< August 27 August 29 >

Purge server cache

August 28[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam J. Pearce[edit]

I would not expect to find his entry in any encyclopedia pertaining to any degree of completeness. Cdyson37 00:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing it for completeness -Splash 01:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard[edit]

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 02:04:34, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

subsequently moved to: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --HappyCamper 05:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle[edit]

I think the reason is obvious. realwingus 00:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete as duplicate content with wiktionary. --11:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thwack[edit]

Delete. Moved to wiktionary. No potential to ever be encyclopedic. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete Radiant_>|< 08:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

"monteux west llc"[edit]

Looks like cleverly disguised vanity. You be the judge. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another VfD that, like many from 20 August, seems to have attracted very little discussion. Relisting in accordance with administrator's guidelines. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cakeplow[edit]

Seems like spam, no value as encyclopedia entry, just promoting the linked sites Trisk 00:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, and Tony should stop making a WP:POINT by relisting items that obviously have consensus to delete. Radiant_>|< 08:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel Batz[edit]

Non-notable remixer who is "set out to conquer the world". 28 unique Google hits for this name. Zoe 07:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing for completeness. -Splash 01:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard[edit]

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 02:47:26, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete Radiant_>|< 08:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Shillian[edit]

No hits on Google for this or the faith it claims to descend from. As such, violates WP:NOR. Delete. Alphax τεχ 07:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting, yet another in a perplexingly large number of 20 August VfDs that attracted hardly any discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, that is because Wikipedians believe they are slum-dunk deletes. My vote? Delete. --Titoxd 01:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Usually. Usually isn't enough. No deletion without consensus. No deletion if there is doubt. These are the principles which we try to embody. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I'll move to the correct capitals. -Splash 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royal friesland foods[edit]

Unknown exactly what this is. Doesn't show up in Google. Wikipedianinthehouse 01:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnava Theology[edit]

Delete - Neologism 63.125.67.40 01:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoned Cognition[edit]

Delete — just your less-popular-than-most-things webcomic. Alexa rank about 2,450,000th, about 100 Google hits, most of which are presumably advertising and no indication of generating any particular attention. -Splash 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got 15,000 when I tried it: [3]--Fallout boy 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article's deletion page is found at Votes for deletion, not Pages for deletion. Paul Klenk 04:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I edited the page, including adding the index of questions that have been answered, that I offered to do earlier. - author, Ryan Kolter

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

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

The result of the debate was DISCUSSION MOVED, just closing this for completeness. -Splash 01:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for the Insertion of Random Cheese Related Content[edit]

This discussion is now at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Uncle G 01:54:42, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

subsequently moved to: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for the Insertion of Random Cheese Related Content
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 in new form, remove copyvio from history.

Tokpela[edit]

It appears to be a copyvio, and it should be marked as a requested article. Delete. --WikiFan04Talk 18:28, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)This was listed again on August 28th, 2005, but was already listed. So here, it is re-listed.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (translations)[edit]

I recently listed the article List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages for deletion, and this article was to be merged with that one. It is a pointless list of all the foreign language chapter titles in HP book one. It is useless in an English encyclopedia, as it has almost no English in the entire article, and it should be deleted. Brendan OShea 04:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Esquivalience[edit]

Dictionary definition.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer Unlimited[edit]

Non-notable forum, no alexa rank. Flowerparty talk 04:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete--Tony SidawayTalk 08:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychedelic World of the Vanishing Cucumbers[edit]

Initially this was marked as a speedy. I deleted it, but decided to restore it so that some discussion can take place on its notability. I don't think this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia however. HappyCamper 04:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do You COnsider It A BJAODN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanet (talk • contribs) 11:30, 28 August 2005‎ (UTC) –Comment merged here from content previously at this title[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Nation[edit]

Non notable just because its on TV doesn't mean it deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Wait a few years for this show to develop into something first. As it is now this show is nothing worth having in here.TheDeletator 04:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unot[edit]

Non notable group, organization, whatever. Wikipedia is not a fan blog. This is not an issue of The Source magazine online as it were. Fancruft for idiots.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

Just noticed that Imdaking is the author of that article.--inks 22:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osu8907 03:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break[edit]

Wikipedia is not a predictor of future events nor it is a volume of Tv Guide. This show cannot be notable for it doesn't exist yet. Give it a few years to achieve some prominence then post it. Non encyclopedic, Fancruft.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediatoolsEC[edit]

This is advertising. When you click on the first external link, you find that the wiki article is a slightly modified version of some paragraphs on the company homepage. KJPurscell 16:09, 27 August 2005 UT.

