< July 21 July 23 >

July 22

[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

bring back the couch

[edit]

mind-bogglingly non-notable seglea 00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of notable in the form of attempts to increase pagerank (500+ results). The domain for this "campaign" was created on July 18th though. A USA Today columnist reporting on blogs mentions the site(the cache may change without notice), but this is still not popular enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar parley 16:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crans-Montana

[edit]

Notability not established, presently reads like an advertisement. --Alan Au 00:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (14k, 9m, 1d). Scimitar parley 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Together Now (The Beatles)

[edit]

Not notable song. Mr Bound 00:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Er, not to nitpick or anything, guys, but stealing text wholesale from this copyrighted article doesn't exactly improve Wikipedia's reputation. Nandesuka 05:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't contain anything from there anymore. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lawson (artiste)

[edit]

Delete non notable aspiring artiste. Google search of "Robert George Lwanga Lawson" returned 1 result which just listed his name among a long list of graduates. TheMidnighters 00:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (13k, 11m). Scimitar parley 17:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Sion

[edit]

Should be either merged with another page or shortened. Not notable enough to be single standing. 138.130.214.13 07:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


They have been merged. All three of them. Hunger, Pain & Betrayal as one. 50% plus have agreed to this, so i went through with it and merged the articles. I did not know there was a different policy in place for merging articles than deleting articles. It is done now.

Unsigned comment by User:138.130.215.115. jni 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia requests that you do not copy/past things from one article to another. -- Psiedit

User 138.130.214.13 - Actually, I got that advice from the Wikipedia merge page, and incase you can't see, there is a clear cut majority of users wanting the article merged rather than kept the way it is.

  1. Yes. The player has no choice on Korriban. He must duel, and must lose.
  2. He must go to Korriban, or never finish the game. Needless to say, it is stupid to preface every statement with "And if the player decides to keep playing and completing the game, he will..."
  3. Yes. Sion always refrains from a fatal blow. No dialogue option will cause Sion to kill the Exile on Korriban, as part of the story, for obvious out-of-game reasons. The ingame player is not swept away against his will, but the player outside of the game is, as the Exile escapes in a cinema with no dialogue options which will change anything.
  4. You don't seem to understand, Post. The article describes what is canonical. The canon rules for SW state that plot events for games are canon, branching plots have one specific unique singular end-branch which is canonical, and that's it. The minutiae of the actual game implementation are not canon- including game mechanics and possible plots like you endlessly harp upon. Sion does not need a "Rewrite", it needs expansion. Go ahead, add audience reaction, go ask the producers who wrote in Sion, what were they thinking, what early versions of Sion were there, and how did they differ, etc. But don't call the article unencyclopedic (or, if you do, then go start several thousand vfds to cleanse Wikipedia of all SW 'fancruft'), or use fictional as an epithet. It incorporates what is available, sourceable and reliable. --Maru 19:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That should be described and explained.
  2. It should at least be prefaced by "When the player makes it to Korriban;" otherwise, it sounds like a player has no volition over that outcome.
  3. This should be described and explained, and the parts of the game that the player in fact passively watches ("the Exile escapes in a cinema") should be distinctly separated from the parts that the player actively participates in. And what the player actually sees should be separated from that which he is merely told about.
  4. What you don't understand is this is not the Official Canon Encyclopedia of Star Wars. The article needs a rewrite because it just relates a story abstracted from the source from which it is derived, without any sense of how the media actually constructed the story. And yes, there are a lot of Star Wars articles that need similarly serious cleanup. This particular article should focus on describing what the player sees him do in the game, what he does to the player, what the player does to him, and what the player is told about him and how. Considering how he's a bloody video game character, one would think that these would be the most fundamental things to set forth. Then a separate section on how this portrayal of the character fits into Star Wars canon may be appropriate, but that certainly shouldn't be the overriding perspective. No, "fictional" is not an epithet; I've written quite a few articles about fictional subjects myself. But the article should not itself become fiction; it should write about fiction by describing works of fiction, and write about subjects of fiction by describing exactly how the works portray them. Postdlf 06:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, informative and a fun read. All you party poopers please don't delete. It just needs a little tweaking on the facts.

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Ground Baptist Church

[edit]

not an objective article; based on personal opinion and promoting a particular church 203.166.5.68 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied.

Popularity of Adolf Hitler

[edit]

Lauding of Hitler's character without mention of an opposing viewpoint. Seems extremely one-sided. I expect to attract flack from this nomination but will stand by it. Delete unless rewritten. Mr Bound 01:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is Nazi vandalism, and as such have speedy-deleted it. However, the vandal seems to be recreating the page, so I deleted it, recreated it, and protected it. Neutralitytalk 01:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am not a Nazi, I am not even of European race, and you have no right to either delete the article or delete my earlier comment on this very page. You have no right to police Wikipedia when contributors have not done any wrong. And is it possible AT ALL that some people in the world could admire Hitler without being labelled "nazi" or pushed out and told "you must not express how you feel because we don't like it" ?? --Paul Chiu
Just a quick note. Whether uyou are European or not has nothing to do with nazism (sp?). (added after closing) - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted.

Adolf Hitler's popularity

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lotus

[edit]

Non-notable film production company, founded in 2004! Delete.Joel7687 01:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Should not have been listed on VFD, is just an exlink Manning 04:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Given name etymology

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (even after discounting anon votes). Scimitar parley 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Battle

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 21:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phoinix

[edit]

Not at all notable or encyclopedic, and has little to no possibility for expansion. Saying "It is also what people in Brooklyn call a city in Arizona." is just silly. Delete. Andre (talk) 02:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (no merge). Scimitar parley 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zedraedi

[edit]

This entry is completely incorrect. The correct entry is Zentradi. Epolk 02:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (7k,1d). Scimitar parley 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Historical Society

[edit]

The Southern Historical Society was founded by Major General Dabney Herndon Maury and not "Jubal Early" as I proved. Please look in Mark Boatner's _Civil War_Dictionary_, or somewhere, for the proof as opposed to any belief. --Maury 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Kaibabsquirrel 02:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect (5m, 1k, 1d). Scimitar parley 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade Teams

[edit]

I've looked at WP:FICT and think this is a candidate for deletion as not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect/merge CDC (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hryb

[edit]

Non-notable outside the xBox community. Denni☯ 02:36, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Calculated Risk

[edit]

Non-notable gaming clan. Gazpacho 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - This should've been speedied a long time ago. Hedley 21:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameya Velingker

[edit]

Vanity page. Non-notable outside the high school math competition community (if it can be called a "community"). Aerion//talk 02:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (unanimous). Scimitar parley 17:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CD copying software

[edit]

