and noteable orginization in Oklahoma. Tassidar 15:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP: 5k, 1d. Final vote discounted, though from registered user. Had been present only 3 days and although with a number of edits they were a series of rapid-fire minor non-show-preview edits to about 3 articles. -Splash 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Inflammatory, offensive and certainly not deserving of a WP article. Forbsey 20:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it!
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – ABCD✉ 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A moderate sized guild, but no notability. Probable vanity page. Icelight 20:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ad for non-notable band. Gwk 20:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Chipmunk. – ABCD✉ 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable local band that never peformed for years. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this person is not notable and suspect this is merely a vanity page. There has been only one editor (two IP addresses) who has basically never done anything else except insert himself into the birthday list. Jdavidb 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable CD from a band that is currently on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merged. humblefool®Deletion Reform 00:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a high school stadium. If there was an article on the school it could be merged there, or just left with the reference it has in Louisville Bulls. Icelight 21:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable c. 600 members, and article contains some Fcukin slander. Feydey 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Youse are all a right shower. Keep it, I say.
Well stop yakkin and delete it already if you're going to but you will be deleting a piece of history if you do.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Almost nonsense. Seems to make some sense, but also seems completely unreal. smoddy 21:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. smoddy 22:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, sad to say. :) Woohookitty 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Gwk 22:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I don't think this qualifies as a speedy is that it represents an apparently sincere bit of thinking from someone. Is there a place for it? Deb 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted POV rant about suicide bombers.Dunc|☺ 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion because it appears to be a POV essay or letter, not an article. I can't figure out how it could be cleaned up into anything usable. Add to that my confusion as to why it's at the title, and the fact that it looks very much like a copyrighted letter (although I can't find it elsewhere online), and I think it's best deleted. Jwrosenzweig 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My letter has been modified/revised to present a more complete Christian view of suicide bombers. Vincent Bemowski
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rewrite. – ABCD✉ 23:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is not authored by the person in question. I know this because I worte it and I am not her. Moreover, while I would agree that she is not reasonably well known, I would argue that very few modern poets are. By the standard in the Wikipedia guidelines, "One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I would say that several original publications would qualify someone to be featured here. Keep. Snowberg
BUT! Not in my own defense, rather for the sake of Wikipedia's consistency, there are MANY people with Wikipedia pages who are really not well known at all either, EXCEPT IN TECH FIELDS. It does seem like there's a real slant toward technies in here--so I may be as well known in the field of poetry as another is in the field of Linux, and you guys will only recognize the Linux people. Makes you think, no? I'd ask the question of whether or not you're representing the whole population of people, or just one slice of the big ol' pie. I'm known in certain cirlces. x's and o's, peach.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – ABCD✉ 23:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity from a nobody. Bobbis 23:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable web site. From the article: "Since its inception, OmniNerd has seen moderate growth surpassing 100 registered users in the summer of 2005." 680 Google hits. tregoweth 23:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 03:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any way that this article could eventually conform to NPOV. It has about as much potential as a page devoted to examining the Scriptural backgrounds of papal proclamations. Furthermore, by analyzing the claimed prophecies, it would violate the "No original research" policy. Analysis of whether a prophecy is true prophecy or not belongs on sites other than Wikipedia. Kadett 23:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 09:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Phoenix2 23:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
--Fenian Swine 02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete both. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 01:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Non notable vanity pages. No real google results for various combinations of Richard Hanson, EarlyBird, Manchester, etc. Article doesn't establish notability, and this person has spammed links to eb.cx in various articles. Also relevant, see [27] and Special:Contributions/Attitudepc CryptoDerk 23:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for non-notable device. See above for similar products that were speedied and recreated by User:Hallitubes. Bobbis 23:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax ? This is a 60+ page website, 100+ images, many 3d rendered, behind it is a cadre of transportation engineers and urban planning experts. Could one of you visit www.generaltransit.com ? We have not done news release yet...
How can Manning Bartlett be a serious Wikipedia editor if he calls an Anti-congestion initiative "shameless advertising" with the top of the site saying "Nothing for sale"?