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Even discounting the author (too few edits), there is no consensus to delete. There seems to be no good reason to discount the vote by longtime anonymous editor 195.92.168.174 (talk · contribs). --Tony SidawayTalk 11:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYSOP[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly apple club[edit]

A high school club with one Google hit. Zoe 05:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." --TheMidnighters 14:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: lovedmc12 plucks people up. He plucks them right in the steiner. That's all I aba sait. I mean aba sait, aba stein. Big J double T 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what? - Chris 2:06 8-29-05
User's first heckensteiner. J dub (you know who) 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of the article, only edits are here and at the article itself. --TheMidnighters 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rules aside, say this encylopedia lasts and expands for the next thirty years, how long do you think it will take to sort through all the silliness to get to some encyclopedic fact? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, when I reference this wiki I expect to find and be informed of what I'm looking for. Say every small club, shop, website, film, book and building got in - theres a discussion about roads going on now, how many roads are there? I hope this puts the peeps and puppets here in the right perspective, anyone? Alf 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More important than the amount of roads is the amount of roads a man must walk down, methinks.
Comment:Are you concerned about having to flip through too many pages? Will the hard-bound book of "wikipedia" become too cumbersome to carry around? As long as a page is relevant and factual, there is no reason to exclude it because of some "encyclopaedic standard," which is not strictly defined in any wiki policy.--lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original comment by User:66.126.157.103, who has voted several times in this VFD, but later signed by a sock account. --TheMidnighters 14:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I assume that you are referring to the numerous posts on the PSM forum, which were unsolicited posts not made by this article's author. The Silly Apple Club is not a hobby; it's a movement. sillythekidskid

Comment "Wikipedia improves through not only the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers." Summarily disregarded? I sure hope not. --lovedmc12 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. No consensus - keep. (See below for details) --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Liz shaw (with a lower case "s") and Liz Shaw NZ[edit]

Was first deleted before by me, but subsequently restored by me as well. There is sufficient content in here that probably should not have been speedily deleted, but I suspect this is not a notable subject and worthy of deletion. Would very much like a second opinion. Thanks very much! HappyCamper 05:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC) -- 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC): I added the other link to Liz Shaw NZ. Wikipedia shouldn't need two pages on this person? Perhaps I should notify the anonymous IP not to paste two copies of the article in Wikipedia. However, I think the reason why two pages exist is because I deleted one, and the IP created the other, and this sort of went back and forth... --HappyCamper 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the recent surge of vandalism to Liz shaw, I have protected both pages from being edited during this AfD process. The images used in both articles were deleted because they were not substantiated as material compatible with the GFDL. --HappyCamper 00:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think New Zealanders are going to have to make the call on this. Is there a New Zealander project to discuss this on? Zoe 06:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. I initially speedied it, but in retrospect it was too rash of a decision. Better to let vfd dialogue take over. I don't know if there is a New Zealander Wikipedian group. --HappyCamper 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is - one of the more active Country-specific WikiProjects, too, complete with portal. But I digress. FWIW, as a kiwi, I've never heard of her, but that may be just me. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness - seeing as you live in Dunedin, there is a write up about the Liz Shaw phenomenon in a recent Critic issue. Here's a link to the online version, but I imagine you'll have no trouble finding a copy (although it's really not worth the time) :)[6]--inks 10:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annon Edit; This above point is irrelevant as William Hung has a Wiki entry, for one bad audition he did. And Liz's subsequent publicity led to an invitation to do a porn movie with Ron Jeremy. Liz's publicity, while not on the same scale as William Hung's is still prolific considered New Zealand's size. I support the renaming to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw".

Keep The Liz Shaw Phenomenon is actually quite widespread here in NZ. She is reasonably (in)famous, and has featured on several NZ websites and magazines (including one of the adult variety). With all respect to KJPurscell, she has used her rejection as a springboard to more infamy (the same kind you'd get if you posed with your rejection slips in an erotic fashion). --inks 06:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Now there's a terrifying image. :) --KJPurscell 18:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She sounds more notable than Angelyne.  :) Zoe 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Annon: She is notorious amongst the student and youth pop of NZ but Dr Who would have arguably more world-wide relevance. However this does not mean the New Zealand Liz Shaw is not worth a wiki.

  • *Sniff* Suspicion is character assasination, not proof! :) I would use www.google.co.nz and repeat your search. Disambig, but it should be kept in some form.--inks 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless she's suddenly become a town, that should be Liz Shaw (New Zealand), Robin! I'd agree with making Liz Shaw a dab page though. The good doctor's companion (the first one with the Pertwee Doctor, IIRC) is well known here too. Grutness...wha? 04:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition this topic is also relevant to anyone interested in the effects of popular media on young adults. The "Liz Shaw" phenomenon is a (IMO) facinating look at how far some people will go to get noticed - whether through fame or infamy.
I support namming the topic as Liz Shaw NZ or Liz Shaw (New Zealand) as she is not known as Elizabeth Joan Shaw - as well as a dab page from Liz Shaw to the correct pages for both the "Liz Shaws. I suppose that if the topic WAS to be renamed Elizabeth Joan Shaw that could be handled through a Liz Shaw dab page also - would that mean that the current Liz Shaw page is renamed to Liz Shaw (Dr Who) or similar? Maybe. A topic merge of both the Liz shaw and Liz Shaw NZ entries is an excellent idea.
It's funny how despite having done a few Wikipedia entries and updates that it's a deletion that would actually prompt me to create an account... ;-)
--Crocos 12:10:06, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

White Feather[edit]

No documentation/No mention on Google. Paul Klenk 06:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He met with Thomas Jefferson!!! Jobe6 09:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IG Culture[edit]

