< September 25 September 27 >

Purge server cache

September 26[edit]

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, which defaults to keep. Ral315 WS 02:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaded[edit]

See the webcomic here and their one man band forum here. Webcomics reach their end user purely through the means of the internet, so Alexa ranking is a good way of finding out how popular one is. When you have a ranking of over 2 million, this is clearly not good. This is a none notable webcomic with a tiny readership, and with 2 million more popular sites out there, it's time to remove this from wikipedia. - Hahnchen 00:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adara (porn star)[edit]

If a porn star is "infrequently seen", does she count as a porn "star"? Delete as advertising and possible vanity. Vizjim 00:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Horsefucker[edit]

It is a dubious phrase with only 15 unique hits in Google [2], supposedly coined by a site with Alexa ranking over 125 000 [3] -- ReyBrujo 00:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neltark and Willie[edit]

Is wikipedia the first port of call for budding webcomic artists? Due to excessively lax inclusion guidelines at WP:COMIC, it seems to becoming so with so many unnotable webcomics on wikipedia. This one has been around 3 months and produced, what, 20 strips? Alexa shows it as a no rank. Sigh. - Hahnchen 00:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on idiocy[edit]

Nn web movement/forum. Vanity on part of D-prime. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 00:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is likely not know[n] by the leaders themselves what the actual purpose of WOI is." Yeah. Which side of that war are they on, anyhow? Delete per nominator, and IfD the picture per Nameneko. Barno 06:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus-default to keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Audrey Hollander[edit]

Crystal ball, possible advertising, possible vanity, probable porncruft... Vizjim 00:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Del Mar 8[edit]

Webcomic hosted on keenspace here. We can see it is not a popular keenspace comic, as it is not mentioned in the Alexa report. It must be sub top 50 I guess. Also, the comic is fairly new, having on made 40 or so strips, and has been running for a few months. I do not endorse WP:COMIC, the guidelines state that when this comic reaches the 100 strip barrier, it should have an article. This is wrong, however, it doesn't even meet their incredulously slack criteria. Would not be surprised if it is vanity/advertising. - Hahnchen 00:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ceciliantes[edit]

DicDef. Jwissick(t)(c) 00:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polynucleotide[edit]

DicDef. Jwissick(t)(c) 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War Educator[edit]

Not Nobable. Alexa rank of 1.8 million. Jwissick(t)(c) 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete content, then Redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live Long and Prosper[edit]

Ad. Vanity. Link promotion. and other sins... Jwissick(t)(c) 01:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Svetambar[edit]

Dic Def. Translation. Jwissick(t)(c) 01:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Detective Fork[edit]

Totally none notable webcomic, found here, with a massive 5 registered forum members. The article was written by a User:DetectiveFork, who has also mentioned wikipedia on the news section of his site, have a read! I do have to let the inclusionists know that it is verifiable however. - Hahnchen 01:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never one to turn down a good hit. Wait, lemme rephrase that. I'm never one to to turn down a good way of getting hits for this Web site. When I found Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia edited by its users, I proceded immediately to create a page for Detective Fork...
I hope that the author understands, wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a forum for creating hits. Once the webcomic is notable, someone else will create the article. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Kevin

DetectiveFork 21:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DetectiveFork 00:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fhashality[edit]

Not Notable. No google listings. Jwissick(t)(c) 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. -Splashtalk 13:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikichallenge[edit]

Tagged for speedy, but doesn't really seem to be one. I don't really think this lives in Wikipedia: space either. -Splashtalk 02:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rose garrett[edit]

Likely Hoax checked google Could it be A7 --JAranda | yeah 02:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Move to Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt - done. Ral315 WS 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JARCE[edit]

nn journal for nn group Delete --JAranda | yeah 03:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Richards[edit]

Appears to be vanity; article does not establish notability. This person doesn't even appear to be the most notable "Dave Richards" in the software industry; another guy by that name is VP of RealNetworks (unless they're the same guy, but their info doesn't seem to match.) Paul 03:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Healing trauma for activists[edit]

This is a how-to article and an ad for a website and book. Any useful content is already covered by other articles. -- Kjkolb 03:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aryeh Malkiel Kotler[edit]

Seems to be a dean of a very small private college. Not notable. Jwissick(t)(c) 03:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BenLadner.com[edit]

Not notable. rank of 2.6 million. Jwissick(t)(c) 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Kearns[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. No "Neil Kearns" in Imdb. Ben Nevis 04:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 WS 02:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Placement European Civilization[edit]