The first part is just a rephrase/dicdef, the rest can be covered in CD copy protection. Gazpacho 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gomco

[edit]

Band vanity. See also A Thousand Years, Greg Pearson, G. Pearson coming soon. Brighterorange 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

A Thousand Years

[edit]

Band vanity. Brighterorange 03:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horizon Recordings

[edit]

Record label vanity. Brighterorange 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. The content has been userfied, and article deleted. Joyous (talk) 16:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

G. Pearson

[edit]

Vanity. Should probably userfy to User:Pearsong Brighterorange 03:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Greg Pearson

[edit]

Vanity. G. Pearson is slightly longer and would probably be a better choice for userfication (at User:Pearsong). Brighterorange 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:54, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horizon Sound

[edit]

More recording vanity. Brighterorange 03:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected (hey, a new term!) since the content would only ever possibly be a fork of the content already at Japanese writing system. GarrettTalk 14:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese alphabet

[edit]

Information about the japanese character sets (I'm uncertain if calling them alphabets is correct) belongs to a broader article about the japanese language. The title is inadequate and the descriptions of katakana and kanji are incorrect. Fbergo 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge & redirect

Science (Kieron Harvey)

[edit]

Not notable brenneman(t)(c) 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion taking place on Talk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to be redirect, I have been bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (except Derek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge & redirect

Craig Coates

[edit]

Not Notable. brenneman(t)(c) 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion taking place on Talk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to be redirect, I have been bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (except Derek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge & redirect

Anthony Hutton

[edit]

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 03:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion taking place on Talk:Big Brother UK series 6 concerning merging all of these articles. Since there was no objection there, and since the consensus on VFD seems to be redirect, I have been bold and merged and redirected all of the individual contestant articles (except Derek Laud). —Stormie 21:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worm-Hole rotating ring

[edit]

The page is written by a crank and describes something that is not only nonexistent, but has no basis in reality. It is solely a creation of the crank.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 15:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkins Media Holdings, LLC

[edit]

Not notable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You people are NON-NOTABLE: delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete !!! That is all you know. Does that make you feel strong? Are we superior yet?

Please excuse my previous statements- I understand that you are doing the best that you can to adhere to the standards that Wikipedia has set. I also know that this project would be a massive mess of abstract data if those policies were not in place, and strictly enforced.

What I believe should be taken into consideration though, is that the Internet does not record enough information that is due a notable status. My uncle (Herbert Wilkins) is clearly notable. But because of his low profile, and insider status, not much has been released in "publicity" structure.

My reasons for initiating inclusions to Wikipedia are simply to create an "educational presence" for members of my family that have not been noted by other "educational" mediums. My background is also "notable" in that I have had special relationships with historical figures in the finance and music industries.

My personal intention is to administer to this information, and help with the massive linking work that is associated with it. What I am asking is the time to do so, and an open perspective to what is deemed as notable, and historical. William H. Wilkins III- 07.22.05- 1:24 pm/est historical. William H. Wilkins III- 07.22.05- 1:24 pm/est


Shall my humble and simplified modification to a standard dictionary description withstand the cold, steely, knives of thy honored Senate?? William H. Wilkins III- 07.26.05- 11:25 pm/est

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Agita

[edit]

Dicdef of a colloquialism. WP:WINAD. I see no potential growth here. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 03:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ratiocination

[edit]

Dictionary definition. WP:WINAD. No potential for growth. Already at Wiktionary. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 03:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (3k, 1d). Scimitar parley 17:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Langendreer-Alter Bahnhof

[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Fenice 11:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC): An article on the old train station of a city in Germany.

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (unanimous). Scimitar parley 17:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language delay

[edit]
This was never put in the log. --Dmcdevit·t 03:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up by adding appropriate content and removing extraneous material. Vote to keep.RToes 22:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep at a new title, redirect this title to Animaniacs (by my count: 5k, 1d, 6r). Scimitar parley 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animaniacs!

[edit]

Transferred here from Speedy. Content value is questioned - a plot summary of individual cartoon episode. Title is clearly inappropriate - this actually refers to the cartoon series Tiny Toons. Manning 04:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This debate should also dictate the fate of Bad_Stitch and Kixx. The latter have been removed from Speedy but should share the fate of this article. Manning 04:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about the TV show Animaniacs Gazpacho

Gazpacho - correct: this refers to the show "Tiny Toons", not Animaniacs!. Manning 04:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Gazpacho - do you mean redirect to Tiny Toons? Manning 04:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Gazpacho, redirect to Animaniacs. If somebody types in "Animaniacs!" they are looking for Animaniacs, not Tiny Toon Adventures. --Metropolitan90 04:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
My meaning was that this article has nothing to do with Animaniacs!. As I stated in the heading above, the title is also clearly inappropriate. Cheers Manning 05:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lars Ryen Mill

[edit]

Vanity page. --Several Times 13:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Bryant

[edit]

Vanity, best I can figure is that this person may be someone who posts on Encyclopedia Titanica message boards MechBrowman 04:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (6k, 2m, 1d). Scimitar parley 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Get You

[edit]

Regardless of the song's notability, this article isn't very informative. Delete Gazpacho 04:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 03:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (6k, 1d). Scimitar parley 18:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Paul

[edit]

This doesn't require an encyclopediac entry rail 04:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Various merge options were discussed but these can be dealt with outside this decision on whether to delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vampire's Assistant

[edit]

This seems to be a work of fiction. Nothing showed up in Google to indicate plagiarism Cnwb 04:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as to the fact that the summary I gave of The Vampire's Assistant and Cirque Du Freak exceed in detail and words from that of [4], I don't see how I could have plagarized or copyrighted. There are several articles out there on the books, but I guarantee that my article was written in my own words. I also sincerely doubt that there are as detailed articles on the books on other websites. Jerichoholic

  • Nobody's accusing you of plagiarism. In fact, the original poster said that there is no apparent copyright violation. Aerion//talk 17:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I do not understand why it is an issue. Jerichoholic
  • The original issue was that, to the original poster, the article appeared to be an original work of fiction. Some further research indicated that the article is in fact a very detailed plot summary of a published work. While plot summaries are nice (although they should be tagged with spoiler warnings), there is a limit to how much detail is really necessary. Those editors who have voted for a "smerge" or something similar are those who feel that the level of detail you have given is somewhat excessive. ... On an unrelated note, you should log in. Aerion//talk 02:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was extremely unnecessary for me to log in, for I don't see anything different. Why does it matter if I used detail? Who are you to judge? Does it really matter? And, I would've tagged a spoiler warning and put other parts in the pages about the books, but you people gave me no chance, really. Jerichoholic
  • In other countries, such as the UK and Ireland, the series is known as "The Saga of Darren Shan." If you were to use a page for all the books, I would suggest changing the name to the original series name, other than Cirque Du Freak. Jerichoholic
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (4k, 2m). Scimitar parley 18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Du Freak