Vanity/bandity/non-notable. Paul Klenk 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. We have a close situation here (4 delete, 1 merge, 1 redirect), the entire content of the article is ""Chi-Chi" is a character from Scarface played by Angel Salazar. He is the short guy in the gang." Now, the Scarface itself is a disambiguation page, and so merging and redirecting would need to be to one of the actual movie articles, Scarface (1932 film) or Scarface (1983 film). Unfortunately, the article here does not say which one the character appears in. There is very little content here, and it is not easy to merge this with either of those articles anyway. With no good bearing of where or how to merge this, I will call this a delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Chi (Scarface)[edit]

One character in the movie -- more Wiki brah clean up. Paul Klenk 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of sporting teams eponymous to automobile-related topics[edit]

Arcane/non-notable "list"-oriented article. Paul Klenk 06:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But I'll take the move to no-middle-name advice. -Splash 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's already done. -Splash 01:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Joel Hotz[edit]

Vanity/non-notable. Paul Klenk 06:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was userfy.

Marshall Sachs[edit]

Hoax page about his blog and his love of porn. Paul Klenk 06:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy Tavern[edit]

Non-notable pub; claims it used to be famous and now intellectuals hang out there. Paul Klenk 06:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, that's a good reason to merge this to an article about the district itself -- providing, of course, the district itself is in fact notable. Paul Klenk
Ok, fair enough. Also seems [zoe] had lunch there. Weak keep Dottore So 07:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, that London trip is all a blur.  :) Zoe 07:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus on where to move it. It's apparent to me that this is still an ongoing discussion, with some editors making conflicting suggestions at different times in the discussion. Please arrive at a consensus on what this article should be called and move it there. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilot Episode[edit]

Move content to Are You Being Served; very poor choice for an article title. Paul Klenk 06:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it would be less clumsy to relocate the text directly into the show's main page, but the problem is that it then eliminates the choice to view the info, if one wishes not to see spoiler or plot details. Markt3 8/28/05

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

NYU residence halls[edit]

Exhaustively trifling, non-notable. Merge to NYU article. Paul Klenk 06:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Argument on size: The article is indeed already too long, alumni and presidents have already been outsourced. Many large sites at wikipedia have separate articles on subcategorical content in order to maintain a sizeable format. At Wikipedia, most university-related articles have the following on their main page: information on schools, rankings, size, general campus information, specialities, faculty, history, athletics and sometimes alumni and trivia/lore/traditions. Other, especially campus-related information is mainainted in separate articles, cf.: Harvard Yard, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Watterson Towers, Davenport College


- Argument on content: the article is in my view still encyclopedic, although every university article on this page contains more information than a traditional encyclopedia article. If that was a criterion, we`d have to delete 90 % of all university-related articles. I haven`t found any specific and detailed information on residence halls elsewhere and I believe it should not be included on the main page. However, I believe that this article contains valid information on NYU and should therefore not be deleted. If this article is deleted, may other articles will have to be deleted as well (see above). There are separate lists of university presidents, university museums and what not. So why delete this article ? One could argue that not all information contained therein is encyclopedic style and that for example it is not really important whether an NYU dorm offers washing machines or not - but then change the article, don`t 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Monkeysorce[edit]

Non-notable website, can't get an alexa ranking, even though Alexa is really a man, 27 unique hits. Zoe 06:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio --Tony SidawayTalk 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Manalo[edit]

Vanity/non-entity whose favorite bread is pita. Paul Klenk 07:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged for copyvio. Alf 11:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. No consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked By Chinese![edit]

Non-notable "meme". Almost every Google hit I get is describing the worm, not using this phrase in other meanings. Zoe 07:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. A redirect never even occurred to me when I nominated. That would be a valid choice. Sorry. Zoe 20:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Legendia[edit]

No mention at IMDb. Paul Klenk 07:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Manakova[edit]

Only 111 Google hits; notable only for appearing nude. Paul Klenk 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Smokabong[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. --Mysidia (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Will move it to correct capitals. -Splash 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chips mackinolty[edit]

Vanity/Non-notable (Only 260 Google hits) -- one of a gazillion one-time protesters who found his way into a newspaper or two. Paul Klenk 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS After the vote should be moved to Chips Mackinolty. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Subs[edit]

Band vanity. Paul Klenk 07:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please assume good faith - but certainly keep --Doc (?) 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Turinui[edit]

Vanity/non-entity. Paul Klenk 07:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Request-A-Song.com and related pages[edit]

This is a blanket nomination for the article along with its armada of redirects, RAS 2002, RAS 2003, RAS 2004, RAS 2005, Best Of Request - Vol. 1 (October 2002 - March 2003), Hollow Earth Productions, Benj Edwards, Jeremy Edwards (musician), and anything else contributed by user:Docarnold; with the exception of explodingdog, which I'm explicitly ignoring.