The difference (and significance) of an electronic (as opposed to physical) encyclopedia is that it can rapidly respond to events, and has lower institutional barriers to entry. The Hallitube Initiative has over 20 separate proposals, here is what academics say about it from our news release:"An innovative strategy that merits consideration for alleviating congestion and encouraging alternate transportation". Dr. Stephen Mattingly, Univ. of Tex. "A great attempt to solve the current urban transportation problem", Dr. Morton Gulak, Va. Com. Univ. "Maybe we cannot beam you up, but we can tube you over" Dr. Kenneth Waldron, Prof. of Mech. Eng., James Clark Faculty Scholar, Stanford Univ. "Makes a lot more sense than the public vehicle aspect of other PRT systems" Dr. K. Kockelman, Univ. of Tex. "An interesting project worthy of consideration" Dr. Kevin Krizek, Director, ACT Transp. Research Group, Univ. of Minn. "Sounds really promising" Prof. R. Gakenheimer, MIT, Chair, Int. Sci. Cmte. of Coop. for Dev. and Improvement of Urban Transp. "Hallitubes should provide everyone who is frustated and disgusted by the traffic situation in our cities with the hope that very soon,we well be able to cost-effectively tame the monster that the car has become." Dr. J. Kolo, Florida Atlantic University. "The (referendum) microflyovers make sense..." Dr. R. Layton, Prof. of Transp. Engineering, Ore. State Univ. "The proposed Hallitube pylons are an innovative potential use of prestressed concrete.." Dr. A. Schokker, Henderson Prof. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Pennsylvania. "This is an innovative private market solution that deserves further study and consideration." Friends of S. Calif. Highways,Fixtraffic.org.
Traffic is the biggest urban problem of the day. This is not a remote subject, unlike the surface composition of Mars, it carries intense public interest. The costs of this problem are extreme, and we have waited for 20 years for academia and government to act. You say you cannot present every idea. For most areas that makes sense, but in this particular area, you should really present every idea, in part because it does not take experts to examine the viablity. If you become like bureaucrats defending rules, you fail to fullfill a novel role wikipedia can represent. If major academics say this deserves attention, and you suppress, you identify yourself clearly as part of an establishment that apparently has decided someone's interest are served by traffic congestion.
How do you go about deciding that a discussion of the French Trottoir Roulant should have a concept design of an American version removed, or that "car stopping" technologies should not be included in an enceclopedia, when 1000 California mothers could not pick their children up in time because of another police chase ? By definition, the discussion of any concept is an advertising for itself. If you write a thread on a BB, prior to the existence of the web, the idea of an "online encyclopedia called wikipedia" is this a new concept, or should it be suppressed because it is "advertising" something ? You need to look for informational density and novelty to determine if something is an advert. The California Stem Cell proposition was 2 years in the making before it was passed. Should this be suppressed from discussion because it has not been voted on yet ? The inclusion criteria must be 1)relevancy and 2)informational density. The fact that it is being proposed cannot count against inclusion. Would you have allowed Michelson-Morrison to allege that there is no Aether when everybody in Physics thought there was one ? Open up a little, and think about the collective costs of traffic congestion for humanity as a whole. You are saying " let the west fail, we don't like it anyway". Incidentally, the current entry for Hallitubes is not written by our staff. (by 66.27.105.251 16:02, 26 July 2005 )
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Google. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Found nomination unfinished, completing. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be merely self-promotion; subject does not warrant a Wikipedia article ~ Booyabazooka 02:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Advert (see numerous other entries above Bobbis 23:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Advert (see above) Bobbis 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
car-stopping technology IS under development. Not covering the details makes wkipedia poorer
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Advert Bobbis 00:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Advert Bobbis 00:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty tired of VfDing these adverts. Could probably speedy these, but some might want to be redirects (see above). What should I do about User:Hallitubes who is creating all this rubbish? I have left a warning on his/her talk, but (s)he needs watching I suspect. Bobbis 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect Gigi - no merge anywhere, because text was just a c&p of Gigi (1958 movie). CDC (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]