< July 5 July 7 >

July 6[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 --Allen3 talk 21:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Purpleback Swamp Alligator[edit]

Delete - Extremely non notable (fake creature mentioned by a character in a non notable book) --Spangineer (háblame) July 6, 2005 00:09 (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 --Allen3 talk 21:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Omar bartej[edit]

Article about an apparently nonexistent folk hero. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 00:42 (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 --Allen3 talk 21:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Brooke evans[edit]

Vanity Groeck 6 July 2005 00:46 (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 (8 Keep, 6 Delete), so keep --Allen3 talk 21:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Erik Hinds[edit]

vanity. Why does it seem that so many musicians think Wikipedia is free ad space? delete UtherSRG July 6, 2005 00:52 (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 01:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MST (band)[edit]

Not notable vanity; 21 hits on Google Groeck 6 July 2005 00:55 (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 --Allen3 talk 21:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Mahfooz ali[edit]

Either non-notable or unverifiable. There doesn't seem to be any relevant hits for "Mahfooz ali" Faizabad or "Mahfooz ali" Gorakhpur, and zero hits for "Mahfooz ali" "Lullaby for a missing child". Niteowlneils 6 July 2005 00:56 (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 01:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grazielle Corapi[edit]

This likely vanity article just narrowly survived VfD because it was lumped in with a few other articles. This person allegedly was in some minor made for TV movie that may have aired in Brazil. No imdb entry for her, and the only google hits are wikipedia. Not notable, vanity, and unverifiable. The VfD trifecta. -R. fiend 6 July 2005 01:08 (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 already been deleted. Woohookitty 02:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (mind control)[edit]

Original research, describing a purported method of mind control as if it was undisputed scientific fact. In current form, Delete. (If evidence was turned up to demonstrate that it represents a notable "theory", it might be worth NPOVing and keeping, but I'm not going to change my vote until such evidence is more than hypothetical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 6 July 2005 01:09 (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 --Allen3 talk 22:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gigli syndrome[edit]

Dubious neologism, apparently used once by Stuart Townsend to describe cliché-filled star-studded flop movies. Phrase gets 16 Googles. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that the phrase was added to Gigli (movie) by the same anon IP who created this article. (diff) The reference should be removed from that article as well, unless there is evidence that the phrase is in common use. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean. In that case, Delete both the article and the instance of it in the Gigli one. Jaxl 6 July 2005 02:24 (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 --Allen3 talk 22:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Soundflavor[edit]

Delete,reads like a commercial ad for a websiteSalsb 6 July 2005 02:10 (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 03:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen mcgrath[edit]

Delete Vanity page of another musician Mrendo 6 July 2005 02:20 (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 03:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wright of Brazil[edit]

Does not establish notability. Appears to be valueless vanity that slipped through the cracks (it's been up since June 24). -- Hadal 6 July 2005 02:41 (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 03:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geodogging[edit]

Either a neologism or nonsense, I'm not sure which - FabioB 6 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

Original entry has now been updated --SockpuppetSamuelson 6 July 2005 09:35 (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 03:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 30 Countdown[edit]

And which of seven bazillion Hot (your number here) countdowns might this one be? Denni☯ 2005 July 6 03:11 (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 concensus (which defaults to keep for now).

In my role as an ordinary editor, I am going to "keep" this as a merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Thomas (storyboard artist)[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. Just a storyboard artist. Vanity, perhaps? Zpb52 July 6, 2005 03:26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Pikmin series. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louie (Pikmin)[edit]

Article has expended all available information. Merge back into Pikmin series Nifboy 6 July 2005 03:33 (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 03:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Church of Happy Goodtimes[edit]

A fine idea, but not notable. You're not going to get to Secular Humanist Heaven on 15 Google hits. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 03:37 (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.
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 no consensus, but a merge may be in order. There is a tie vote between "keep" and "merge and/or redirect". Please settle this question on the article's talk page. -- BD2412 talk 19:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Captain Olimar[edit]

Content redundant with Pikmin series, Merge into Pikmin series. Nifboy 6 July 2005 03:37 (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. Woohookitty 03:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rats off to ya[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Forced "catchphrase" from single episode of Tom Goes to the Mayor; submitter failed to check his fiction. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 03:47 (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 03:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism/def[edit]

This page is nothing but original research ramblings about anarchism. Does not belong in wikipeida's main article space. I recommend deleting it. Tobycat 6 July 2005 04:04 (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. Woohookitty 03:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus production[edit]

Delete. Too vague and nonencyclopedic Zpb52 July 6, 2005 04:12 (UTC)

KEEP!. I change my initial vote. Good stuff now! --Zpb52 July 7, 2005 00:01 (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. 6-3 if you include the nomination. It can always be recreated if he gets big. Woohookitty 03:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vince young[edit]

Too bad about that shaky throwing arm. Stop by again if you make the Big League. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 04:16 (UTC)

Keep When I looked at the UT site, it didn't see anything about the Heisman. Since he is a top pre-season candidate, it is appropriate. --Habap 7 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
I might go ahead and create an article on Navarre. He might have trouble staying on the Cardinals roster this year, as they added Kurt Warner and a rookie from Hawaii who broke some WAC records. --Habap 7 July 2005 15:09 (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. – ABCD 20:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Beast Of Gevauduan[edit]

Full story listed on wikipedia. Unencyclopedic. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 04:19 (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, 1d. -Splash 01:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Question[edit]

Not notable -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 04:27 (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 already. Woohookitty 03:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nutz[edit]

patent nonsense....and them some Sirimiri July 6, 2005 06:04 (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 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Es Ist Polysyllabic[edit]

Yet another page tagged for deletion but not added to the VfD listing. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 6 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Response: Sorry, JIP, but I think our lines crossed. Or, you came across this article while I was crafting the following VfD proposal:

Apart from claiming to be polysyllabic and posing a rather elementary semantic conundrum, this is a one-man electronica/electropop group composed solely of, you guessed it, one man. The whimsy starts there and continues on the linked website, which archly divulges little. What does seem clear is that the album mentioned in the article is vaporware. Likely vanity aside, this doesn't appear to follow Notability and Music Guidelines; delete. -- Hoary July 6, 2005 06:38 (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. -- BD2412 talk 00:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Biggest-selling female musician[edit]

The question is inherently undecidable because there are no certified worldwide record figures to refer to. That's why a shorter version of the article would just say, Unknown and unknowable. Wasted Time R 7 July 2005 00:41 (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 04:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arseblog[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, 17k, 3d, 1m. No votes discounted including red users who have sufficient contribs. -Splash 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of United States imperialism[edit]

By the way, I speak as a citizen of the Philippines, a former colony of the United States. TheCoffee 6 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

a: there wasn`t one but three western zones, of which one was US occupied b: the FRG started in 1949, the US can not have kept it 'occupied', although there was ofcourse, a military presence. --Isolani 6 July 2005 12:13 (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 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh River Editions[edit]