Spam. And on a professional scale: the article was created on April 14 and a handful of gratuitous links to it were added shortly afterwards. In short, Request-A-Song.com are a band who fail WP:MUSIC, named after a website which fails WP:WEB. Delete all. Flowerparty talk 07:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:30, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Some simple sentences in lugisu (lumasaaba)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a foreign language lexicon. Zoe 08:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (discounting ballot stuffing). Ingoolemo talk 19:23, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Jessica Stover[edit]

Vanity actor site/purported AOL show got six google hits. Currently is studying acting. Paul Klenk 08:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN - after all sockpuppets ignored. FCYTravis 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brillant[edit]

Non-notable outside The Daily WTF forum. Zetawoof 08:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was not enough disucssion te establish consensus. I have since listed it at WP:CP. Ingoolemo talk 19:29, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Kayserispor[edit]

I was alerted to this page by Avalon who wasn't sure what to do with it. It appears to be written entirely in Turkish (or some variant thereof). As such, it is unintelligible to users of this encycloædia. Unless someone can translate it and establish notability, it should be deleted. Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Shamrock Rovers. Will do. -Splash 02:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

400_Club[edit]

This information should be in the Shamrock Rovers article, not on its own page. Meiers Twins 08:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The Shamrock Rovers article already references this club. Merge with main article. --Cactus.man 15:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and delete. Ingoolemo talk 19:35, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

The Conflict in Palestine[edit]

Substantial overlap with existing articles -- Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to request a merge, but it seemed to be that should be done by persons with a better knowledge of the topic and extant articles. For instance, I didn't know about Arab-Israeli conflict at all. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles to merge

The page contains three discreet articles (on Palestine, The West Bank, and The Gaza Strip), each with separate sources and word counts. (Why word counts? Are they copied from something else? If so, I can't find it online.) The material appears factual enough, and thus worth merging into the three articles that have the same names. Veg0matic 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take back my merge vote. Delete. Veg0matic 00:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Forest cafe[edit]

Although I realise that content isn't a reason for deletion, this page has clearly been written by someone employed there. I've been a resident in Edinburgh for nearly 10 years now and I don't think this cafe is anyway near notable enough for inclusion. Leithp 09:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Ingoolemo talk 19:43, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Frank Lopez[edit]

More junk from the wacky world of Wiki brah; article about one character in a movie with no point -- probably an excuse to use the word "Juban". Paul Klenk 09:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Paul Klenk: Kappa and friends, think about the consequences... In the past two days, we have seen articles focusing on 1] one scene from a movie (Chain Saw Scene from Scarface) and 2] one character from a movie (Frank Lopez from Scarface). Both were from a user who, in my opinion, is a hoaxer (if WP has a more poltically correct euphemism for this term, let me know). What would happen if every movie had each character and each scene broken out into separate articles?! What makes such tidbits notable, and where will it stop? These were both trifling articles, of little consequence, and don't add to the sum of human knowledge. If we do in fact want to document films in such exhaustive detail, we need to talk about conventions for titling and organizing these data. Further, this practice is already migrating to reality TV shows, whose characters are no-name wanna-bes trying to break into show business. Some of these shows haven't even aired yet, and (in the case of a modeling show) their characters/actors are getting new articles under their names, with links pointing to chat rooms sponsored by the show. The current view seems to be, "It's on TV, so it's notable." Since when? Prove it. Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.
  • Wikipedia is also not toilet paper. Tell me, is there any bit of fictional trivia too trivial for you to claim as "notable" or "major"? --Calton | Talk 04:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is ludicrous. Heck, covering individual episodes of TV shows is, to me, a waste of valuable resources. Are we not slaves of TV enough without it sticking its septic tentacles down our throats even on the Internet? --Agamemnon2 07:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covering individual episodes of TV shows makes a neglible impact on wikipedia's resources, and there is no reason to think that people using this information are less likely to donate than anyone else. If you want to avoid the septic tentacles of TV, feel free not to hit that "random article" link. Kappa 09:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sega Genesis Master CD 32X System[edit]

Page that is rambling, not-encyclopaedia worthy. Discusses the Sega Genesis with every add-on fitted, which doesn't have a name and I don't see there being a way of making the page useful.

Duplicates content from Sega Genesis, Sega Mega Drive, Sega CD and Sega 32X but can't easily be redirected to any. Halo 09:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Rolia[edit]

This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for over two weeks. It does not appear to have much encyclopedic potential. Comments from WP:PNT (not votes):

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Paris[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page JoanneB 11:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off this is not a vanity page. Miss Paris is actually a legitmate actress and local TV personality here in Portland and you have pages for athletes, talk show hosts, models, actors and actress, and even rock stars here on the site. Are they not vanity pages too? If so they don't belong here either and you should delete them immeditely. Or are you picking on her because she hasn't won an Oscar or made over 20 million? As I see it, her space has every right to be here just as much as someone who is famous.

Badgirl 1701

Oh really? Every actor an actress has started somewhere, even access TV. I have watched her over the years and she has grown quite a bit as a performer. Infact if you want to challege the vanity pages. Let's take a look at the pages of Courtney Love and Paris Hilton for example. Are they not vanity pages? I would think so. These two have no talent whatsoever but yet they are listed on here. But hey while you're at it why not delete ever single athlete, actor, dancer, and performer off this site reguardless. I say if you delete her. You have delete all those celebrities as well because they are vanity pages too.

Badgirl 1701

Like I said. If you are going to get rid of her. You might as well delete all the other celbrity vanity pages too. It's only fair.