As this google search shows, the term is primarily used as the name of a course at a few high schools. It corresponds to the European History Advanced Placement Examination, which itself does not merit an article. NatusRoma 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - 9 delete (including nom)/3 keep(including 1 categorize, 1 keep, and 1 merge} Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Celebrity carpenter[edit]

This phrase is (virtually?) never used. Obvious neologism. --zenohockey 04:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Watson[edit]

No claims to notabilty. No google referances. Jwissick(t)(c) 04:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Wrestlers[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. If there really was a show of this name, it didn't feature the cast list given, which is a mixture of real wrestlers and other celebrities less known for their wrestling. Ben Nevis 04:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guff was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Guff

Dictdef for foreign language. Possible candidate to move to Wiktionary. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 07:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-gray[edit]

No content, no possible content, nowhere to redirect to. dbenbenn | talk 04:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pale blue-purple[edit]

No content, no possible content, redirecting to Blue is not appropriate. dbenbenn | talk 04:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brown-red[edit]

No content, no possible content, nowhere to redirect to. dbenbenn | talk 04:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe (color)[edit]

No content, no possible content, redirecting to Yellow is not appropriate. dbenbenn | talk 04:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Man and Mighty Tighty Rhymefish[edit]

Not notable. Not found on music sites. Jwissick(t)(c) 04:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

should also include the redirect Walrus man and mighty tighty rhymefish. Jwissick(t)(c) 04:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Off Engraved Signs[edit]

Not notable. Just spam Jwissick(t)(c) 04:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Boivin[edit]

Fixing unsuccessful AfD nomination only. No vote on my part. Metropolitan90 06:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Content is already on Wiktionary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped off[edit]

Although "ripped off" is a common phrase, this article is no more than a dictionary definition. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levulan[edit]

Not notable. Please examine previous version as well. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 05:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why marked for deletion? I wrote the article from scratch.

This is not advertising. I recently underwent Levulan Therapy and there is almost no information about it available on the web. The treatment is brand new and very effective at treating both acne and scars. As a longstanding acne sufferer, I can promise you that people will be happy to learn about this procedure. I wrote a long article about my experience at [[10]] and posted the beginning of the article on wikipedia. I am willing to post entire article and remove link, if that is causing the deletion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]

I have nominated this page for deletion for the following reasons:

1. Jimbo Wales gave his word to me that this page would be protected from vandalism and that he would take actions to prevent wikipedia from being used as a platform for libel and posting of sealed court documents.

WALES POST 1: I did agree with Mr. Merkey to take down some vandalism which has been posted here about him, and temporarily protect the articles while we sort out what's going on.Some really vile stuff was posted about him in some of these articles by anonymous ip numbers -- he seemed to think that it was one of our admins, but I explained otherwise. What I can safely say is that Wikipedia should not libel anyone, and that our normal standards of good conduct are expected of everyone.--Jimbo Wales 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above has now been clarified to be a correct quotation of a post made by Jimbo Wales in this edit, in response to this edit by 67.137.28.189 (talk · contribs).

Nomination Withdrawn Based upon the assurances of the Wiki Editors, and their prompt, diligent and COURTEOUS commentary on this page, and their acknowledgement of the Mr. Wales Views and directives. My nomination of this page for deletion is hereby withdrawn.