Insignificant, commercial GangofOne 6 July 2005 07:51 (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 04:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THE PRAYER WHEEL™ Program[edit]

Sounds like advertising. Bringing it here to be sure. Delete. - 131.211.210.10 6 July 2005 09:05 (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 04:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RGCapital[edit]

Incredibly stubby, provides no context. I'd say delete, but I don't feel comfortable speedying for short and contentless atm. Is it notable? Does anyone know where it's from? - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Well a google search ([6]) redirects me to "RG Capital" (with a space), which I believe is the same thing and apears notable. So I would say Move to 'RG Capital' and expand. Anser 6 July 2005 09:19 (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 04:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic church of jesus christ cyprus[edit]

No clue whether this church is notable, but it's a misspelled advertisment. Format suggests copyvio. I recommend deletion. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 10:22 (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 KEEP and expand. Unanimous (expansion aside). Tagged and listed for expansion. -Splash 01:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Cornish[edit]

Non-notable, possibly vanity. TheCoffee 6 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

I change my vote, as the article's been expanded since I first put it up for VFD. But I'll let it go through VFD anyway. TheCoffee 7 July 2005 04:27 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedied by request of author. Deletion carried out by Stewartadcock.

911 horoscope[edit]

POV original research. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 10:26 (UTC)

I do not understand what POV original research means. I am in the process of delineating the chart to state the astrological significance of the chart. I do not understand why someone would want do delete this article because I have not written anything in the article that is not true. --TracyRenee 6 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

The consequences of this attack were so extreme that the United States and the United Kingdom were prompted to illegally invade Iraq and capture Sadam Hussein even though they had no firm evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the now infamous attack on the twin towers or had weapons of mass destruction. It's not our place to determine whether the invasion was legal or not and making the chart would break our No original research policy. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:07 (UTC)

All of my work is original, so if you have a policy that states you are not allowed to put in any original research then perhaps it should be deleted. Would you have any objection to me just having the chart there and quoting and quoting that Ruth Montgomery predicted it in her books.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

I have tidied it up and made it as nice and pretty as possible. I have quoted the source of the date of the event as well. I would like to do a nice delineation of the chart, but I am not going to waste me time if you are just going to delete the article because delinations take a lot of time and I am doing this for free for wikipedia but would charge a lot of money if I was doing it for a paying client. I would be grateful, therefore, if you would kindly let me know what your intentions are regarding deleting this article. If you decide not to delete it then I will delineate it the chart. --TracyRenee 6 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

Ruth Montgomery was a journalist and has written many books on spiritualism. She made many predictions re politics but the attack on NYC is probably the most notable. I do not agree with the previous comments re the article being re-hash and I don't agree that it is not encyclopedic.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

(UTC)

Just one question. Do any of the people who have voted for deletion contributed anything to this site other than deleting other people's work? I am interested to know how many people who have voted to delete this piece have actually written an article and put it on the net.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Check our edit histories. Note that I just moved from Alex12_3 though, where I did equally little. However, attacking us will not change our opinions. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
Anyone who's ever written professionally had screamed in the face of had that discussion with their editor. Wiki had countless editors who in addition to not giving a damn about the blood and sweat you've poured into your work are also inconsistant and sometimes just mean. Sorry Tracy, but that's how it is here. It can be very very tough to meet the standard. Don't let us "vote to delete" bastards get you down. And, in the nicest possible way: Delete, original research. - Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

I do not agree with Armadni's comment that I was attacking people. All I asked was if the people who are voting to delete my piece have taken the time to actually write an article themselves. I think it is a fair question. It is easy to criticise other people, but not so easy to come up with original work. It was a question, not an attack. I think that Mr Armandi needs to go and re-read my question. If he cannot even read a simple question then I doubt very seriously that he even read my article. I think that based upon the fact that Mr Armandi accused me of attacking him when I did not shows quite clearly that he is not a credible person to be voting on deletion of my article.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

I think that any reasonable person would realise that my comment was a question. I do not agree with you that it was a personal attack. I think that if people are going to criticise other people's work then they should at least see what it is like to produce original work by writing an article themselves. As I said, I do not agree with you or with Armandi. Your opinion that my question is an attack is POV and is not substantiated by any evidence other than your own opinion, which I believe his highly biased. Also, Aaron voted for deletion and is no longer a member. I do not think that people who vote for deletion and then delete their membership have their votes counted.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

I wrote a really long reply to say what I thought about the comments that have been made on this page, but sadly, it did not save. Suffice it to say, I am not very happy about the things that some of the people have said and I feel that the individuals who accused me of attacking them are totally unsubstantiated in their claims and are only looking to pick a fight. I feel that the individual who said that I was impolite was impolite himself, so it is pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. I feel that the person who said the article was nonsense should not have said it because it was rude (yet I am the one being accused of being impolite). I feel that Ben should not have called Ruth Montgomery a fraud because he has no evidence and his comment is slanderous, or perhaps he was calling me a fraud, I don't know. If Ben was calling me a fraud then his comment was definately slanderous because I have never pretended to be anything that I am not. I have no motivation to retype what I said, as it is only words. I know in my heart that the people who made the most offensive comments about me and my article are deeply unhappy people who have chosen the internet as an avenue to pick fights with people and I doubt very seriously they would have the nerve to do it face to face. If the people who made nasty comments were to say those things to someone's face the person would either laugh at them, hit them, or walk away - either way they would find themselves all alone in the world, which is probably why they are spending all of their time deleting articles on Wikipedia anyway. I do not understand how Hermione could say that title was poorly formatted, now that really is just trying to find things to criticise when a person complains about the formatting of a title.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. A more proper title would have probably been something to the effect of September 11, 2001 horoscope. I'm sorry if you feel antagonised here, but lots of articles get deleted here daily. I read through the article; not being an astrologist myself, it didn't make a lick of sense to me, nor did it seem to follow the guidelines set out in the Wikipedia help pages. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
Look, nothing is personal unless you choose to make it so. Your article doesn't suit Wikipedia. That says nothing about you, unless you choose to think it does. It would seem to make more sense for you to figure out where else your work might go, instead of arguing against what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedians do. --Mothperson 6 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)


I think that Ben's comment that me and/or Ruth Montgomery is a fraud should be struck from this page because Ben cannot prove his comments and it is libel. Ruth Montgomery is a very well respected journalist as well as a spiritualist, and if she were to read Ben's comments, which are not substantiated, then she could very well sue Wikipedia for defamation of character. I also think that the person who made the comment that the article was nonsense should delete the comment becuase it is not constructive. I am being asked not to take things personally, but some of the people who have posted comments have made some very personal attacks on me. The article was in progress and I was going to make an analysis of the chart, if anyone had bothered to read the discussion page they would see that the article was still in progress. If you would like to delete the article that is one thing, but please don't make nasty and offensive comments to me about me, Ruth Montgomery, or my article. The people who have made nasty comments like to see themselves as editors, but no true editor would be given such a position of responsiblity if they were not capable of giving constructive criticism in a positive fashion. The quality of many of the comments has not been positive criticism and I feel is a reflection of the mindsets of the people who posted them.