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Diana Court[edit]

Non-notable suburban street Cnwb 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 15:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oilily[edit]

POV marketing swill. would be good to have an article on Oilily, but this isn't it. should be thwacked until a real article is attempted. SaltyPig 11:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned Mullet[edit]

original research, non-notable, POV, etc. SaltyPig 12:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeem[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breast euphemisms[edit]

Simply list of slang euphemisms. No real content. JLaTondre 13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with TLE's def here, unless anyone wants to points to a word there we haven't already got that fits "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate". Alf 18:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And there's still no pictures.Alf 18:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • might seem less stupid, if a few of these , were used every so often
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people[edit]

Do we really need a page just for Irish people, could it not be included in the Ireland article? Tim 13:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaskus[edit]

The forum is not famous. A forum should not be listed as an article on wikipedia Kontrovert 13:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED to Shankar Dayal Sharma. -Splash 02:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma[edit]

Page already exists Shankar Dayal Sharma. Normally we would ask this page to be merged with the target but in this case the page in question has negligibly new information to be worthy of a merge. Hence the vfd. Manik Raina 14:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Linton Roberson[edit]

I'm of two minds. It's all verifiable, I've pulled an extensive edit on the page, but it still has that smell of vanity. I'm not sure if the published work for eros is notable, the e-book isn't a major publication that set the world alight, he's not currently a huge name in comics, and so I bring it here. Hiding talk 14:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I have made no link between vanity and self publishing. I am suggesting the article is a vanity article. I am excluding him for having a lack of impact on the comics field. Hiding talk 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was created by an anon, so it isn't provable that he didn't write it himself. Second, all the information in the article isn't verifiable on the web. I could not find his birth date listed anywhere on the web, and would suggest this information is the sort of thing only the person in question is likely to know. I removed most pieces of information I was unable to source, please compare this edit to the current one. No sources for most of the information were given, so are unverifiable. Hiding talk 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, just thought I should add: there seems to be a misunderstanding about PLASTIC now that its back issues are at Ebookopolis. It used to be a print publication when "Vitriol" was being serialized. The last issue he printed, no. 8, I received in 2001. So in fact he's only done one thing, WORKING FOR THE MAN(which he organized almost by himself) that was an e-book from the get-go. Also, his work was printed in Danny Hellman's LEGAL ACTION COMICS, and one of the pieces he contributed to in WFTM was written by Terry Gilliam collaborator(writer of the JABBERWOCKY film and former HELP editor) Charles Alverson. So this guy has worked with some notable people, and the fact he was able to get so many famous pros on what I recall as short notice for WFTM indicates influence and presence in the comics community, seems to me.gilesgoat talk 23:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Everything[edit]

It doesn't feel right. I think it's making a claim I haven't heard before, and I think it's POV. I also suspect a hoax, a crystal ball and a point. I'm probably dull and boring too, but so be it. I'll rise to the bait. Hiding talk 14:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pearl 'n' Mearl[edit]

I can't find any outside verification of this comic. Joyous (talk) 15:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Mouton[edit]

This article needs too much work to live. At a minimum it should discuss or at least list all the proposed units, relate them to the earlier units they correspond to and the later units that adopted the concept, speak to why its decimal and related to an arc of the earths great circle, who Mouton was involved with as regards his astronomy, what problems he worked on as a mathematician, how his contemporaries received his ideas and what the connection is to measurements of the earth and the metric system.Rktect 21:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rktext, you have tagged this article as disputed, but have yet to discuss your reasons on the article's discussion page. VfD is not the place to dispute any shortcomings - until you have had a chance to explain / discuss the disputate. Ian Cairns 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem is that the Wikipedia system as is makes cleanup impossible (kindly ask me by email why that is the case). So, in my mind, Wikipedia is much better off with this article (and many others) deleted than leaving them open to contributions from those who do not fit the assumption that people are reasonable and have good intentions, but are also not 100% vandals. -- Egil 17:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup is not impossible. It's not even particularly difficult. Try harder. I find that if you're right, you will quickly accrue co-editors who will help you reach (and implement) consensus. Nandesuka 05:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried this route for a month, and now given up. Wikipedia style "consensus" has been reached in VfD after VfD, but the only result is that the "problem" moves to new articles. Real "consensus" requires that the parties accept the outcome - when this is not the case the concept fails. -- Egil 09:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Havoc[edit]

Israeli band that, on examination of their website, played a first gig three days ago. Definitely non-notable. Shimgray 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Joyous (talk) 16:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

History of writing instuments[edit]

Article seems to have been created by error? Contains no information, only some javascript code. 84.48.101.235 16:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4chan memes[edit]

Definitely nn. Delete outright for preference, otherwise merge into 4chan, which is probably borderline itself. Shimgray 17:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hackfuck[edit]

A script apparently used on a single website. Little or no impact outside that site. Joyous (talk) 18:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted HappyCamper 00:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Mouth quotes (uncensored)[edit]

Apparently a lift from Sailor Mouth with the word "fuck" added. I quail in terror at the sheer daring and bravado of this, or something. More to the point, I can't see it being in the least bit encyclopedic. Shimgray 18:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. If copyvio, list on WP:CP. If not in English, list on WP:TIE. Neither is a reason to delete. Plus no consensus to delete. Radiant_>|< 18:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Special Forces Groep/Groupe Special Forces[edit]