[edit]

This goes along with the VfD on The Vampire's Assistant. Aerion//talk 05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Buddha's Witnesses

[edit]

This appears to be made-up history. No google hits for "Buddha's Witnesses", "Buddah's Witnesses" or "Klaus van der Dam", except for Wikipedia mirrors. No mention in Rick Fields' How the Swans Came to the Lake. - Nat Krause 04:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tollari

[edit]

Neologism. Can't find documentation of it anywhere on google, even its external link doesn't seem to work for me. Even if it were truethough, it's a dicdef, and WP:WINAD. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 04:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous keep. Scimitar parley 18:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman To

[edit]

Appears to be a Honk Kong martial arts actor. Is in IMDB, however, no presence in english-speaking countries as of yet. humblefool® 04:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cripes

[edit]

WP:WINAD. A slang dicdef, already in Wiktionary. I don't see a potential at all here. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 05:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kline

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. GarrettTalk 00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tung Street

[edit]

It appears to be a personal page to advertise an external website that provides no meaningful content on this "landmark". – Mipadi July 3, 2005 15:17 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted, vanity. GarrettTalk 00:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bentley

[edit]

Julian Bentley (Born June 11th, 1988) - A Canadian actor, dancer, runner. Julian Bentley's life is filled with intrigue, danger and romance. Those who have come in contact with this mysterious man usually leave their brief encounter puzzled by the entire meeting...He attends Yale Secondary School in Abbotsford BC Sorry, Julian. come back when you've at least graduated university. Calton | Talk 05:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jarred walton

[edit]

Not notable. TheCoffee 05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kristopher Kubicki

[edit]

Not notable. TheCoffee 05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

  • Second edit.
  • Second edit.
  • Third edit.

Keep. Kris has done a lot of good work and and his knowledege is well above his peers. I could even say that he will be better than. He's well known in the Computer World @ UIC and in many unversities.He's an editor in Anandtech, among the various things he does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.245.183 (talk • contribs)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy/delete. Joyous (talk) 17:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Descontrol

[edit]

User:Descontrol created this article, on an alleged professional wrestling career. The only support for this is two geocities websites. "The Rabid Luchador," his alleged wrestling name, receives 0 google hits. I call b.s. on it. Deletejglc | t | c 05:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. This is what you get when you make VfD entries in the early AM. I meant a vote of userfy all along. jglc | t | c 13:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense I would like to say that I am indeed a legit professional wrestler. I wrestle in the southeast reigion and am on many federation's websites. Both linked sites have photos of myself wrestling. —Descontrol 06:07, 22 July 2005

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 23:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Schwartzman

[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Schwartzman

[edit]

Not notable and unencylopedic. Entire article consist of the following: "Rachel Schwartzman is an incredibly hot Jewish-American woman." If we were to fill the Wikipedia with articles incredibly hot Jewish-American women things would be crazy! Frühstücksdienst 05:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

St Brown's University

[edit]

Presumably a hoax. Uppland 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Joyous (talk) 17:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Horcruxe

[edit]

This is a mispelling of Horcrux. The improperly spelled article contains little to no information (and nothing that isn't already in the properly spelled page). At the very best, if left undeleted, it might serve as a redirect for a common (?) mispelling. I should probably add for Harry Potter fans who see this that the page contains a moderate unmarked spoiler for the sixth book. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 06:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Horcrux. TheCoffee 07:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paranoid administrator

[edit]

Appears to be entirely POV original research — it appeared in whole cloth in a single edit. The Google test shows ~750 articles with the term paranoid administrator, but virtually all of them use the term as a standard English adjective-noun combination (e.g., "...a paranoid administrator..."), not as a compound noun. The external links do not serve as references for this term — they instead all point at ways to get around a "paranoid administrator". Full disclosure: I am a professional system administrator and would consider the tactics mentioned in the article "amateurish", not "paranoid". N.B.: this might be a case of WP:Bite; this appears to be the first substantive edit by Bob2000 (talk · contribs).

TreyHarris 06:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please hastily proceed to deletion then! But this is a case of the bites indeed. I did look up and read lengthy instructions on what not to post before deciding to put this definition, and found no trace of "original research" as a no-no. Prior to submitting a new article, there isn't much warning about that except on WP:NOT. May I suggest that "soapbox" is not a well-understood term in the meaning with which it is used?

I agree with the original research label, but not with the POV label. As a professional computer & networking security expert, it appears to me that the patterns described in the article are certainly well-spread and based on observation--even if "paranoid" may not exactly be the right term to sum it up. I grant you that this article is far from perfect, but professional systems administrators like you would certainly have been able to amend it. I think there is room for a consensus to build around this concept.

While I understand and respect that Wikipedia's opinion is different on this matter, for me an enclopedia's role, as was the Encyclopédie, is not only to bring consensual knowledge, but also to publish original works of reason. I'm a bit disappointed.

--User:Bob2000

I think you've hit on one of the exact problems that led to WP:NOR. I think it's POV. You don't. But you coined the term the article is about, so how can anyone but you make the call? Maybe giving you control of the article's content is an okay situation — until you go away for awhile, and then the article goes stale, or somebody else comes along and claims that they invented the term "paranoid administrator" and they know what it means.... Please don't take this personally: if others can't do the same research you can, then it's not something that can make a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone can point you at a wiki for original works. --TreyHarris 16:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I understand the rationale behind the rule. Bob2000 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Big Bonanza Silver Day

[edit]

Some annual sale on a shopping TV channel. Advertising. Uppland 06:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tony Sidaway (unsuitable use of user page) --Tony SidawayTalk 11:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denim&Co.