Libel is very hard to prove in the United States. You'd have to first prove that the comment was false, which would be impossible. Descendall 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • Let me try to go through this once more, since this issue is obviously very important to you. "I am being asked not to take things personally, but some of the people who have posted comments have made some very personal attacks on me." They have said things, but only you have to power to turn them into "personal attacks." Maybe some of them even thought they were making personal attacks, although I tend to doubt it for most of them. But even if they thought that, it doesn't make it real until you decide to believe it is. And even then it still isn't "real" because... oh, never mind. Let's pretend that I - in the persona of - "Icki" - am the person who has made all the remarks you consider offensive (and I might as well be guilty, because I've thought some of them even though I haven't written them down). You've then said that I, Icki, am a slandering, irresponsible, nasty, ungrateful, talentless, rude, bullying, miserable imposter of an editor, and have, by such behavior, earned unhappiness, social shunning, and an eternal damnation to a life of deleting articles such as yours. Well, everything you've said about me, Icki, is yours. What I choose to do with it is mine. I can scream like a banshee, go cry in a closet for an hour, kick a wall, fume for the next six months, or I can tra-la-la my way on to write, edit, or delete another article, grab the inner tube and head for the pond, etc., et al., ad infin. In other words, I can choose to take your words seriously, or I can dismiss them. I would bet real money Icki is doing the latter. Unless you enjoy working yourself up to a lather (and while the melodrama can create a certain adrenaline rush, it doesn't last), you might consider doing the same. It would seem you have talents that other people do appreciate, so why not give up on Icki as a total idiot, and go do something else more enjoyable? --Mothperson 7 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
  • Comment No, we'll have to wait another four years for that Descendall 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

Please find attached a message that I sent to a person in Wikipedia asking that Ben be banned for his comments:-

I would like to make a complaint about Ben W. He has posted some libelous comments on Wikipedia about me and he sent me an email saying that I am a fraud and a liar. He has also taken it upon himself to delete articles, and I think that someone like that should not be allowed to make any entries on Wikipedia. One day he is going to say something about someone who is in a position to sue, and Wikipedia will be in a lot of legal trouble. Thanking you from banning this individual from the site for making libelous comments about me.

I would also like Wikipedia to know that I do not want Ben to send me any more emails. If Ben sends me any emails I will take his malicious communication to the police and seek legal action against him. I will also use the malicious comments that he has made in this site and ask them to look into the matter because there are laws about malicious communication and harrassment, and I consider his emails to me and his postings on this page to be just that.--TracyRenee 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Mothperson, if you don't want any more emails from me that is just fine. I only emailed you because you made a comment and I wanted to speak to you privately about it, but if you don't any more emails from me that is just fine with me. I only sent you one email stating my case and that was all, so I would rather that you did not come on this public forum and try to make it sound as if I have been sending you lots of emails, by using the plural. I promise that I will never ever in a million years send you another email or acknowledge your existance in anyway if you will promise that you will not put in this public forum that I have been sending you plural emails when I only sent you one that I am aware of.

There seems to be problems with the editing of this page because I put comments in and try to save it, and nothing comes of it.

To be honest, I would rather that you just delete the article and this page as soon as possible because I am just to upset to worry about it anymore. The article really pales in comparison to what happened today. There are more important things to worry about, such as the bombing in London. I would rather focus my energies on positive things and not this page, which has become very negative. The people in the group have made some very nasty comments that have been directed at me, and I am very upset about the whole thing. I think that some of the people who have made comments on this page have some very serious issues with regard to bullying, harrassment, libel, slander, just to name a few.

With regard to the legal issues, if a person sends an email to another person's hotmal account, calling them names and saying hateful things then that is harassment. In England there are laws about harrassment and malicious communication, and I doubt very seriously that the police are going to care about Wikipedia's bylaws if BenW continues to send me emails to my hotmal account calling me names and saying things about me.--TracyRenee 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

I do not object to deleting the article, per se. What I object to is the comments that people have made, directed at my article and me personally. People did not have to call the article nonsense and accuse me of attacking them when I asked a very legitimate question of have the people deleting the articles even written any articles themselves. I also feel that Ben W's comments about me are personal attacks. Andriod, I think that your thinking is very biased, so I am not surprised in the least that you would turn it around to try to make it seem as if I have done something wrong. I think that you would rather the people in this forum sit back and hurl abuse and say nothing. With regard to Ben W, he has sent 2 hate mails so far into my hotmail account and has said some really nasty things. I telephoned the police about the hatemail that BenW has been sending me and they advised me what to do about it. Basically, I was told to have no further contact with Ben W and if he continues to send me hatemail then they will investigate the matter. Just because a person is in Wikipedia does not give him a licence to abuse and libel people. A person can say they disagree with the article without making personal attacks. Android, all of your comments to me have been very negative and I know that you are looking for any way to discredit me. You are not taking into consideration that I have feelings and do not like being personally attacked.

I do feel that some of the comments and hatemail I have received are by people who are very clearly unhappy and are not in the right state of mind to be posting messages here. I also have not made any veiled threats about legal action because if people send malicious communication into my hotmail account then I will report the incident to the police. There is such a thing as internet crime, you know. A lot of people think that just because they are on the internet they can act with impunity, and that clearly is not the case.

I think that in light of the London bombings, it would be far better if we focused our efforts in a positive direction and not this forum, which has become quite negative. I have already emailed one of the trustees of Wikipedia and asked for Ben W to be banned because of the libelous comments and the hatemail he has been sending me, and have asked him to close this page down because of the nasty comments made about me personally on this page. I have already informed him that I have reported the hatemail I have been receiving to the police.--TracyRenee 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

People did not have to call the article nonsense... Are you seriously surprised that most people think these things are nonsense? Oh, and delete obviously MyNameIsClare talk 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 04:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osker[edit]

Assuming the contributor wrote the altsound bio as well, this is still a piece of vanity. Otherwise it would be a copyvio from [8] Delete - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:04 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 23:41 (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. Keep votes from entirely new users have been discounted as they are probably sockpuppets of one user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Soma[edit]

"Jonathan Soma, is a fan created fictional character based on the Star Trek Enterprise television series". ie this is fanfiction. Whilst Wikipedia might find a home for articles about famed or notorious pieces of fan fiction, this does not appear to be so. (note google counts are distorted by the apparent existence of a real person with this name - "Jonathan Soma" +Trek, -wikipedia gets 13 hits total.) Morwen - Talk 6 July 2005 11:06 (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 04:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucking[edit]

Promotion + dic def = Delete - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:15 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense --cesarb 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Pimp daddy ceasar[edit]

seeems like nonsense. Irishpunktom\talk July 6, 2005 11:40 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 04:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohman[edit]

Delete This looks like character assassination to me. I do not understand how Wiki can countenance it. The guy has no criminal record if he follows up. But people here are publishing emotional responses. He is not a public figure. The only way in which he is "of media interest" at this point is that Wiki has chosen to make him so. How is he supposed to get a job and move on when anyone can wiki him and read the emotional responses here? There are people on our streets who been convicted of far worse things that do not have wiki articles attacking them.