Delete copyright violation. Also, it's in Dutch, so if it's going to be rewritten instead of deleted, it needs to be translated or transwikied to the Dutch wikipedia. There is an english version of the site this was all copied from: [14] Bubamara 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In Dutch, plus copyright vio as the above editor states. Journalist (talk · contribs)

Needs more discussion. Relisting 28 August. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 00:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners grouped by cause[edit]

Too poorly titled or written to be of likely future value; "accidents and incidents" too general and all-inclusive; possible alternative title: Airline crashes by cause Paul Klenk 18:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specterzero[edit]

No real assertion of notability, but probably borderline for speedy. Has won nothing, has no real significance in the field as far as I can tell. "Plays some games" does not an encyclopedia make. Shimgray 18:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts, Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts), Bass Rock (Norfolk County, Massachusetts)[edit]

This VFD applies to these three articles as a group. They're all descriptions of exceptionally minor rocks located off the coast of Massachusetts, USA; see them on nautical charts: [15], [16], [17] These aren't true islands; one never breaks the surface of the water, one is underwater at high tide, and one is so minor it isn't named on some detailed charts. The fact that they have a name does not make them notable; mariners give names to endless numbers of rocks and other minor features; these names serve as communication and navigation aids for boats operating in the local area, but aren't otherwise notable. Some rocks are notable, of course; Fastnet Rock is one; but most aren't. Finally, these articles are short stubs; I suspect that there is little more encyclopedic information that can be added about them. CDC (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Minerva Reefs and Hans Island are included because of the territorial disputes associated with them. But those three rocks are just rocks, they have nothing to speak for it. It is up to the article to assert its justification to be included. If that can't be done, be well rid of it. Wah! Pilatus 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a need to be rudely grotesque such as your "Wah!" outburst, it's not personal, just trying to make a defense for the subject as best as I can. Please try to act in a professional manner. Also, if these articles gets deleted then it surely will perpeturally make most island lists on Wiki incomplete. UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are passionate about islands. However, equally passionately I question the wisdom of splitting the information in Wikipedia into atomic stubs that will never grow beyond their present size. Case in point: Anuxanon Island southeast of Cedar Pond in the village of Lakeville, Massachusetts. Why not put them all into the Lakeville entry and leave redirects? Then at least people can have a more detailed idea of the area without clicking back and forth. Pilatus 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extremely rude and grotesque comment, which is most definitely uncalled for. As I said before, it's not personal, please refrain from pure sarcasm, this discussion and all Wiki discussions should be held in at least close to a professional manner. I know how everyone has the right to act in any manner they desire, but it doesn't necessarily give them moral and ethical right to act so ignorantly amongst other individuals. Please act in a close to professional manner as best you can, it will surely help with your diplomacy skills which might proof valuable one day. Thank you! UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC has a minimum standard for bands. Pilatus 14:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Britons[edit]

I am sure this was a very nice and much talked about poll, but at the end of the day, that is really all it was. A media organization conducted a popularity to contest to discover what a group of people thought about the impact of other people in the nation's history. The poll does not really prove anything about the comparitive worth of these people, and it really only amounts to personal opinion, albiet the personal opinion of many. I do not think, therefore, that this is particularly encyclopedic. Indrian 19:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Clan[edit]

This might be notable in....whatever the hell game it's supposed to be in, and that's the only thing that's saving it from a speedy in my eyes. It's super vane, and poorly write. Feel free to speedy it if you'd like. Karmafist 19:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and delete. Ingoolemo talk 19:53, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Bear Stearns World Headquarters[edit]

The firm is notable, but I see no reason why their HQ building is (and I've been in it, to apply for a job, years ago). Not quite a speedy candidate. Delete. DES (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 08:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Pooh[edit]

I am relisting this for another round since it didn't get much exposure. Dmcdevit·t 19:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do iFilm's merit an article?? --Doc (?) 00:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC) strong keep obviously, sorry I missed it --Doc (?) 07:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. But this particular article can't seem to make up its mind if it's an essay on the Internet film genre or Apocalypse Pooh. Very weak keep but only if rewritten to be about the film and remove POV. Someone else has no doubt written an article on the genre. 23skidoo 01:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to personally thank Tony Sidaway for cleaning up the article that I intially wrote up, as messed up as it was, it was hindered purly by my uncertainty in what background came with Apoaclypse Now, characters names, not basic plot, and can only apologise for including personal opinion in the original feture, thanks to Sidaway, the short is now roughly close to what I wanted it to be, and I had hoped to return to polish it off myself armed with more research, the initial article was to ensure it was THERE when I got around to it-- Zarius]User talk: Zarius|TALK]]00:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a "keep" vote added here by an anon user but signed as if by Zarius using ~~~~. Closing admin: - please verify with Zarius if this was his/her vote if Zarius has not responded her by that time. The situation appeared suspicious to me since a user would not accidentally vote while not logged in but remember to fake a ~~~~. I apologize to Zarius if I have acted incorrectly. - Tεxτurε 14:21, 1 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 keep. a VfD is not a way to fix a NPOV problem. Woohookitty 09:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Howard[edit]