[edit]

User page used for advertising. User has edited Big Bonanza Silver Day and is presumably identical to User:69.172.243.1 who created that page. Both have also edited QVC. Uppland 06:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of novels

[edit]

This list would be useless and nearly endless. Mysid (talk) 07:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Remenants

[edit]

Band vanity. Page creator's username is "Remenant", and this is his only edit. TheCoffee 07:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC) All songs written and performed by "The Remenants" are copyright © 2005 and remain the property of "The Remenants"[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and merge to Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa Eliot 16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Alejandra Andrade

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 19:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lims

[edit]

Advertising? Manik Raina 11:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germanic-speaking cultures surnames

[edit]
Yes, but that was plagued by fake names like "Footfootfoot," these are real German-language surnames, which have actual heritage. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Writing an article about heritage is much different from a list of surnames with no context whose only relatedness is existing in the same language. --Dmcdevit·t 07:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the actual heritage can be potentially found in the articles that link from this list -newkai | talk | contribs 10:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Then nominate it! -newkai | talk | contribs 00:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Scott Tarin

[edit]

Vanity page-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London slang

[edit]

If this is London slang at all, it's not anything I've heard, in 20 years of living in London. Maybe this is the slang of some tiny group of clubbers; maybe it's nonsense. In any case, a proper article on slang in London would be far more detailed than this, as it would need to describe all the different kinds of slang prevalent in different London ethnic and socioeconomic groups, as well as subcultures. Delete or rewrite from scratch. -- Karada 08:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete although I actually suspect a copyvio. David | Talk 12:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC) see below.[reply]

All subsequent votes are associated with the cleaned up version of the article, which has significantly altered its content. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lumchan

[edit]

Delete. This is some private joke and is Not Notable. Bubamara 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep rewritten article. Joyous (talk) 17:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yed

[edit]

It's orange! This is a neologism/hoax. A Google search only shows mirrors. I mean, even the article says "is in common usage, but is of unknown origin." Classic neologism, delete. What happened to the... Oh! Keep all Uncle Gs (do we have any more?) --Dmcdevit·t 08:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wakkipedia

[edit]

This was marked as speedy, but is not a candidate. Instead I propose the normal, slow, lingering, deletion (think about Chinese water torture before voting) for this article about non-notable website. jni 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. - Sikon 10:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Zetterstrom

[edit]

Notability not sufficiently established, probably vanity. Likely a new user; insists on removing VfD tag but has been gently warned against doing so on his/her talk page. --Alan Au 08:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Shiel

[edit]

Orphaned article, no notability established, probable vanity -- Ferkelparade π 08:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically all of us Wikipedians are also writer/editors. Can we get articles too? (joke :) Manning 22:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Aelred Doyle

[edit]

Vanity, no notability established -- Ferkelparade π 09:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ross Sands

[edit]

Probably not notable; google hits, few of which seem relevant. Thue | talk 10:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by, um, me! According to the new criteria, vanity cruft like this gets shot on sight. GarrettTalk 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Pitts

[edit]

Some marketing guy, not notable. Only references are now defunct page on geocities [6]. The anon user also added him to July 22 births. Feydey 11:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 17:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Garlic dude

[edit]

Advertising. Article basically amounts to "here's how cute the doll is, come buy it!". Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

JAXASS

[edit]
"Patrick Naughton, an engineer at Sun, had become increasingly frustrated with the state of Sun's C++ and C APIs and tools."
Having an axe to grind doesn't disqualify something from its useful place on Wikipedia.
All of you are reaching at this point. No one has made a valid, unemotional case for deletion of this topic. At best, you can now join me in editing this topic to match the current state of the technology and help me maintain the topic as it grows in popularity.
Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic
Variant(s): also en·cy·clo·pae·dic /-'pE-dik/
Function: adjective
of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : COMPREHENSIVE <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor>
How can you suggest comprehensive coverage without inclusion of terms so consequential to the industry. 50 years from now, when someone looks back at wikipedia, how can they get the full picture without inclusion of this term?
Alternatively, lets define encyclopedic from the very system we are debating on:
Encyclopedia - An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written [compendium] of [knowledge].
compendium - A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system.
knowledge - Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.
Based on this, your own definition of encyclopedia claims to be comprehensive - containing the full body of knowledge. And by knowledge, we are to include something such as JAXASS, which, in isolation is of lesser value in your opinion.
This is no different than the work of [Galileo]. This is a hotly contested and widely controversial topic. Many refuse to have it published as it goes against the core of what you believe in -- despite having truth and backhand support from many true technological intellectuals. And now you hold a 5-day inquisition where I'm forced to try to defend myself simply because I published a truth that you don't care to hear. As cardinals in the inquisition, you would have been threatening [Galileo] with torture until he begged for forgiveness and recanted his findings.
You state this isn't encyclopedic, but I say wikipedia isn't encyclopedic without [JAXASS] as a topic that will continue to expand in the next few months and years to come.

"Wikipedia is not a democracy". All issues brought up by those voting to delete have been addressed with comments and are invalid reasons for deletion. Several topics of similar circumstances exist without contestation on wikipedia. --Sleepyhead81 12:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this back-and-forth somewhere else, such as user talk pages. This discussion is for the article, not for disputes between users. android79 03:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but it should exist. Mark it with a "Current Events" tag. Edit it yourself if you feel that a biased POV is being introduced. Perhaps this article and other articles like AJAX need to be merged into an article about the ongoing development of this sort of software (I don't know what term to use, and I don't care, because VFD pages are about the merits of the article as an encyclopia entry, not the viability of the subject matter of the article). If we delete this article, what happens when a user out there in the world comes to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic, which he or she encountered in some other context? Users are developing a reasonable expectation of finding reliable information about a wide range of topics here. When no article exists for a topic, they end up disappointed. We should seek not to disappoint. I say keep this article, but bring it up to standard. Deleting is so permanent. If you wonder what my credentials are to support this opinion, I have a BA in History and am an U.S. Army officer engaged in the defense of freedom (location immaterial) that makes it possible for projects like Wikipedia to exist. I would like to see some of the delete proponents state their bona fides so that we can evaluate how much weight to give their opinion on this structure-of-the-Wikipedia discussion (as compared to the propensity to discuss the relative merits of JAXASS, JAVA, et.al.). And lets remember to assume good faith --Mddake 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (again). Eugene van der Pijll 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport cricket club (again)

[edit]

Previous vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stockport cricket club. Votes 11-7 in favour of deleting. Its author (Jimmyb (talk · contribs) aka 62.252.192.9 (talk · contribs) (though I think the latter is a shared IP)) even recognised its utter non-importance and even requested that it should be deleted [17], and was clearly just arsing around with it anyway. [18]. If that isn't consensus, though I don't know what is. (This I think has a quite a lot to do with the fact that I vote on the merits of school articles rather than automatically voting keep).