  • I will scan and post my DD214 and Orders granting the awards from the Secretary of the Army. 67.137.28.187 23:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see Jimbo Wales' assurances in his own words. Could someone post the actual text of his promises, or a pointer to them? Jimbo sometimes makes very carefully qualified statements, and people sometimes engage in wishful thinking when relating what he said in their own words. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As requested by me, the relevant text has been quoted above, in the paragraph, "WALES POST 1". The original posting appears in Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey which I ought to have checked myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just reviewed the changes since the page was unprotected and I don't see anything that looks to me like "vandalism" by the "SCOX lynch mob" or anything else. All I see is some wikification by User:Jonathunder, who is not a vandal, and the addition and then the removal of a ((vprotect)) tag by an anon, 67.177.35.211, followed by the insertion of an ((afd)) tag. Gadugi, what exactly is your complaint?
I can easily believe that Jimbo promised in a general that way the page would be protected from vandalism, but I find it unlikely that he promised that the content of any page would remain indefinitely under the control of any single individual. It is appropriate to ask the Wikipedian community to exercise special vigilance on a page, but not to ask that nobody ever be allowed to change it, or that all changes be preapproved by a single person. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If vandalism can be controlled, I have no objection to this page. As for quoting from a 9 year old ruling, anyone who believes that mouldy piece of fiction written by Novell's stooge judge speaks for itself. It reads like an astrology report. If you are going to quote from it, please also quote from the orders removing the judge from the case by the Utah State Legislature and the Judicial Conduct Commission. You are free to quote facts, just remember there are two sides to every story, and you should present NPOV which is to present both sides. Also be advised that some portions of these court documents are sealed. Gadugi 17:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protect yourself from falsehood This is a pearl indeed from the talk page of Antaeus Feldspar. It certainly applies here: I used to believe (and tell others that I believed) that "When your goal is to act in an ethical and moral manner, your first and foremost enemy is always yourself." I now know I was wrong. If you have the basic desire to act ethically in the first place, then you have to take second place in line to a whole lot of other people out there who can do a lot better of a job twisting your good intentions into bad deeds than you can. To be hoist by one's own petard is not necessarily the easiest or most common way to go, only the one with the most irony. Beware of approaching a problem by trying to find its identifying characteristics. What is truly needed, and what should be the goal of your search, is distinguishing characteristics. gadugi 17:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anaeus and Gadugi/Jeff, let's keep this constructive and OT. What happens outside of WikiPedia should be kept out until it has bearing on an article itself. Jeff, you are also not helping your own case by making unsupported allegations about anyone criticising you, and besides, it has no bearing on this discussion. Just not stepping into such discussions would be even better. --MJ 18:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]
If someone has been described by a federal judge in a Findings of Fact as having a tendency to create his own separate reality, I think it is perfectly on-topic to bring this up in the context of certain promises supposedly made to that person by Jimbo Wales -- for which we have only that person's word that said promises were ever made, and what their content was. Of course, I think Mr. Merkey's attempt to impersonate Jimbo Wales rather supersedes any documentation I could provide to indicate that his word is not exactly to be taken on faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being a uncharitable in your assertion that this was an attempted impersonation, the comment is part of a comment by Jimbo Wales from the articles talk page [12], he did also leave the date of 13 September in place from the original comment. What he failed to make clear was that he was partially quoting and who was doing the quoting. (The item is missing is the text is the opening sentence "Obviously that isn't what I said." in response to Gadugi's original characterisation of his discussion with Jimbo.) I do agree that it would be helpful if Gadugi logged in consistently rather than having multiple "accounts", and if he'd simply provided a link to the original discussion. As it stands though I'm not sure what help the comment is, it doesn't seem to promise any special treatment, just business as usual.
I have dismissed the Federal Lawsuit as of today (2:05CV521) [[13]] to help remove any impediments to my contributions to Wiki and other areas of the industry. At this point, I will be posting ALL of the documents to merkeylaw.com. This will paint the whole situation with the broadest brush strokes and allow folks the freedom to tell the WHOLE story, not just the distorted side of the facts protrayed by Novell. Gadugi 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are not very many AfD (or formerly VfD) topics that I am already pretty well familiar with prior to following the AfD to the page. Sometimes once I find out what the thing is, I vote keep, but in this case I was already aware of Merkey's noteriety before clicking on the link (actually, more so before than after... the page wasn't very good before; but I think I cleaned it up quite a bit, despite Merkey's own vandalism of the page about him). YMMV, and obviously, you'll know different thing in advance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folks: While I also think this article should be kept, posting joking votes from semi-sockpuppet addresses is not in very good faith. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Even better: This is a Merkey sockpuppet evading his block. --MJ(☎|@|C) 17:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synesthesia (Buck 65)[edit]

Sounds like a review and even says so on the discussion page. It says it's supposed to be edited soon, but the last (and only) edit was about a week and a half into August. Nameneko 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it to conform to Wikistandards for album pages. --TM (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forserious[edit]

Delete neologism. TM (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doom grotto[edit]

Delete nn band vanity. No allmusic page, their homepage is a myspace. TM (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ginormous. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ginormous[edit]

Delete neologism. As article states "it is a made up word". TM (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vitiation[edit]

Delete dicdef. Already at wiktionary. TM (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge with Gogeta. I will place a merge tag on the article; anyone should feel free to be bold and perform the merge as they see fit. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta[edit]

A much as I like Dragon Ball, there is no way a character gets a new article when it reaches a new level. otherwise we would have:

Super Saiyan Plough 06:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, the article was written for the benefit of the western world, if they do not desire authentic information, then let Wikipedia clouded with false (westernised) information and let's called it CRAPedia!

Also, much of the information on article Gogeta were inserted by me to the original article, that's why one would think there is duplicated information. I am interested in providing authentic information. Readers who have no desire for such information may choose to ignore this article "Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta".

"Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta" is now a stand-alone article. Articles "Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta" and "Gogeta" are no longer cross-linked, they are separate entities.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:S33k3r. — JIP | Talk 04:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard (warez)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a text repository, not even when the text is in image format. --fvw* 06:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New version by S33k3r worthy of inclusion. Sapient 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are going with this, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states: Wikipedia articles are not.... 3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Does this not fall foul here, in its current state? Are these standards accessible on an external web-site and as such be referenced as an external link? If this article were an explanation of the standards, how they are arrived at, how they have developed and their significance, then I would consider that encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. As it stands, I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original opinion. Sapient 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the article to more wiki-like style, and tagged it as stub.
S33k3r 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your new version is much improved and a worthy start. I've tagged it with the wikify tag to assist, and changed my vote accordingly. Thanks for your work on this. Sapient 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FUTUREPIG[edit]

A webcomic of no importance or significance. Alexa doesn't even rank it, and Google gets about 51 unique hits. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ObjAsm32[edit]

This article lacks encyclopedic infromation and reads like an advertisement. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKV's only two edits are to this AFD discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The preceding text was written by MarkPP (talk • contribs), whose only edit was this discussion. The signature links to a different user. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzbeh[edit]

not encyclopaedic content, see talk page.Behdad 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. 05:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Information Technology Channel[edit]

The article is started by the owner of the website/channel. Is not neutral. Self-promotion. Google test fails. See talk page. Behdad 08:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw everybody's attention to User:Sina's vote, he's saying the channel does not exist anymore. So it started sometime in 2004, and doesn't exist in mid 2005. Instead of saying "notable for me", please think about it, is wikipedia your reference for checking the truth behind content on wikipedia? So far Sina is the only one that has commented based on the existence of this channel in real world. —behdad (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was my vote and I don't see any necessity for analysing my voting record or how I am voting.--Sina 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not analysing your vote, but highlighting the fact that you mentioned in your vote record. —behdad (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even a private TV station started last year in a non-English language? Behdad 10:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's so private about it? And what on earth does the language have to do with it? It's not even that bad a page when you consider other self-promotion pages - its main neutrality problems are the apparently inflated viewing figures and that photo, both of which I've now removed. --Last Malthusian 11:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should translate the website and put it on the talk page. The private thing is that this channel has the photo of one man on the front page, team and "Live" pages are "under construction", instead the list of DVDs for sale works. And on the front page you will notice the "Virtual University, coming soon." In fact I will be happy enough if someone confirm that he/she can actually watch this 24-hour program on satellite. The information for that is also available at the front page. I don't have the facilities. Thanks. Behdad 14:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have a Persian name. Behdad 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with non-English, I'm native/expert Persian and hang around Persian and Iranian content. Behdad 14:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, eh? I don't see any indication that Behdad is biased against Persian topics. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But quite like that wp is not a website-directory, I'm not convinced that this ITC is worth an article. In this case in fact it's factuality is under question for me. The web site (quite like the original version of the article at the time I filed deletion) claims "ITC is the first IT network in the world that has helped millions of people in the world towards better eduacation." [[14]] (translated from Persian.) I'm not really sure it airs 24. Behdad 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Life[edit]

Completely POV and non-encyclopedic. Mrcurly 08:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being badly written is not grounds for deletion. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be POV. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could only count as POV or OR if it made sense, or indeed meant something. You give it far too much credit. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it could only be an essay if it was coherent. It isn't, so it ain't. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then we would have an article very similar to Meaning of life. Upon reflection, perhaps move the relevant content to Meaning of Life, and the salvageable Henry bit to Michel Henry. Then redirect to Meaning of life - Mr Curly 17:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the redirection idea. The philosophy section in Meaning of Life should cover it. Still 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MC Radiation[edit]

no notability...vanity page? Stezton 09:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chownifull[edit]

Fictional cookies on forums are not encyclopedic. delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Decency Action Council[edit]

There is nothing notable about it; it is just a local organisation of no great importance, about which there is nothing more to be said. Phronima 11:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilikaiłą[edit]

The author states that it was mentioned only once in one peace treaty. I would say that makes it non-notable, therefore; subject to delete --SoothingR 11:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal Harassment[edit]

Too much too coherent nonsense to delete it speedily, so I guess it must hang around at AfD for a week. Pilatus 11:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murali Kulachandran[edit]

No IMDB entries for this aspiring actress and the movies she starred in. Garage-band vanity. Pilatus 11:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Falldown[edit]

A game for the TI-92 calculator that can be downloaded from ticalc. Pilatus 11:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stargraves[edit]