Keep This person has become an individual of media interest. In the future when one person says to another "it's like the Lohman thing" and they say what? and the first person says "search for him on wikipedia", what will this site have to say on this person of media interest? Nothing? Or a concise article?

Delete This is a vanity page, about an obscure individual, of no encyclopedic value. Furthermore, unless someone is convicted of a crime, it is prejudicial to put accusations against them and publish it in an encyclopedia. After all, you are still innocent until proven guilty. I'd hate to see Wikipedia become a platform for smear campaigns and personal grudges.

Comment I don't see any indication that the accused here is claiming innocence. In fact, he's pleaded guilty in order to avoid jail and to be diverted to an intervention program. Also, I don't see any evidence that the authors of the article have a personal vendetta or grudges.

keep We don't require a conviction for inclusion. This submission is unlikely a personal grudge. This was quite the sensational news item not only at Princeton but in college circles. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) So Wikipedia is now a forum for listing everyone arrested for something? The accused is not a professor or a politician or even a public person. How is this appropriate for an encyclopedia? Furthermore, this seems likely to be applied in a discriminatory manner, since obviously 99% of criminals and accused criminals won't be listed. 2) This could open up Wikipedia for lawsuits of people accused and later proven innocent. Especially bad is when the article is NPOV and states things like "On several occasions, he would cut the hair of Asian women without their knowledge or consent." Typically newspapers and other reputable source make sure to qualify statements with "so and so is accused of ..." or "allegedly".
Comment All of the above were reported similarly by mainstream, non-student news sources because the guy has confessed and admitted as much, making the cautionary language unnecessary. Howee 01:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above, the guy has pled guilty already, so there are not legal issues to consider.

keep The only real problem I see with the existance of this article is the point that it could be construed as a personal attack - however, I think simply what already happened, without a conviction at this point, is noteworthy - the accusations caused a great deal of buzz, conversation, anger that students weren't aware of suspicion earlier, and will likely have long-term effects on the university. If in two years that is not true and/or he is suprisingly cleared of charges, then the article should be deleted - the problem is not that it's an inappropriate topic, it's just that it's not a resolved story yet, and that resolution may, in fact, eventually make it non-notable, but right now I think it is definitely notable - this is not an obscure name in Princeton, certainly... that's the only area I can speak for. Sirmob 21:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


keep I don't see how this page could be viewed as a personal attack. It's a NPOV article that simply recounts what the police report stated. The page also cites third party press articles about these alleged acts. There is no conclusion of Michael Lohman's guilt or innocence so it is not correct to state that this article may potentially open up Wikipedia for a lawsuit. The language in this article is no more discriminatory or libelous than any standard newspaper article. And, as others have pointed out, when this story broke, it attracted a lot of attention. Do a Google search for "Michael Lohman" and you will pull up multiple newspaper articles about this story. For better or worse, the story attracted lot of attention so Lohman is now a public persona. westworld

delete now that he has not been convicted, the page strikes me as dubious. Also, I don't like the precedent of non-notable non-public figures being posted. Is this moving into Megan's Law style sex offender lists??? See lots of potential for abuse, revenge, harrassment of private individuals. Willowx 6 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

Comment This is a really old discussion, neither the person who put this up for VfD nor I (at that point) had really figured out the whole VfD thing, and so it never got listed and after a few weeks it appeared that something like consesus had been reached - I removed the notice instead of listing it under VfD, which I now realize to be inappropriate but forgot to correct and apologize for playing god administrator. I still believe that the person is relevant due to the impact that he had in and out of Princeton. Sirmob 6 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
Why does this entry attract so many deletionist? The man is quite infamous. I even saw someone using "mittenswithhair@domain.com" email address last week. And no I'm not a Tiger - just a crappy state school kid in San Diego. All the more reason to support keeping. lots of issues | leave me a message 6 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
Comment This guy has pled guilty which gives you the same legal status as being convicted, when you're convicted, you're found guilty
Howee 01:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transiency is absolutely not part of the Wikipedia inclusion criteria. And I wonder for how many years this anecdote will affect the enrollment of Asian chicks at Princeton. lots of issues | leave me a message 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
  • Comment Not all criminals or criminal acts get nation-wide media coverage Howee
It's been pointed out that the upset was wide than just his locality. True, but he still isn't a criminal for it (even though he plainly ought to be, IMHO) and this erases the notability of his acts. Non-criminal misbehaviour is non-notable. My vote stands. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
Comment "Pleading guilty" in order to enter an intervention program establishes same level of guilt as being "found guilty", you're guilty nonetheless Howee


  • [10] San Francisco
  • [11] Non-princeton blog, refers to New York Post article
  • [12] Asian Week article (appears to be the San Francisco area)
  • [13] Non-Princeton blog, calls for action against the D.A.'s office it seems
  • [14] Cornell Student's blog, refers to (probably the same) N.Y. Post article.
Plus the item made its way into News of the Weird, a nationally syndicated column.

Let me try to illustrate the shock of this story and why it reverberated further out than the campus. There are 6500 total students at Princeton. Half, 3250 are females, and 10% of that number forms the Asian female population. The man was involved in 50-60 lewd acts. An entire ethnic body nearly systematically targeted! This was a petty pervert but he pulled off an intimidating feat. You can imagine why Asians far from Princeton reacted to this as a shocking hate crime. lots of issues | leave me a message 7 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Comment The man "pled guilty", establishing criminal status, and the case was covered widely by national media outlets, a pretty good indication of notability

carmeld1 06:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had promised myself I was going to stop commenting on this VfD, I apologize - But is it really a legitimate critera to say that something that is only shown to be important to Asians is unimportant to Wikipedia? Sirmob 13:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [15] Boston Globe
  • [16] Lousiana State University student newspaper
  • [17] The Advocate, Baton Rouge daily newspaper


  • [18] Claremont College newspaper
  • [19] Yale Daily News
  • [20] Blog discussing the Lohman story.
  • [21] Another blog discussion
  • [22] Yet another blog that mentions the story.
  • [23] Another blog (all the rest that follow are also blogs of one kind or another)

Clearly this news article caught the attention of a lot of people beyond just Princeton. I don't think it's valid to say that he is not notable or notorious.