To clarify: This is a small cricket club, which there are thousands like throughout the country. We lack depth on the subject; we have articles on each of the County Championship sides, but the Minor counties (the next level down) are just listed - and only Cambridgeshire has an article. It sits like a thorn in category:English cricket right next to the MCC!. It gets 110 Google hits, none of which reveals a website. Dunc|☺ 12:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Scientific knowledge in the Quran

[edit]

Listed for a speedy as "very controversial and lack of reliable references". Well, first of all we're not here to be politically correct, and second of all it refers to three sources. And so, barring any other easy method, I'm Vfding it. Enjoy. :) GarrettTalk 12:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 of the sources are not necessarily reliable (and the Bucaille book is very controversial - even though I found it a great read and agreed with many points in it). In any case, I can live with a vfd. I created this article very recently, but I am doubting that it is worthy of article status (yet); my intention was to create a comprehensive article on Islam and science (does such an article, with a different name of course, already exist?) and possibly include some of the contents in the scientific knowledge in the Quran article in that one. That's really why I want to delete this article. --Mpatel 13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of Caliph Omar's destruction of the library provides the classical example of a dilemma: Omar is reported to have said that if the books of the library did not contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were useless and should be destroyed; if the books did contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were superfluous and should be destroyed.
Need more be said ?
Delete the entire 'paedia --Simon Cursitor 14:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Talk means trouble

[edit]

Apparent band vanity; 37 google hits from even fewer different websites. Joel7687 12:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tori Thompson

[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Adam poluzzi

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

`===Denim & Co ., Denim & Co.=== See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Denim&Co. and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big Bonanza Silver Day. (If by any chance the brand would deserve an article, it needs to be rewritten anyway.) Uppland 14:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT (already merged). -Splash 02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty joke

[edit]

This is a dicdef at best. An extensive list of jokes or examples make make the article longer and more controversial, but not any more encyclopedic. Gblaz 14:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC). I still feel that a more proper title for such an article might be something more like "off-color humor", but I agree that the recent edits show that the article does have potential. So I would now consider this a Weak Keep assuming the expansion continues. Gblaz 18:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I honestly feel as though there's room to expand this, including discussing the history of "blue" or "off-colour" comedy. Dolemite, Richard Pryor, Andrew Dice Clay, and other "dirty" comedians could be referenced, and the concept of an anti-joke discussed in brief. jglc | t | c 14:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I voted to delete List of dirty jokes, but I can envision an article that discusses the psychology and sociology of off-color humor, and I have to believe there are peer-reviewed articles on that subject. If no one takes it up for six months or so, we can always reconsider.Robert A West 15:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I agree with above comments. — RJH 15:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

ICFPS

[edit]

I suspect this is a vanity page. The original author was anonymous and appears to be the same as the author, and the only page that links here is his page. I'd also say it could be nonnotable. Jdavidb 14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of euphemisms

[edit]

Although I have edited this article, and although nearly all the edits made have been in good faith, I am of the opinion that it cannot be upgraded to a good-quality article. Specifically, this article has the following inherent problems.

Wikipedia is not a collection of lists: This is, perforce, a list, and can never be made much else. The list can never be exhaustive, nor really more than randomly selective.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: To the extent that this topic is notable, it should contain instances of first or notable use and/or other information suitable to a dictionary.

Information should be verifiable: nearly all the information in these lists (my edtis included) are unsourced. To the extent that the information can be verified from common experience, it is not notable.

A huge number of the entries have been, and remain a soapbox, causing POV problems. The difficulty is that the distinction between euphemism and jargon is inherently subjective, rendering this topic inherently POV.

Accordingly, I believe that deletion is the best solution, but I would be happy to be proven wrong and see a proposal for turning this into an encyclopedic article or an appropriate transwiki. Robert A West 14:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 19:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism and War

[edit]

This page is very simply not Wiki material, I think. It reads like a paragraph or so of semi-original research and isn't on a encyclopedia subject. I suppose if you really wanted to be charitable you could call it a dicdef. Endersdouble 14:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No transwiki. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of dirty jokes

[edit]

Unencyclopedic.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected content. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Y Combinator

[edit]

Not-notable and advertising - Dv 14:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the Y combinator/Y Combinator redirect question: Note that Y combinator is already (properly) a redirect to Fixed point combinator -- it has the correct capitalization for a Wikipedia article about the combinator itself, whereas Y Combinator has the correct capitalization for an article about the company. There is also disambiguation text at the top to refer people to the Fixed point combinator article. There are currently no inaccurate links to the article about the company. I would also be perfectly happy with a move to Y Combinator (company) if disambiguation appears to be an issue. --Schoen 05:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Graham wrote two books on the programming language Lisp and created a store (in lisp) which he subsequently sold to Yahoo! (I believe they then switched to another application written in C, giving the reason that they couldn't find enough experienced Lisp programmers, but I'm unable to find references). He writes rants, but nobody in the industry or academia seems to take take them seriously (Lisp, or rather Scheme, is usually used only to teach programming. Most of the research is done with typed functional languages like ML and Haskell, and most of the "real work" is done with established imperative languages). He says that he will create a language called Arc and it will be the best thing ever, but he has yet to produce anything.
Morris accidentally created the first internet virus, and later became a small-time academic.
I don't see how these two people make an apparently vapor-ware company notable. - Dv 07:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The company isn't vaporware, it's currently running 10 startups.
Morris is not famous merely because of Slashdot fandom. He is frequently cited (and not just for the worm) in computer security circles. Gazpacho 01:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Adams Continuum

[edit]

I don't agree that every fansite should have an entry in Wikipedia; this strikes me as advertising. There's no good reason why the DAC should be singled out for having its own entry. JohnDBuell | Talk 14:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As noted in the Talk:Douglas Adams Continuum page, the "official" douglasadams.com site, maintained by the company Adams helped establish in the 1990s, isn't updated much anymore, nor does it have an active forum, and hasn't since Adams died. Perhaps if ANYTHING were to be merged back into Douglas Adams it would be the info on the various fan sites from that talk page, presented in a way so as not to appear like site advertising. --JohnDBuell | Talk 22:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cynergi Fleet

[edit]

Delete Non-notable RPG. Google reports exactly 2 non repeated hits for "Cynergi Fleet" [19], with the other 2500 being repeats on the same forum, which is now a dead link. Unless notability can be shown, this sshould go. Icelight 15:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Elvis preston king

[edit]

I think it's vanity. May be a hoax. smoddy 15:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decryption matrix

[edit]

There does not appear to be a notable concept by this name, as far as I can gather. The term is used a few times on pages indexed by Google, but they nearly all mean a different thing to what is described here. The only place is [20], but I would suggest their assertion that "a decryption matrix [is] a common device in codebreaking" is an error. There would seem to be no evidence of this concept outside that page, and I've never come across it in the literature. There was a previous VfD to keep, but that was based on the belief that this was a genuine concept, which would appear not to be the case. — Matt Crypto 16:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at the local tech bookstore and abused their resources in order to peruse the most authoritative books I could find. I'd already leafed through Applied Cryptography at work, of course, but it doesn't deal with attacks against crypto except from the standpoint of assuring the security of a given algorithm. So, I paged through 4 or 5 of the books that were more of the accademic sort and less of the "teach yourself how to use a crypto library in 10 seconds". I'm crypto-savvy, but no expert, so it's possble that I missed something, but I found no references in the index or ToC to this term. I paged through the sections that looked most promissing in one or two of the texts as well. Unless someone can come up with a sound definition that actually parses well, I'm all for deleting. -Harmil 21:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