Article is about an author of sex novels (I guess "Stargraves" is a pen name), none of which appear to be notable. I have checked Amazon, which lists three of the books, all of them with sales ranks way below the one million mark. None of the books have a significant amount of review on the web. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black market art[edit]

Appears to be band vanity. Chief claim to notability seems to have been being defeated in some sort of non notable competition. Allmusic.com provided plenty of hits when searching for the words

Black Market Art,

but none of them refer to this band. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. NOte that this does not preclude anyone from merging content. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doomer[edit]

User:Eclipsenow.org has put considerable work into this page in only a span of hours since its creation, and parts of it deserve to be merged into Hubbert peak theory; however the term "doomer" itself is a neologism, and Wikipedia has a tradition of resisting the creation of pages documenting neologisms unless they have already spread to the mainstream media. Hence, I believe the page itself should be deleted along with peaknik (seperate AFD). Dragons flight 12:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I support some form of merge/rename proposal as suggested below. Dragons flight 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. NOte that this does not preclude anyone from being bold and merging as they feel appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peaknik[edit]

The term "peaknik" is a neologism, and Wikipedia has a tradition of resisting the creation of pages documenting neologisms unless they have already spread to the mainstream media. Hence, I believe the page should be deleted along with the related, but considerably more elaorate, "doomer" (seperate AFD). Dragons flight 12:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned by user:129.78.64.100
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Killian[edit]

Subject not sufficiently important / vanity page Sapient 12:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was listed for speedy deletion but a counter-argument (of sorts) was advanced on the talk page. Sapient 12:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exameter Road[edit]

Seems to be distinctly non-notable. All google hits seem to lead back to either wikipedia, or a blog. Alai 13:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Media Man Australia media company[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 speedy del: recteation of previously deleted (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Capitolo Otto) without added verifiabiliy. mikka (t) 16:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitolo Otto[edit]

Secret societies are by definition not verifiable (unless they're no longer secret), and some of the claims here (connections with the Illuminati in particular) are fairly ridiculous. This is hoax, rumor, or campus legend, none of which are encyclopedic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected by Friday Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League Avengers[edit]

The Justice League Avengers are "real"; that is, they have a fictional existence in a major fictional context (even if that is just a cameo appearance in a series of one-shot books published by the two largest publishers in their medium.) However, this article isn't about the "real" appearances of that group; it's a fan's opinion on what should be done with them. As such, it's original research. (The title may not even be correct; the title may have actually been "Judgement League Avengers".) Since even the "real" appearance was just a cameo, Redirect to Amalgam Comics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse W. Turkeyman[edit]

Article is a hoax Kewp 15:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. what's not so funny is that contributers to the article, including the original contributer, keep removing the Afd tag from the page. I wish we could speedy delete this. Kewp 04:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You need a sense of humour, pal. Dig? 192.207.58.114 15:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Homicide. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homocide[edit]

Keep Could use some sources to back it up. Dudtz 9/29/05 7:11 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Knowledge[edit]

Postmodern jibberjabber that makes many 'learned' references to other scholars without actually giving any details of their work in support of the premise being advanced. Delete as pseudo-hoax - I'm sure there's something in it, but not here, alas. Eddie.willers 22:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t delete, please. It can be improved. References to Tuomi and Vygotsky in this discussion are valuable in a critical perspective of current approaches to knowledge management. Sergio Storch

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on emotion[edit]

Looks like author is starting a POV article NeilN 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's strange about it? Hackwrench 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the material from the emotion page once, and sombody regressed the page, so I moved it to a new article, where I thought it seemed fit, and addressed why it fit the topic. I am confused at the categorization of my action as rash and provocative, though and would appreciate it if Sallison were to elaborate further.

The strongest example in modern culture is Equilibrium_(2002_film), although Vulcan (Star Trek) shows this too. The theme can be found in many fictional distopian societies.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The P G P[edit]

Sorority-girl neologism. — Mateo SA | talk 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PopeAlien[edit]

Totally non notable webcomic, which can be found here. It is up to its 130th strip which means it passes the 100 strip proposal on WP:COMIC, but with an alexa rank of 700k+, it does not seem to be popular or notable in the slightest. A google search also shows up nothing which would lift it out from any other website on the net. - Hahnchen 17:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as attack page. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuji wuji[edit]

sigh... bandity. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Maguire cup[edit]

There is already a page at Sam Maguire Cup with more information.--Play Brian Moore 17:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Liddell et al[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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STA (Success Through Advertising)[edit]

Ad, non-notable. --fvw* 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Assassin (Story)[edit]

This is an article about three sheets of paper someone found at school, and is meant as humour. Though it is funny, I don't belive it has any place on Wikipedia. --TCM (Talk) 18:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it from orbit
Delete. Pilatus 19:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Wave[edit]