This page is getting out of hand. Edits happen frequently, with both sides claiming POV bias. Propose locking until such time as everyone remembers that this is only the internet. Taoistlumberjak 19:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say "gave up your status as a private citizen," but when you decided to make a webcomic and put it on the internet, you basically said, "Hey, look at what I am doing!" Doing that basically makes you a public figure. Let me put it this way: If Bono suddenly decided to retire and become a private citizen, then that's all fine and dandy, yet people will still remember him as he was. Therefore they will write things about him and his life and music, and just because he goes away doesn't take away the memory of him. It's basically the same situation with you, Sean. You made yourself known and even now that you have decided to "retire," you will still be remembered for your comics, your strong stand against copyright violation, and the PA thing (unfortuantly). -Hoekenheef 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish to have a particular page deleted will be considered along with all other editors' wishes. Once the page exists, it belongs to noone and noone can force its deletion — not even the subject. If you didn't want the page, you shouldn't have made it in the first place. WP:AUTO cautions as such. We have many pages that have permanent POV disputes on them. George W. Bush springs to mind. -Splash 23:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't create it, as far as I can tell. (And does this whole bullet belong on the discuss page? I don't know how that works for VfD pages.) --Spinn2 00:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, almost anything goes in a VfD discussion. I thought he made it from reading the above comments. Clearly not, I'm sorry. But anyway, we don't delete articles just because someone doesn't like us having an article on them, unless it is in someway illegal. Charges of libel should be taken to the Wikimedia Foundation. -Splash 00:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What would constitute illegal? Publishing the name of a minor without consent, like my daughter's name? How about the fact that the dispute in question is simply libel against my person, with Wikipedia being used to repeat such damaging claims from an authoritative source? If not illegal, then how about just useless? Since I don't talk about my personal life online, the only reasons this page is to talk about my comics - which have their own entries and are more than capable of representing themselves without an associated author's page - and to repeat libelous statements verbatim without regard to simple things like... I don't know... facts, evidence, investigation, morals, or competence? I mean, I'm the world's foremost expert on me. What good is an article which not only ignores that expertise, but stands completely in defiance of it? What good is an article which can be used to defame, attack, or otherwise slander me that I do not have the tools to easily and quickly correct? There's no reason for this article to exist, and unless someone is willing to take legal responsibility for what goes into this article as it goes in, it represents a dangerous threat to my privacy, my reputation, and my personal well being. People get extra privs to edit their own user pages against vandalism, and yet I am forced to sit by, banned due to reverting the same malicious vandalism four times in 24 hours? That is completely unacceptable. Delete this article or take some damn responsibility for what happens to it. --SeanHoward 03:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"it represents a dangerous threat to my privacy, my reputation, and my personal well being." Oh really. Then let me ask you. Has anyone ever come straight up to your home and throw rocks at windows, spray painted a slander on your garage, or done "donuts" on your lawn because of any of this? I will say it again, when you decide to make a webcomic you said, "Hey, take a gander at me and my work!" Oh, plus asking for someone to take some "damn responsibility", I think the already have tried to, but you come behind them spewing things like, "Oh, don't mention any of my incidents with other webcomic authors because it will tarnish my reputation." Get over yourself, Sean. Yes, there will be POV problems with this are, and do you know why? It's because there are idiots here who believe it is fun and enjoyable to vandalism pages, but they are not the majority. The majority of users want to help make Wikipedia betterand that includes the Sean Howard article. -Hoekenheef 10:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have had my personal property damaged and I have received very personal and detailed death threats over the very material which Wikipedia seems absolutely incapable of keeping straight. Is my moral peril not enough? When was the last time you had threats on your home answering machine? And I'm not complaining about obvious vandalism. That's not a problem. It's people who make subtle, but very malicious accusations on a webpage about me without having a damn clue what the hell really went on. Were you there? Did you read the email I sent to Gabe and Tycho? Did you see the forum avatars? Did you share PMs with the people who used them? Did you talk with the forum admin who dealt with it? Did you have an email conversation with Gabe or Tycho later? No. You didn't, which means you don't even remotely have half the facts and have exactly zero business writing about it. Nobody does, because I'm the only one with the facts - and here I am trying to actually share those facts, and I'm fought every damn step of the way by jerks like you. If wikipedia can't be used to actually share facts about my life on a webpage dedicated to facts about my life, what good is this wiki crap anyway? What recourse do I have to protect myself against wikipedia except to have the article simply deleted? --SeanHoward 02:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one, if the facts you have differ from what's written, the process of getting that changed is more presentation and discussion, and less vulgarity and invective. If you didn't let your anger push people away from you so much, you might have an easier time bringing them together. --Spinn2 03:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you would calmly list the things that happened in the incident things would work out, the facts would be straight and we could all move on to other things. But having a fit is not going to solve the problem. -Hoekenheef 10:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The reason I showed up here was because hard facts were being changed into alleged facts. Something that absolutely did happen (and proven) was being changed to "may have" happened. I came in, wrote down all the facts, accompanied by two dozen links to evidence to back them up from third party sources, only to have that material changed. Then a quote is put in the thing which is taken COMPLETELY