You know you have no life when

[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 16:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Failure to comply

[edit]

Band with no records. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no need to list - user page only -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Almafeta/Furry/Archive1

[edit]

The current Furry article has been moved to Furry Fandom and vandalized by Encyclopedia Dramaticans. I created Furry/Archive1 because I needed a copy of the original article to go into a bibliography of a book I am publishing. However, five minutes after the archive was created, User:Francs2000 moved it to my userspace, and deleted the redirect. Well, I can't exactly put a page in my own userspace in the bibliography... Almafeta 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Psychord

[edit]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC test for notability. Admits that he hasn't had anything released, has no other claims. Icelight 17:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Red's Eats

[edit]

Delete. Wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tally: Keep: Assdl, Firespeaker, IJzeren Jan, Elemtilas, BenctPhilipJonsson, Oldak Quill, SamuelRiv. Delete: Ishwar, Angr, Dhasenan, JamesBurns, Dewrad, Mikkalai, Pne, Wile E. Heresiarch, Prosfilaes, Mustafaa, Trilobite, Muke Tever, Jim Henry, Almafeta. Not counting users with fewer than 100 edits, there are 2 keep and 12 delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aingeljã

[edit]
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an art gallery. The other articles on conlangs may not be appropriate either. I am not singling you out for any reason — I merely noticed that you added Aingeljã numbers to the numbers article. Maybe there is a conlang wiki somewhere where you can display your art. Thank you. – ishwar  (speak) 15:07, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
I think The Scream is a prime example of why we shouldn't combine them with the author; you don't need to know who painted The Scream to be familiar with the painting, and there are many reinterpretations of the painting that stand independent of the original artist. You can be interested in The Scream without caring about Edward Munch. --Prosfilaes 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the article is OK here, as it only shows a summary of the summary of the summary of the Grammar of Aingeljã. Anyone who finds it interesting can learn more at the official website. However, in order to guarantee that it isn't deleted, I can rewrite the contents of the article, if the majority of Wikipedians votes so. But I think that, as far as this conlang exists today and anybody can study it or read about it somewhere else, there's no reason to delete it here. I'm an enthusiastic Wikipedian user and I'd be completely disappointed with Wikipedia if this article, and those about other artistic conlangs, were deleted. Don't get confused about an auxilanguage like Esperanto, which tries to help the communication between people, and an artlang, which is a personal work of art, modest and humble after all. Please keep the article. Assdl 14:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As pieces of art, they deserve articles in the same situation as any other pieces of art. There's no reason to not include an article just because it's a conlang. --Prosfilaes 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not against this in principle. My position isn't really that this conlang or that does not deserve an article, the question is really whether it warrants an article. Wikipedia describes itself as striving to offer the internet public what they could otherwise get in a paper encyclopedia but is also kept up to the minute. Generally speaking, authoritative encyclopedias don't cover fictional worlds and similar works of art (unless they are famous). It can (and should) certainly cover the art of conlanging or conculturing; I think it's quite sufficient, given the purpose and scope of the project, to link to an external article about a conlang or conculture. Elemtilas
But that's a lousy description of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia offers the public a depth and richness that no paper encyclopedia reaches. Krypto is an article that no general paper encyclopedia could afford to spend the paper on, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. We have the space and the power to be far more comprehensive than a paper encyclopedia and we historically have been far more comprehensive than a paper encyclopedia. --Prosfilaes 21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lousy as that description may be, it is condensed from the article Wikipedia! If we can and should afford to keep around articles on Captain Kirk or Krypto, then by all means we should keep articles on Aingelja and Wenedyk. Elemtilas
IJzeren Jan suggested (on the Brithenig VfD page) that we start the discussion on Talk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy Almafeta's conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment (in the main talk page) on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I agree. I do not entirely agree with all your notability criteria, but I have to admit that you made an excellent beginning. Furthermore, I agree: Aingeljã's website is one of the best of its kind, but what I find an even more astonishing achievement is the 116 p. long grammar, written in the language itself! Even when the objective criteria don't make a language notable, there should also be the possibility for an "I know when when I feel it" kind of exception. --IJzeren Jan 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from talk page

[edit]
copied from User talk:Ish_ishwar:
About Aingeljã
Hi, I really don't understand why you don't like my article about Aingeljã). This is an artistic personal constructed language, there is already a category in this Wikipedia about this kind of languages. This is a very short summary of the Grammar, which can be read thoroughly in the external links. In fact, I can't really understand why there are already articles about Breathanach, Brithenig, DiLingo, Enochian, Fyksland, Talossan language, Verdurian language, Wenedyk and many others, and there can't be an article about Aingelja.
I wait for instructions about what I should change in the article style, but I repeat that I can't understand your reaction.
Greetings,
Assdl 12:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not article style, it is the notability of the topic. mikka (t) 18:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Aingeljã.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in archaeology

[edit]

I listed a couple of the pages individually but I don't have the time or inclination to do them all. This sort of sub-listing of yearly events is totally unnecessary, especially considering the fact that a very small number of 'events' are actually listed. I would recommend of the deletion of this list and, at the very list, a redirect of all of the 'years in archaeology' articles to the article of the corresponding year. For example 1707 in archaeology could be redirected to 1707. -Soltak 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to consolidating the information into something such as "Important Dates in Archaeology." -Soltak 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me. -Soltak 17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
really? What is your definition of big and important? It is to me. WBardwin 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1952 in archaeology

[edit]

This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by 1952. At the very least, this should be redirected to 1952 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For those that don't feel Archaeology is a science I would direct his or her attention to Archaeology and Archaeological science. -Soltak 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1707 in archaeology

[edit]

This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains only one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by 1707. At the very least, this should be redirected to 1707 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Stageline

[edit]

Promotion for a product line by same company [23]. Maybe some rough editing could do something of it. Feydey 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Article is primarily composed of useless jargon and is fundamentally promotional in nature. Even extensive editing would only yield a more thickly veiled product advertisement. This page ought to be deleted. Yablohimself 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Homeirah

[edit]

I could likely claim speedy for little or no content, but I was kinda hoping that someone here would enlighten me as to who this is. All I'm getting on google is some link farms. Delete as the content is too minimal to even expand apon. humblefool® 18:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Otto Olson

[edit]

Delete: not notable, not encyclopedic; only 3 Google hits. Johanus 18:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The spill canvas

[edit]

Non-notable band. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Socialist Occult Facism

[edit]