Wikipedia:No original research Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not one citation of real-world usage, google turns up the term but used in many different ways, some merely jocular. --Dhartung | Talk 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow strong arms[edit]

Forum neologism that's too coherent to be speedily deleted. Pilatus 18:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete! It's a commonly used internet fad, why delete it?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rooms (webcomic)[edit]

Totally unnotable webcomic in every way, which can be found here, and its post apocalytic forums can be found here. Alexa shows it up as 4 million +. It has been running for over a year and has probably over 100 strips, and so illustrates the dire straits of WP:COMIC. - Hahnchen 18:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


As the creator, artist and writer of said webcomic, I object to the comments made above. Firstly, with regards to the forums. The forums have never been very active but then this has never been a sign of the popularity (or supposed lack of it) of the comic. I recieve e-mails and talk to fans of the comic over MSN regularly and I have recieved nothing but positive feedback from them, apart from one or two comments relating to artwork that I have since rectified. The writer of the above comments shows their obvious lack of attention to detail when they state that the comic has "probably" over 100 strips. If they had read the comic at all, or the newsposts, they would find that the comic has indeed had over 100 strips (as illustrated in a anniversary comic) and that it is in fact, almost upto the sum of 150. I myself doubted the popularity of my comic at one point, but I have recently installed a statcounter on my site and am happy to report that Rooms now recieves more visitors (and more returning visitors) than it has done in the history of the comic and this is currently on the rise. I also would like to call into question the amount of traffic cited as being reasonable for a web-comic. A friend of mine, who has been a long time supporter of the site, described it as "ludicrous", and I myself have to concur. There are many webcomics on the internet, with articles on this very site, which have lower levels of traffic than the proposed number. I therefore propose that the subject in question is not whether Rooms should be deleted but whether any of the many small webcomic entries of wikipedia should be allowed to remain. I personally believe that they should not be removed as there are always people who will be interested in procuring information about less well known comics and to deny them this opportunity would be a grave shame. The description of my comic as "totally unnotable...in every way" in the above comment is also very subjective. It seems to me as if the comment was written by someone who just decided that they didn't like the comic (or possibly myself) and therefore it was worthy to be removed from wikipedia. I know for a fact that my readers wouldn't describe my comic as "unnotable" and I believe this subjective viewpoint to weaken the rest of the writer's arguments. Obviously, the final verdict is upto you but please consider the matter carefully before you reach your verdict. For it is not just the fate of this entry that you will be deciding but of all small-time comic entries. Thank you. - Euan Mumford 17:05, 1st October 2005

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Encourage everybody to help clean it up, though. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi moon base[edit]

It's back as of 26 September 2005 Wyss 19:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire crud[edit]

Article about a very rare (non-existant, even) disease: every single Google hit is related to Wikipedia. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's another hoax. JoanneB 18:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teim Schwang[edit]

Non notable rally team: every Google hit is this article or one of the Wikipedia mirrors. JoanneB 18:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Epicureans[edit]

Band vanity JoanneB 19:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actress (band)[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing in allmusic.com. --Durin 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nawrot[edit]

Unsubstantiated. No Google hits DJ Clayworth 19:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism 102[edit]

A page about a Journalism course at Ball State University... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... JoanneB 19:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Pope[edit]

I've thought quite a bit about listing this article since it has some interesting points. However it is, IMO, largely lengthy non-NPOV critiscism of a book, which probably violates copyright/fair use by containing an extremely long quote. As such, I don't think it's worth of an encyclopedia article and the useful bits could very well be merged elsewhere. chowells 19:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted --Doc (?) 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paley Li[edit]

This article is about "Paley Li... a well-known player of the MMO RPG World of Warcraft." Players of role-playing games are not non-notable. -- Kjkolb 20:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dhammakaya[edit]

Was listed for speedy on the grounds of being advertising, but that's not a speedy criterion. I'm not convinced it is advertising; maybe this is a notable religious movement. No vote from me. Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YMMSS - Your Money Machine Success System[edit]

Listing for deletion because it seems to have been conceived as an attack on the company that runs the scheme. It was later turned into ad ad for the company. A few iterations later it was alternating with a sketchy reference to the scheme. This was then replaced with a letter asking the article's deletion.