1. lack of a criminal conviction
this does not seem to be a particularly useful criteria for notability
for example, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted of a crime
2. lack of relevance to a non-Asian American audience
as pointed out above, even if the story was only of interest to Asians/Asian Americans (highly unlikely given the number of stories in non-ethnic, mainstream press e.g. Boston Globe, NY Post, ABC News, college publications, etc.), there are plenty of Asian and Asian American users of Wikipedia
3. lack of national notability
as noted above, media coverage was not isolated to local, or even regional outlets, but included national outlets
Howee 00:43, 14 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 listing. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles abotu Missouri bowling alley by 24.107.196.241[edit]

Someone tagged these as speedied, but they don't fit the criteria at the moment. User is writing articles about people who (as far as I can tell are non-notable bowlers who frequent a non-notable bowling center. I suggest we delete the lot and gently inform the user what wikipedia is not and how to format entries. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Damn, just saw this now, probably would have saved me some trouble. They're all listed in sequence a few entries down. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 13:57 (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 04:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Aqeel-ul-Gharavi[edit]

Non-notable, no actual google hits (i.e. none of 74 or so hits refers to this person. Most are wikipedia mirrors of this stub.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McIngvale[edit]

Personal vanity and promotion.

  • I looked up and found references, however, as of now, the article still is a vanity page or sounds promotional. So I change my vote to Weak keep. --Ragib 6 July 2005 22:25 (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 04:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strike 'n Spare[edit]

A bowling alley chain in Missouri. Not notable (in my view at least). TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 13:45 (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 04:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Glaze, Kyle Runge, Huevos Grandes, Jeremy Jones[edit]

A minor league bowler from Missouri. not notable/vanity. TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 13:46 (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. – ABCD 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holdingcell[edit]

Originally for speedy, not a candidate. Not notable, never produced anything. Delete. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:12 (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. – ABCD 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incineration Demon[edit]

no context, name returns 2 results total on google, no idea what this is supposed to be. Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:13 (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. – ABCD 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skrunk[edit]

Delete Neolgism. Wikibofh 6 July 2005 14:20 (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 copyvio. – ABCD 20:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fleurier Quality Foundation[edit]

Also trawled from Speedy. Looks to be advertising and spam. Delete. ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:23 (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. – ABCD 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tobril[edit]

no context, full of broken links Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:28 (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 to Hizb ut-Tahrir: 3r, 1k, 1 ambiguous. Even taking Fred's vote as a delete, there is a consensus to keep and a consensus among those to redirect. -Splash 01:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hizb-ut-Tahrir[edit]

Listed as Speedy, but is not a candidate. Abstain, because I am not knowledgeable in this field. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)


-I changed my vote to redirect, contingent upon this article no longer existing and a simple redirect to the better article is the course taken. It has been five days - I suggest it is time for action to be taken.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 delete Dunc|☺ 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J Culture[edit]

Also trawled from speedy. This is what I get from Google when try to clear out unrelateds. As you can see, there are still many unrelateds. Delete for possible vanity and NN. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:41 (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 wasKEEP: 4k, 2d inc. nominator. -Splash 01:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Howard[edit]

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:46 (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 copyvio. – ABCD 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime Computer Solutions[edit]

Looks like a nice place to have in town, but as it stands it's not notable, POV issues, therefore advertising. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:49 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

RANd0msNARk[edit]

It is nonsense and NN A curate's egg 6 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

Speedied. No context and illogical. Therefore, impossible to expand. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Circus Fire Memorial Foundation[edit]

Unless someone wants to rewrite this, not a proper encyclopedia article Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:57 (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. – ABCD 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Love[edit]

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:59 (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. – ABCD 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Phi Psi Fraternity,[edit]

A new "cruft": Fratcruft! Advertising, POV, vanity, rubbish. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:56 (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. – ABCD 20:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levent Onural[edit]

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 15:02 (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.  Grue  19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K!TV[edit]

I have never even heard of such a thing being invented in my life, I alos think that it's a bit far-fetched and un-realistic. It is also fat, far, far too short to even qualify as an article. 213.122.37.67 6 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 2 to delete (including the nominator), 2 to keep, 1 to "keep or merge". Some form of merge may be in order. -- BD2412 talk 01:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

High Guard[edit]

NN. This all fantasy stuff - there is no High Guard in the real world!A curate's egg 6 July 2005 15:34 (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. – ABCD 20:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lil ceez[edit]

Delete, non-notable/vanity --Spangineer (háblame) July 6, 2005 15:40 (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, but move to the non-abbreviated first name spelling at Michael Resnik. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Resnik[edit]

non notable Elfguy 6 July 2005 15:44 (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. – ABCD 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Thornton[edit]

Page is unencyclopedic. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

  • Change vote to delete per clarification of article below. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:39 (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. – ABCD 20:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rllmuk[edit]

This article was very obviously created in the first instance by some joker with a chip on his shoulder. It is of no general interest, and has been through numerous revisions, all adding joke-like insults about what appears to be an insignificant Internet forum somewhere. Even the current brief entry has Edge Magazine linked to gay magazine. The article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and exists only for a few geeks to play around with.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blank mall[edit]

Googling "Blank mall" results in 130 hits, none of which appear pertinent. Two-line article is ostensibly about a yogurt and cream dessert, which seems to be unencyclopaedic. jglc | t | c 6 July 2005 16:17 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.  Grue  19:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z-movie[edit]

Neologism, no relevant google hits except the page itself Tom k&e 6 July 2005 16:37 (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. – ABCD 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Crawford[edit]

vanity. Delete TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 16:39 (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. – ABCD 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Guy[edit]

Tagged on May 14 but not listed on VfD. no vote here. --Nabla 2005-07-06 16:42:31 (UTC)

(by User:219.185.204.50)
(by User:12.223.62.55 )
(by User:24.152.176.16)
(by User:222.2.54.201)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Skelly[edit]

More vanity. Delete TheMidnighters 6 July 2005 16:44 (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. – ABCD 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kawymeno[edit]

Not notable. One google result. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 16:51 (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 and redirect to Stephen J. Kopp. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Kopp[edit]

non notable or vanity. 20 google results. Delete. Incorrect spelling of Stephen J. Kopp. Merge as per DS1953.TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 00:04 (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 and redirect to Prohibition (drugs). — Trilobite (Talk) 02:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War On Some Drugs[edit]

Tagged on Jun 23 but not listed on VfD. No vote. Nabla 2005-07-06 16:55:02 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk 02:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

West Vancouver Secondary School[edit]

Tagged on May 19 (also West Vancouver Secondary School,, now a redirect) but not listed on VfD. No vote here. --Nabla 2005-07-06 17:05:53 (UTC)

Vanity page (unfortunately not accomodated by speedy deletion.) Deltabeignet 01:15, 19 May 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 deleted. – ABCD 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master John(female)[edit]

Star wars vanity. nn.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:19 (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 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi programming language[edit]

Advertisement for a game released around june 27. not notable.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:25 (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: 4k, 1d. -Splash 02:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger (truck)[edit]

Not notable. Vanityish.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

Wikibofh 6 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
  • No worries. I assumed good faith.  :) Wikibofh 6 July 2005 20:25 (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. – ABCD 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Tho Zin[edit]

Not notable. Vanity. Zero google hits.-- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 17:39 (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 --cesarb 13:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romath[edit]

The voting for this proposition has been compromised by deleting entries by an anon user. Take note when tallying.