Probably a Hoax, certianly PoV. No sources cited; a sub-stub. Does not quite qualify for a speedy, however. DES 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Shock

[edit]

Biography, not notable The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hexa do

[edit]

It's a version of Sudoku that hasn't been verified by anyone yet. User is seeking validation via Wikipedia. Delete Francs2000 | Talk 18:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No hits in a Google search on "hexa do" sudoku. Chuck 19:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Joyous (talk) 21:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Curved spacetime

[edit]

This article is sloppy, incomplete, and inaccurate. It's content is better covered in the general relativity article, to which I suggest this article be redirected (as noted in my vote below). --EMS | Talk 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to general relativity Xaa 03:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

AttentionTrust

[edit]

Notability not established. Possible vanity. Note that according to the external link provided, they have no members! "AttentionTrust" only gets 3 Google hits. [24] Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Response: We are currently hosting the founding conference. The site will be up in the next few hours. If you would prefer us to hold back on this entry until then, we can comply. Thanks.(Unsigned response by 69.120.235.87 (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Suitwanker

[edit]

I didn't nominate this article, it was nominated by some anon. However, he didn't create the vfd2 or vfd3 entries, so I'm doing that now. Also, I reformatted some of the votes already placed. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nice Easy And Tight

[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Suggestions to merge to Unification Church. Joyous (talk) 01:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

BCworld

[edit]

A web forum for young people from a particular religion. From the sounds of the description, it's not particularly notable. Francs2000 | Talk 19:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Connor-Davis

[edit]

Non-notable. Google "Liam O Connor Davis" says 186, but shows only 3 [25], and no webpage referenced has an Alexa rank of less than 5 million. -- Grev -- Talk 19:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paula Throckmorton-Zakaria

[edit]

Being related to a famous person is not enough to be notable enough for one article. Only 79 Google hits [26] Normally, a merge would be alright here, except that the little information there is is already in Fareed Zakaria Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ñor

[edit]

Been transwikied, now needs deletion. humblefool® 19:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 21:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dan ellis

[edit]

Non-notable web cartoonist, probably self-promotion. The article itself sums it up pretty well: "He is not very well known on the internet, only gathering a few fans, but he hopes to be one day." Niteowlneils 19:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. There is no consensus to retain the content, so I have not merged it. It is available from the history if anyone wants it. -Splash 02:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of subatomic particles

[edit]

Duplicates the existing list of particles and is a much less mature version of it. The creator has been given ample time to move what worthwile text is there. (See the talk page.) It is time to Merge/Redirect this page to list of particles --EMS | Talk 19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:00, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Lord of the Pens

[edit]

Web comic with 14 google hits. Gazpacho 19:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear

[edit]

del nonnotable expression, with verifiability problems. What is salvageable (and verifiable), may be moved into Victor Hargreaves (if one existed indeed). mikka (t) 19:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hye Sung Gehring and Sungis

[edit]

The page is obvious vanity: lines such as "He became well known through xanga, myspace, BCworld, and other forum sites." and links to various xanga sites and myspace profiles don't help. This should be a speedy userfy. jglc | t | c 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per User:Angr below, Speedy delete. jglc | t | c 19:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has IMHO forfeited his right to userfy this page by removing VFD and Speedy labels and creating a sockpuppet. Just speedy delete both articles. --Angr/t?k t? mi 19:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Clotheshorse

[edit]

Transwikied, now it comes here. humblefool® 19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, and not a very accurate one either -Buuneko 09:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Captain Fatass

[edit]

No assertion of notability in the article and after a quick search I can only find 1 album release that doesn't seem to be widely ditributed at all. That being said, delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, content has been merged with Dairy Crest -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral City (cheese)

[edit]

Delete Cathedral City is a brand name for a cheddar cheese, see http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/opb/cheese/cathedralcity.shtml

Despite its manufacturer's hype, there are many many brands of cheddar, and this particular brand has no particular reason to be included and described as a "type" of cheese. Its not. If there was more content on this page, or some prospect of there being so, it might be a more reasonable entry.Francis Davey 20:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a mistake with the listing for deletion process. Hopefully some kind person will help me out. For a dyslexic person it was almost impossible to follow the process. Francis Davey 20:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ALREADY DELETED, but by User:Seglea. -Splash 02:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner Construct Zero

[edit]

Original research. These constructs have no google presence outside of http://www.markjoyner.name and don't seem to be well-known DJ Clayworth 20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VSPAN

[edit]

transwikied, listed here. humblefool® 20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term refers to a feature of a Cisco Systems product. Not encyclopedic. Buuneko 10:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cacat

[edit]

This article is, um, cacat. humblefool® 20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. GarrettTalk 01:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzat Gabriel

[edit]

Non-notable, google search finds no hits. Article does not seem to indicate any notability, just a biography of sorts Gblaz 20:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy charrison

[edit]

Based on the current article I would say that this guy is not notable. Thue | talk 20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ALREADY DELETED, but by User:Seglea. -Splash 02:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner

[edit]

Vanity. smoddy 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) see also Mark Joyner Constructs, Mark Joyner Construct Zero, Spread the Meme[reply]

which incidentally ranked #1 on Amazon due to pure Internet Promotion, the book was largely promoted by email (which isn't spiderable by Google) Note: the book reached #1 in 24 hours of launch and succeeded in knocking Rudolf Giuliani off the #1 spot (who incidentally was promoting his book, 'Leadership' every half hour on CNN. There are 36,000 hits on google referencing "Mark Joyner" Even J Conrad Levinson (the grandfather of Guerilla Marketing said this: "Mark Joyner is an Internet Marketing Genius. He is the best. No question." PS I added this name space Davejohnson 23:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Idont Havaname - in that case, what is the Wiki entry advertising? :)

take a look at these Google results for this specific search term mindcontrolmarketing.com amazon #1 it's pretty conclusive. like I said, the book was cleverly promoted using email, which doesn't get spidered by google. I can understand why you find this hard to believe, getting a #1 at amazon the way he did, and without spending money on advertising is exactily the reason Conrad J Levinson (Author: Guerrilla marketing cites Mark as an Internet marketing genius, and that is exactly the reason why I believe he deserves his place here on Wikipedia Davejohnson 01:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the dates, but if anyone's interested in validating these facts, you could try googling this Mark Joyner Internet you'll find over 121,000 references to him, I'm sure there will be some entries with details of his best seller, dates volume etc. I don't know the figures, I mearly read the book. Davejohnson 22:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS.. Interestingly the legendary british football manager Terry Venables only has 26,600 google hits when searching analogously Name + Field ie Terry Venables Football Davejohnson 22:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if would only be classed as vanity if I were him -which I'm not, but I admit I'm probably a little more fanatical about this guy than most :) Davejohnson 22:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sept (slang)