I have no opinion on this but I think we should probably at least consider that the scheme may not be encyclopedic. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mard[edit]

Obviously someone's essay. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pluebird[edit]

Neologism, and apparently one only used between two people. Borderline speedy. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rowten Pot[edit]

Non-notable, dictdef, probable hoax. Was speedied as "non-encyclopedic", but that's not a CSD. Is there a CSD for this? JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:54, 26 September 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ortiz[edit]

I don't know if this is nonsense or what. Smells hoaxy. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santaism[edit]

likely hoax. Was speedied incorrectly as ((nonsense)). JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:59, 26 September 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO RESULT — this was not an AfD. -Splashtalk 23:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I[edit]

Although I originally created this entry myself, it was merged to GWR 6000 Class by Duncharris, with the reason given being "write a decent stub or none at all please". I feel that instead of being removed unilaterally, the process should be via AfD - I have therefore reverted the merge and brought it here. My own personal vote would be Keep, as I believe that this stub could be added to by locomotive enthusiasts (not a speciality of mine) but, as mentioned, my vote should be viewed in consideration of the fact that it was me who created the initial stub ("decent" or otherwise). CLW 21:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One problem is that the GWR Class 6000 GWR 6000 Class page used to link to GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I. If we put the link back it won't be a redlink, it will just link to a page which is a circular redirect (there is the same problem on another of other pages) chowells 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Purely because User:Duncharris considered this, and several other similar articles, to be inappropriate, and decided to turn them into redirects chowells 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's as maybe, but why AFD? There are no articles here to be commented on for deletion. There are considrably better ways to handle this. This could be, for example, debated through a centralised discussion. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm a LNER man myself...)[reply]
The article for comment for deletion is GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I CLW 07:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dee[edit]

No assertion of notability. Runs a record/distribution company called Sharing Machine, which I've also put up for AFD. - Hahnchen 21:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep keep keep- anonymous
Keep - I also vote to keep. - Anonymous

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy scars[edit]

Seems vanity 68.35.206.78 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EPangea Corporation[edit]

Non notable web development company. Significance not established in article. Google search [21] does not reveal significance. Hurricane111 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tinyghosts[edit]

Unnotable webcomic, so unnotable that the article itself says so... Shauri 21:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: user 69.143.184.234 has removed the following phrase from the article: "Tinyghosts is one of the least popular webcomics and is read by almost no one. That doesn't seem to bother the author", which along with its web popularity (see Google results below) serves to establish the non notability of this webcomic. Shauri
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 WS 02:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laurelton Circle[edit]

I don't normally get into the road wars on AfD, but this is a former traffic circle, now converted to a traffic light. Its notability derives from the notability of the history of the traffic light. Delete. Chick Bowen 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LKH&S[edit]

Advertisement for a non notable company. Significance on Google is marginal: [23] - Shauri 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Series of 1928 (U.S. Currency)[edit]

Is this article meaningful in any way?? It started on September 1, said it will have more info by September 8, but now it is well past then and nothing has been added. 66.32.159.208 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 WS 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Horton[edit]

This is an article about a 17-year-old artist who claims to be a famous prodigy. However, I have been unable to verify this outside of wikipedia and its mirrors. I can't find anything relevant on Juan Carlos La Vega, who invented the technique he uses, either. Here's a quote from the article, "While many do indeed consider the young Horton of prodigious capabilities, others consider that it is his ego that is of prodigious proportions." -- Kjkolb 22:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality and pregnancy[edit]

This article appears to be original research. There's also a book plug at the bottom. -- Kjkolb 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0(scribble) 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkin Green Frog[edit]

NN web page advertising. Two hits on Google. Groeck 22:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, it was on Something Awful, too. Didn't watch the flash based on it, though. Toothpaste 20:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimously Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elland island[edit]

Non-existent territory; Elland Islands and Elland Island combined give two Google hits, neither relevant; and Harold J Melville (listed as the place's First Minister) gets none. Article also consists entirely of a half-filled-in Infobox. Loganberry (Talk) 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0(scribble) 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics measures in Japanese Empire[edit]

This might be the most horribly garbled article I've ever seen. The topic is certainly notable, and an appropriate article about eugenics in the Japanese empire (or in Japan in general) should be created, but this article offers little that would be of use Paul 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well done on cleaning it up. You should appreciate that many of us have no expertise in this area. So an Afd seems appropriate to me for the original state of the article - either somebody knows and cares, or they don't and if nobody does then delete is a good course of action. Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment: The policy page tells me things like 'use extreme caution merging any material', which I really don't like (merging is key to some clean-ups); and anyone can see this article should be moved to a grammatical title. So I don't accept that gun-to-the-head is a good way to expedite clean-up. Charles Matthews
Charles Matthews is definitely right about not using AfD for cleanup. We already have {cleanup} available as a tag, and that's much more appropriate (per nom who states in the AfD itself that the "topic is notable"). Voting "keep", BTW, doesn't obligate a voter to do the cleanup her/himself—doing so is great, but not everyone has expertise in everything. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of Kentucky[edit]