I don't really CARE what your dumb 'vote' results in. 

I have already posted the FACT that Wikipedia DOES NOT have MY permission to keep this page, and likewise, it does not have my permission to save, archive, re-direct, retrieve, or post ANY page using either my Rihannsu OR my real name.

Wikipedia had better govern itself accordingly.

This seems to have originally been a vanity page, now the subject would like it deleted - given its history, I see no reason not to delete. sannse (talk) 6 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)


Nonvoting comments appear below, relocated from elsewhere in the voting page.

FROM Romath: It most certainly is a page of lies and innuendo, NOT posted there by me. I came across the thing quite by accident, and only tried to CORRECT the lies in it, merely finding some fool keeps on putting the lies right back in. I even tried redirecting the page in order to have my full Rihannsu name entered, then hoopefully having a page where the TRUTH would be left alnoe, but to no avail. someone screwed that up, removed the full name refirect, then falsely accused me of trying to say 'Rihannsu'; was religion, which I never, ever did! I even tried blanking the pagew because of the all-too-frequent vandalism against it. Next, 'evil monkey; blocked me from entering in order to re-edit. I solved that crap by going to another computer and getting in. To thie very DAY-- the crap still goes on --- I re-edit to tell the truth----- certain individuals plaster the lies right back into it.

As I mentined before, this vanity page was NOT placed here by me, and since I am the person being discussed, Wikipedia DOES NOT HAVE my permission to keep this page. It also serves NO PURPOSE to see ridiculous editing wars in here, in a site that has potential as a valuable learning tool if used properly. Allowing ridiculous pages like this one to exist and remainis an error, both to the encyclopedia end of things, and legally.

As I have been asking for some timer now, PLEASE DELETE THE ROMATH PAGE. IT IS NOT MINE, I DID NOT PLACE IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND ITS LIES ARE CONSTANTLY BEING PUT RIGHT BACK IN AFTER I CORRECT THEM. DELETE IT PLEASE, AND AT ONCE. Romath

========[edit]


FROM Romath: I post my name WHERE I WANT IT POSTED, yes. HERE is not it, and I have NEVER POSTED IT HERE. 

It also has been posted AGAINST MY WILL on certainb sites, including this one, and in usenet.

As for the 'kook' crap, that is nonsense. A bunch of detractors supposedly nominated me for uisenet's kook of the month award years ago for my strong oppostion to certain lifestyle issues. Just because I am against such things, that doesn't verify I'm a 'kook' of any kind.


FROM Romath:

Wikipedia DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO KEEP IT. It was placed on Wikip[edia illegally to begin with.

FROM ROMATH: You still do not have my permission to keep or use a Romath page, or ANY PAGE THAT HAS MY REAL OR RIHANNSU NAME ON IT.

GET IT OFF and kindly KEEP IT OFF.

Wikipedia doesn't need your permission to keep or use a Romath page, with or without your real or assumed name. If you feel differently, kindly cite the relevent sections of whatever legal code governs Wikipedia entries so we can judge. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 11 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. – ABCD 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Census and Excise Building (Seyda Neen)[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. A building from a video game. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:06 (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. – ABCD 20:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cachero[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Somebody's MMORPG character. RPG gamer vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:05 (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. – ABCD 20:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Espana[edit]

nonnotable person - J3ff 6 July 2005 18:08 (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. – ABCD 20:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel nagle sexton[edit]

nonnotable person - J3ff 6 July 2005 18:08 (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. – ABCD 20:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Snider[edit]

Notability not established. Sietse 6 July 2005 18:39 (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. – ABCD 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Herrera Legorreta[edit]

This appears to be a vanity/autobiography page: User:Danakil appears to be Herrera. Moreover, Herrera does not seem to be notable according to Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. The NGL programming language doesn't show up anywhere else on the Web (see Talk:NGL_programming_language) and I can't find anything about the revival of the oligosynthesis theory for Nahuatl language — there is a different Herrera (Fermin Herrera) who has published work on Nahuatl. There should at least be citations for this work -- Wikipedia:Verifiability. I brought up these concerns on Talk:Ernst Herrera Legorreta in April, and have seen no response. --Macrakis 6 July 2005 18:45 (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.

Comment from Danakil: I regret not having able to respond to this before: I had to take a year off from contributing to Wikipedia (see my homepage for details). No, I am NOT Ernst Herrera Legorreta (EHL). But I happen to have met him personally (in an academic setting) while in Mexico and, being thus directly involved, it now seems to me that I shouldn't have been the original author of the bio article. Furthermore, I do agree with most of the other comments made here regarding the EHL article, and I concord with the idea of removing the bio article until more information can be obtained from other sources. The work of EHL is mostly known in the area of Programming Languages (a very serious, public source is the Mexican business magazine "EXPANSION" which has interviewed EHL at length at least two times, first in 1997 then in 1999, the records of which are available online through the magazine's web site). He has been (indirectly) nominated twice for the top technology prizes awarded by the Mexican Government (first, as the chief architect of Miramar Technology SAdeCV, and second, as the chief scientist of Tlallian SAdeCV). But of course, it could be argued that these facts, though indeed verifiable, do not qualify him for a bio article. To this I would comment that it might be reasonable to set slightly different degrees of minimum accomplishment to be worthy of a bio depending on the geographical context where the person in question mostly develops. Mexico is not the in the same league as the US in technological accomplishments. One final comment, regarding the Nahuatl aspect of EHL's work: unlike the work done in most US universities, that done in most of the Mexican ones (with some localized exceptions in certain academic areas, mostly from the UNAM and the ITESM) is *not immediately available online*, if it ever becomes so. This, I believe, explains the difficulty in finding online confirmation of EHL's Nahuatl-related work, which was done, IIRC, at the Universidad Autonoma de Tamaulipas and the Center for Huaxtec Studies in Tampico, Tamaulipas. I will try to find more information regarding that work and, in the meantime, I fully agree with the consensus reached about the deletion of the bio article. Nevertheless, I do believe that the NGL Programming Language (which was also removed at the time) should be reinstated. NGL is a descendant of the J Programming Language created by Herrera and about which there is firm, public information regarding its use by the government of several Mexican States (Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon being the most easily verifiable ones) in a large number of instalations covering, at least, 30 different municipalities. 201.135.18.50 07:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource, so I will keep the articles for the moment and submit them to the transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of beauty, The lagoon[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Also marked for copyvio, but copyright has expired: this is an essay by Ethel Dench Puffer Howes originally published in 1905. Project Gutenberg has a copy. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