[edit]

A (self-proclaimed) neologism, that "originated in 2001". I've never heard of it, and I can't find any evidence of its existence on Google. It was hard to do a search for it, because of abreviations for September, so I searched for the "related phrase," "septed fool." That picked up no hits at all, so I very much doubt the rest of the article as well. Not notable, and in any case a dicdef, so delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kermit syndrome

[edit]

NN unreal dicdef. smoddy 20:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 19:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vise-Grip

[edit]

obvious advertising copy Robinh 20:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Crystal objective

[edit]

Vanity. I think the chances of anything to do with a British boys' school and its boys' dersires would have to end with Emba Watso, wouldn't it? [[smoddy]] 20:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of Foreign Ministry contact details

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or phonebook. In fact, articles "shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc." This is not an encyclopdia article. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

New AfD

[edit]

This article was deleted before, someone re-created it, I am re-submitting for AfD for commercial spam. Delete spam -- Tawker 05:19, 16 February 2006 (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. Joyous (talk) 22:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mannatech

[edit]

Obvious commercial advertising Robinh 20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 02:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Project shining light

[edit]

Project started in July 2005. Not yet notable, less than 10 google hits. Thue | talk 20:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ALREADY DELETED, but by User:Seglea not me. -Splash 02:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the Meme

[edit]

Not notable, 125 google hits for "Spread the Meme" License Model. Thue | talk 21:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Technology Driven Consumer Health Services

[edit]

Reads like essay and ad. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was RESULT delete seglea 21:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyner Constructs

[edit]

see also Mark Joyner, Mark Joyner Construct Zero, Spread the Meme Not a notable term, original research, 4 google hits. Thue | talk 21:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki to wikisource and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Resolutions on Iran-Iraq war

[edit]

Source text, rather than an article about the resolutions and their (non-)effectiveness, which would have encyclopedic merit. Only referenced from two articles. Propose transwiki Content moved to WikiSource, article can be deleted. - choster 21:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 22:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Virginia Beach Collision

[edit]

Fantasy football teams are not notable. [[smoddy]] 21:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mudder

[edit]

This doesn't really belong in a encyclopedia Bobbis 21:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ETAG

[edit]

What is this? Google turns up nothing related to extraterrestrials called "ETAG". Nightwatch 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeep

[edit]

Eeeep is unsourced and non-encyclopecic, and I don't see how it can ever be an encyclopecic article. Delete

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Abalos

[edit]

Vanity page. Tempshill 22:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gualen

[edit]

Not in correct language Hansonc 22:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This ought to be a Speedy. It is a definition of a purported slang word meaning "French kiss", but I've never run across it, although then again I'm not a native speaker of Spanish. If not Speedy, then Delete at any rate. Bill 22:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect Pimple CDC (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackheads

[edit]

propose delete or move to wikibooks. Jshadias 22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows rg

[edit]

Um, it's, um, just a flash movie game thing. Flash jokes are funny, yes, but not encyclopedic. GarrettTalk 23:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sally jacks

[edit]

138 Googles eh Sally? She's real, but terribly non-notable. The article is sweet though. :) GarrettTalk 23:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. CDC (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clickpink.com, Clickpink, Click pink

[edit]

Vain adcruftvana. Recommend crushing by elephant or llama. GarrettTalk 23:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added two more, tempted to speedy them all as adspam flooding. GarrettTalk 00:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Llama's dont crush, they only spit :) JamesBurns 04:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. CDC (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Miandad and Mahrukh Ibrahim

[edit]

Was marked for speedy deletion but I moved it here for VFD to get second opinions: The son and daughter-in-law of Pakistani cricket captain Javed Miandad do not seem notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. not much to merge, really. CDC (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Hummel

[edit]

Useless page about a character of The Rock.Maybe some of the content can be moved to the movie´s page.See also Cmdr.Anderson. nomination by Igordebraga (talk · contribs). Please sign all posts with ~~~~. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. not much to merge. CDC (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cmdr. Anderson

[edit]

Useless page about a character of The Rock

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already merged to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter CDC (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Macnair

[edit]

Minor Harry Potter character, merge to List of characters in the Harry Potter books or ome simialr list page, or simply delete DES 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Richards

[edit]

This is a vanity page. This person is not a notable artist, neither locally, regionally or nationally. This stub has been linked to the New Haven listing to gain notoriety and has been unjustly been listed under "notable new haveners." This stub is autobiographical, being posted by the subject of the article. This article is purely used to promote the artist and the movement of "stuckism," which deserves an article.

This is not a vanity page. Richards is a well-known artist and filmmaker both within the New Haven community, as well as within the East Village underground scene and the London art scene. His work has been shown in different galleries in the US, UK and Europe, including a UK national gallery, the Walker. He's had a film in a major film festival, the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival in 2003. All of this information can be verified easily by Googling his name. It seems to me that this James Burns has some sort of personal issue with Mr. Richards and is dealing with it in this way.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as per agreement below. GarrettTalk 01:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Foulstar

[edit]

Says she's got an internet community, but unless there's some typos I can't find it. Also refers to a male in a wiccen and I thought those were female-only. I assume it's a hoax. GarrettTalk 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wario Land (Virtual Boy)

[edit]

non-notable game from what the article itself says was an unsuccessful game system. DES 00:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.player

[edit]

seems to be one of many mendia player applicacations for Windows. Is this really notable enough to justify an article? DES 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 19:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Velveteens

[edit]

They don't seem to be/have been notable, even an another group with the same name has released 2 albums and is in AMG [28] feydey 23:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why they can't be included. They released two albums (info added to page), played shows as far away from W&M as at least DC. Would it be a fair compromise if I made a page for the other band?

Matter of fact, I'm trying to figure out if that second album (Art of Compromise) was infact the W&M Velveteens or the OH Velveteens. Please don't delete until I've gotten to the bottom of this. Rbeas 24 July 2005

OK PROOF. Art of Compromise was the W&M Group, not the OH group: I followed the above link to the OH group, and found that the AoC album was attributed to them. Read the OH bio here: http://music.channel.aol.com/artist/main.adp?tab=bio&artistid=199715 Now, read the W&M bio here: http://www.scp.org/e-mail/2000/No_024.html

Now, read the album credits on the AoC album here: http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,1132306,00.html

The credits go to members of the W&M band, NOT the OH band. I have also listened to previews of each song at the AllMusic site, and the style matches the Viva album (which I own). Definitely not the "acoustic pop" of the OH group. A further article on the W&M Group: http://www.fcnp.com/issues/0/028/story04.htm Rbeas 24 July 2005

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