This article is offensive, not factual, contains no useful information poorly written. Not suitable for Wikipedia. (preceding unsigned comment by 71.28.250.92 (talk · contribs) )

This page contains non factual and insulting text regarding the diet of a specific state. The tone is in itself derogatory. The article states that Kentucky consumption of White Castles is the highest in the nation. There are only White Castles in 3 cities in the state and the states population is over 4 million. Burgoo ( which I had never heard of) is served in Owensburg and I had to get that off the internet. It may contain some truth but it still has a derogatory tone to it. Also is this article suitable to Wikipedia? If there is an article concerning this states presumed diet then wouldn't there have to an aricle concerning every states cuisine?Dakota 22:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article as I first found has changed greatly. The original was different in title and tone. I am not a "purported native" of Kentucky. I am not from Kentucky but have lived here 5 years. I am the one who ask for that deletion. I just don't think it is worth time spent for pursuit. I give up and think I will write a Cinncinnati, Ohio cuisine article. -Dakota 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, if you start an Ohio one don't forget Wendy's --Rakista 10:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 22:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Managers of Rangers F.C.[edit]

I moved this, but now realise that there is already a section on Rangers Managers on the main Rangers F.C. page. Ben davison 23:18, September 6, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, so deal with it there (or rewrite on a subpage, or do whatever after the copyvio process is done). -Splashtalk 23:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Margret's Syndrome[edit]

Neologism. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-30 T 04:48:34 Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin callinan[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Bearcat 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa O'Neill[edit]

Delete - started as a {wikify}, turns out that the real page already exists at Melissa O'Neil - the surname has been spelt incorrectly. I don't believe any additional information exists on this page. Budgiekiller 15:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messianism[edit]

The information here is unnecessary, unreferenced, and in some cases inaccurate. I'm suggesting this be deleted, and anything valuable merged to Messiah. Cuñado - Talk 09:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Christianson[edit]

Comment well that's what I see, have sourced and done some addition to the article to give context, but frankly I don't think it's a winner. Alf 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MIT/Wellesley Toons[edit]

Most of the criteria in WP:MUSIC don't apply to the genre of Collegiate a cappella (only criteria 6 could possibly apply) - they seem aimed for pop/rock music. Cmouse 00:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multimachine[edit]

Delete, appears to be an ad. Citizen Premier 01:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mutulu[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Apparently it's about Mutulu Shakur, but I'm not sure whether a redirect would be useful; while we usually don't redirect from given names, this one's fairly uncommon. —Cryptic (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myomer[edit]

I feel this is too trivial for an article. also it's about a fictional thing. so Delete Idleguy 10:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all --Allen3 talk 15:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posse of One albums[edit]

This nomination applies to Mario Days - 2005, Rural Legends - 2005, and Stone Age: Dec 04 - July 05 - 2005, all of which are albums by Posse of One, whose article was deleted recently in VFD. The other albums are already up for deletion individually so this should be the last of them. --TheMidnighters 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. With the research done after the initial participators, and the discounting of the redlinked user, this is a keep rather than a no consensus. -Splashtalk 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iturf[edit]

Article created clearly to advertise the MSN Group and to be honest I don't believe all the history about the web site being changed over to an MSN Group. Not enough effort put into article either, so in my opinion it should be deleted.  Thorpe talk 22:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. No sources provided to verify information at time of AfD closing. --Allen3 talk 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Africa (porn star)[edit]

Notability not established, no details given, pointless bio Vizjim 22:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew.Cheese[edit]

nn Web site. Delete. Owen× ☎ 23:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animorency[edit]

A 40-member anime club. Their web site has no Alexa ranking at all. —Cryptic (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Dano-Norwegian_exonyms[edit]

list does not make any sense at all, most if not all of the names are Chinese cities spelled in pinyin. I don't understand what is the point of the list, feel free to defend it. Abstrakt

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Über Sexual[edit]

Not an established term. Fancruft, hoax, or original research. 143.127.3.10 Groeck 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Danish_exonyms[edit]

non notable list that is taking up space and should be in Wiktionary Abstrakt 23:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_non-German_designations_of_High_German_dialects[edit]

unimportant list that is just taking up space Abstrakt 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_non-German_designations_of_Low_German_dialects[edit]

unimportant list that is just taking up space. Abstrakt 23:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oundrupleit[edit]

Bad joke page Atomiktoaster 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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