  • Oh, I added The lagoon to this VfD, if it wasn't already obvious. Wikibofh 6 July 2005 22:14 (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. – ABCD 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beavermatic[edit]

Simple vanity page: about the author Gunmetal 6 July 2005 18:48 (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. – ABCD 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Richard Johns[edit]

One of the first men to marry another man in San Francisco. Being one of the first (as opposed to the first) is not notable in my opinion. Sietse 6 July 2005 18:58 (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. – ABCD 20:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NGL programming language[edit]

This language appears to be an experiment by Herrera (apparently = User:Danakil). In April, I said on its Talk page: I cannot find any information about this language on the Web, either substantive content or pointers to off-line publications (though there are lots of Wikipedia mirrors...). And no additional information has been forthcoming. If the language is unpublished and unavailable to outside users (no matter how good it is), it doesn't seem useful to mention it in Wikipedia. Delete. --Macrakis 6 July 2005 19:00 (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. – ABCD 20:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intricacy[edit]

The definition part has been moved to wiktionary. The other part of the entry only deals with an exhibition. That part should be moved to the Greg Lynn entry. Since all info should be moved, I think this article should be deleted. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 6 July 2005 19:08 (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.
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 keep. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

Kalev Ots[edit]

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed 194.126.101.136 6 July 2005 19:06 (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. – ABCD 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Alexander Ballew[edit]

Notability not established. Sietse 6 July 2005 19:09 (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. – ABCD 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheris[edit]

Notability not established. Sietse 6 July 2005 19:10 (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 and REDIRECT to Paul Graham article. 5m, 1d. Sentence incorporated into that article and this one redirected. -Splash 02:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arc programming language[edit]

LISP variant that doesn't actually exist yet; no publicly available implementation, no spec, no schedule for either. Vaporware, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 19:20 (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. – ABCD 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical myths[edit]

This is not an article. A intro paragraph which gets too much honor, if called original research. And one of the mostincoherent lists I've seen here. --Pjacobi July 6, 2005 19:28 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baugh productions[edit]

Delete: Appears to be vanity, or at least nn. I found less than 10 references with Google (Jim Baugh Productions is not the same), most of those being forum posts by the 11 year old manager of the production company or wikipedia mirrors. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish July 6, 2005 19:40 (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.
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 delete. (this was already done; I'm just cleaning up the markup). -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

Pocreas[edit]

SPEEDIED Fawcett5 6 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Page is nonsense, does not seem to relate to Pokemon at all, and contains no other information. I tried to do a quick bit of research but turned up absolutely nothing on the subject. Delete. – Mipadi July 6, 2005 19:49 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Diablo (comics)[edit]

User created page and made two edits to it - all are nonsensical. Current article is simply an paperdoll image with no explanation. Character is unfamiliar to me. jglc | t | c 6 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahan[edit]

WP:WINAD. Delete all foreign language dicdefs. (Oh yeah, and it has already been transwikied.) Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 19:59 (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 00:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netpreneur[edit]

Article is a dicdef of a neologism; I deleted creator's name and contact info, but the article is still unacceptable for inclusion. jglc | t | c 6 July 2005 19:59 (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.

To add my own opinion to the list, a discussion of their strategy is problematic in an encyclopedia. Corporate strategies tend to be transient. They rarely have the sustainability necessary to create truly independent and verifiable articles. The HP Way might be an exception based on the volume of independent press coverage it received but even that is proving to be somewhat transient. In either case, it should be discussed in context whenever possible. In other words, this content might have been acceptable as an addition to the main Cisco Systems article even though it was found to be inappropriate to have added as an independent article. Rossami (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco on Cisco[edit]

Pure advertising/PR for a company's business strategy. Written solely by an editor or editors logging in from Cisco Systems IPs. Also Cisco@Work, but that's being handled as a copyvio. Red links in articles indicate that this is just the beginning of the campaign. Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 19:59 (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.

Note: The recommendations to transwiki to WikiTravel had to be discounted. WikiTravel is not a MediaWiki project and is not GFDL-compatible. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of obscure or inaccessible London attractions[edit]

This page has been around for a while and its inadequacies have been pointed out on its talk page. It is arbitary and some of the items chosen do not even fit the title. I could produce half a dozen lists this length that would match the title better, but I wouldn't post them on Wikipedia. We have a full list of London museums and a London attractions category. Merging is not appropriate because the London article already contains too many lists and it would do nothing to address the arbitary nature of this one. So delete CalJW 6 July 2005 20:01 (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.

Despite the very low number of participants in this discussion, I find myself agreeing with the nominator that the allegations about the company are unverifiable. This does not meet our normal standards for inclusion. The fact that the wording of the current content is hyperbolic is not really a deletion criterion but it does indicate that the current content would be of only limited help if/when a verifiable article is written on this topic. I am closing this as a "delete" but without prejudice against the re-creation of a properly encyclopedic article on this topic (if one can be created). Rossami (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuware[edit]

Delete advertising --IByte 6 July 2005 20:03 (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. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

k k[edit]

This is a pure slang / initialism definition. I've moved it to the wikitionary, I see no encyclopedic value for it here.

Originally tagged by Consumed Crustacean but not completed due to a typo. Completing VFD. No Vote --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 20:07 (UTC)
Eck, this is why the VFD went nowhere. Thanks. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | July 6, 2005 20:56 (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 disam.. Already done. Woohookitty 00:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Git (software)[edit]

The current page shows an obscure usage of the word "Git", which is primarily a british slang term. It should be deleted to make way for a defintion, or a disambiguation page with a link to the definition. The page GIT, which is a disambiguation page for acronyms, should be merged with it. Artw 6 July 2005 20:31 (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 02:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles related to Nikola Tesla[edit]

This is a template in the main article namespace, as of now included in Nikola Tesla and Magnifying Transmitter. This is not only unusual, but also irrating and inspires some fear, that it will finally end up in any article in Category:Nikola Tesla.

See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#List_of_articles_related_to_Nikola_Tesla. I'm unclear which process applies. Pjacobi July 6, 2005 20:37 (UTC)

When in doubt, VfD takes precedence. Since this page is not in the Template: namespace, TFD doesn't handle it. -- 6 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Note that this was originally on TfD, and only brought here, as someone pointed out, that TfD is only for the Template namespace. What I primarily wanted to achieve, was to outrule its use as a template, i.e. transcluding it with ((List of articles related to Nikola Tesla)). I count only two votes against this intention, and these two also have reservations:

Hopefully I've summarized this right. --Pjacobi 17:22, July 16, 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Usagi704

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 02:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hemadrone[edit]

Seems to be a creature that is only in the head of one person on this planet, and that person doesn't even has its own article here. Google results are also quite low (below 100), so I guess this is not really notable. --Conti|✉ July 6, 2005 21:10 (UTC)

Well, feel free to try and create a new meme, but wikipedia is not the place for creating memes, it is the place to write about already well established memes. So if the word will be someday as notable as the boogeyman, I will stop opposing the existance of such an article. --Conti|✉ July 7, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
Interesting thing for joeschmo99 to write on his first edit in Wikipedia... I like the way he signed his name, too. Grutness...wha? 8 July 2005 00:25 (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.
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 delete Dunc|☺ 23:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Neuman[edit]

The subject of this article doesn't appear to be notable--nothing he's done has earned him a spot in an encyclopedia. Just a video editor (and not a famous one). Delete. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 21:10 (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 KEEP -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidlin[edit]

Original page content was a resume. (See page history.) This was replaced by a line saying "This should be removed permanently". So I put it up for VfD. Resume actually appears fairly notable. — RJH 6 July 2005 21:27 (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 redirected per gfdl -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One One Se7en[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 delete Dunc|☺ 23:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Aquilina[edit]

No evidence of notabliity, also was moved from "CHARLENE AQUILINA." You (Talk) July 6, 2005 21:54 (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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pelloud[edit]

On June 4, 2005, commons user commons:User:Pelloud uploaded a photo of french artist Franz-Emmanuel Pelloud to WikiCommons. 14 minutes later, on 12:55, User:82.226.28.129 created an article about same artist.

It is not unreasonable to believe that the person with username Pelloud is identical with artist Pelloud and that he has written an article about himself. French Wikipedia do not have an article called "Pelloud". This clearly seem to be a vanity article about a non-notorious person and should be deleted. Thuresson 6 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A4. Essjay · Talk 06:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lost Warld[edit]

This page has already been deleted once, and has simply been reposted with no new content, as noted by DoubleCross on the talk page. I therefore formally propose that it is deleted again. ThomasHarte 23:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

Original discussion of deletion follows:

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 02:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Warld[edit]

I think this article seems more like a footnote for the Hideo Kojima article than something that deserves a whole page. Considering that:

What does anyone else thinks?

Jonny2x4 03:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This article was first nominated on April 24, 2005, but was never listed on vfd. You (Talk) July 6, 2005 22:03 (UTC))

Keep all commercial computer and video games. You 18:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Completely useless; it could be (and basically already is) summed up in the Kojima article without any problem. --DoubleCross 06:53, Jun 14, 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.
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 delete Dunc|☺ 23:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butt Crack Johnnies[edit]

totally not notable seglea 6 July 2005 22:21 (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. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Aschbrenner[edit]

Questionable notability, delete, related to Marsh River Editions --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:44 (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, however it has been redirected as duplicate content with the other article -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amiel (aesthetics)[edit]

fixing format, no vote --Etacar11 6 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

There is already an article for the philosopher Amiel: Henri-Frédéric Amiel. Therefore the recent stub Amiel (aesthetics) is a useless duplicate and should be deleted. I have already modified the unique link that pointed to Amiel (aesthetics). -139.166.240.7 6 July 2005 23:02 (UTC) Neumeier

Henri-Frédéric Amiel was professor of aesthetics only during 6 years, before being professor of philosophy during 27 years. The title of this article is not well choosen, there are no links to that article, and an article with correct title (full name) exists. Nobody will look for "Amiel (aesthetics)" if an article on Henri-Frédéric Amiel is wanted. For these reasons: deletation --Neumeier 7 July 2005 18:29 (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 04:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about Scientology[edit]

See Talk:List of articles about Scientology#Vote for deletion AI 6 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Either way, I don't think it's a good idea to remove these list pages one by one. If it is decided that they are redundant, it should first be proposed to the entire wiki, and then done to all these list pages. --Dyss 7 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
I think list pages have much more merit and can go into great detail - some are very complex and there is no one category that would be able to cover more than 200 list article pages that are on some list pages - that would be impossible to navigate. In addition, many topics need a one-stop-shop for all the articles about them, and categories are too limited. I know of a couple list pages (I'd rather not draw attention to them because of this issue) that cover more than a dozen categories, but all the categories deal with one subject. This is not a new idea - even britanica has a topical guide index, if you will, that is similar, but has a category system as well as a see also system. All three are useful navigation tools and are much needed in my opinion for navigating such a large wiki. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

Vote Summary: Keep: 4 Delete: 6

No consensus reached as of 8 July 2004

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Gene Juarez Salon and Spa[edit]

Business vanity. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:30 (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. VfD tag rm'd from article on 12 July by User:Duncharris but not mentioned here. Therefore, no counting of votes offered by me (though it's pretty obvious). -Splash 02:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbull[edit]

The contents of this article is silly nonsense (possibly even a candidate for BJAODN!) written by an anon IP. Perhaps, there ought to be a proper article about the Turnbull surname here, but I don't really have the inclination to do it and don't think it would be read by anybody if I did. Therefore, I suggest the article should be deleted. NicholasTurnbull 6 July 2005 23:32 (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.
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 deleteDunc|☺ 23:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph T. Underwood[edit]

Vanity. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:41 (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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proactionary Principle[edit]

Neologism, still warm from the oven. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:45 (UTC)

  • Keep.
    • vote by anonymous user 80.47.62.145, whose only edit is this vote. Ken
  • Keep.
    • vote by anonymous user 209.128.88.148, whose only edit is this vote. Ken
  • Delete nn neologism. Ken 00:15, July 18, 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Cyrius|✎ 7 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Lower jerk[edit]

If I ruled the world, this thing would be speedied as patent, deliberately well-formatted nonsense. But since I don't, I feel compelled to drag it to VfD.

Oh, I mean: not verifiable, hoax, and possibly an insult page, though a very abstract one if that's the intent. JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense -- Coneslayer 2005 July 6 23:47 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think it classifies for speedy as patent nonsense... --IByte 7 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense --Henrygb 7 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
  • Delete but not speediable - it's nonsense, but not patent nonsense. -- Jonel | Speak 7 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)
  • Delete It's already been speedy deleted twice guys, is there any reason not to just do that again? Also if I could have protected the title to keep it from being created again I would have. - Taxman Talk July 7, 2005 17:42 (UTC)
    You're right, I missed that; I didn't check for other speedies since this page unfortunately isn't, regardless of how I turn policy around. However, this is obviously going to be deleted with massive support, and it definitely can be speedied and/or protected afterwards as recreation of deleted content. JRM · Talk 7 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
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 delete Dunc|☺ 23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke skinner[edit]

Cannot find any record of this person or the group mentioned in the article. It is either a hoax, or something real but insignificant. Tobycat 7 July 2005 00:03 (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.
More