out of context and implies absolutely incorrect things. Then I get accused of POV simply because I'm the only one who is qualified to comment - there are no facts here that have been provided by anybody but me. I've spent literally years trying to clear my name of these baseless accusations, and you guys have a problem because the FACTS happen to agree with my side of the story and not the baseless slander of some guy who never even had a shred of evidence to support his side in the first place. Hell, even in this section, my comments have been changed - granted, they did use a word that you can see on NYPD Blue or The Daily Show, but it is dishonest. I said "shitload" because that word had exactly the sort of connotation that I wished to convey. Removing that word without notice changes the sentence. Wiki's policy tells me not to curse, but it tells you not to censor cursing. YOU CHANGED THE FACTS! It doesn't matter one bit what you think about me as a person. I could be, and am, the grumpiest person in the world, but you can't go changing facts and starting edit wars simply because you dislike me. Until you guys accept that I'm not only a primary source, but the only source period, this article will be nothing but conjecture and pure fantasy as you guys write what you think happened with exactly ZERO research or understanding of the topic at all. You write what you write because you hate me or because your search for NPOV tells you to discount the only source because HE WAS THERE, not because you have any factual evidence or anything intelligent to contribute. And Hoekenheef, it's amazing how quickly your tone changed. --SeanHoward 15:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Until you guys accept that I'm not only a primary source, but the only source period," Not true. I would also accept Gabe as a primary source for information as well.--Leth 15:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On some things yes. He can comment on relatively few things, actually. For instance, he'd be considered a secondary source on the actual forum discussions (if that. It's obvious he barely glanced at it). He would be a primary source on the email I sent him, but his interpretation of why things were written the way they were must be discounted. If the author says he wrote something and somebody disagrees, the author deserves the benefit of the doubt unless irrefutable proof exists otherwise. So, the amount of things that he can talk about with authority are few. It's a moot point anyway, because I don't see Gabe here, and you guys certainly aren't qualified to talk for him. --SeanHoward 16:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not moot at all; it illustrates why people are giving you so much resistence when you say you have the facts and are the only source of facts. Here's a summary of how that conversation just went:
[Sean]: I am the only primary source.
[Leth]: Not true, Gabe is also a primary source.
[Sean]: So what, Gabe's not here.
The point is, you're not the only primary source. And when you insist you are, it reduces your credibility. Especially when you tell people that another primary source must be discounted simply because you say so.
Now, are you the only primary source currently available? This might be true, I don't know. But this does not appear to be the statement you made. What you said is that you're the only source qualified to report on many of these issues and that we, and Wikipedia, are at fault for not recognizing this simple truth. --Spinn 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Policy doesn't say not to censor cursing. It says to leave it in when it's relevant to the article (like there's no reason to bleep everything in the Fuck article, for example). But, you're right, I might've overstepped editing etiquette there. Were this an article, we'd've discussed my edit rather than your yelling at me.
Plus, if you want to open a discussion about breaking guidelines, I would love to participate. There are a whole lot of behavior guidelines you've been regularly knocking down that I'd love to discuss. --Spinn2 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The section on avoiding profanity only covers writing articles with "brilliant prose". The section on Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines doesn't say anything about profanity, but it does distinctly say "Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission". You didn't just overstep. You jumped off. Besides, I use profanity well - you can say a lot with one word, more concise that way. "Wikipedia needs to show more responsibility" or "Wikipedia needs to show a shitload more responsibility". World of difference there, huh? I can't think of another word that would put emphasis on the right amount of disdain and distrust by which I judge wikipedia's responsibility and credibility. It's really quite pithy. It consists of pith. --SeanHoward 16:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about this. I jumped the gun. I should have allowed your vulgarity to stand, lest I give people an inaccurate impression of you.
However, do now make the mistake of using this example to invalidate everything I have ever done. As I said, were this an article, it probably would've been raised in a point of discussion and I would've stood by it or backed down, as necessary. --Spinn 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh did my tone change? Hmmm...Maybe I was trying to reason with you in a calm way. Just a thought.-Hoekenheef 10:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A person cannot prevent a news story being written about them, however there are laws that pertain to what the press can print - laws which do not and can not apply to wikipedia. The press has editorial responsibility for what they print. They can be sued for damages if they print something inaccurate or unfairly damaging. On wikipedia, there is no one to take responsiblity. Yeah, there's "policy", but it's not enforced so much as encouraged, and edits are reverted after they are made public, not verified beforehand by an editorial staff with integrity and honor. I am not a particularly famous person and many of the facts about the controversies that people seem so insistant on putting on this page are little more than hearsay and vulgar misrepresentations. Because I'm not famous, the amount of people on this planet that could create a factual summary of events that only I was involved in can be counted on one hand (hell, one finger - me). Wikipedia editors without understanding or appreciation of the subject would find it impossible to properly represent facts and could be easily mislead with malicious edits. Simply put, I'm not famous enough for anybody but me to know what the hell is going on with my life, and I'm not interested in fighting to maintain this worthless article against jerks and vandals. Unless wikipedia can guarantee more responsibility than has been shown in the past three weeks, it has no business discussing my personal life at all. Period. Wikipedia isn't the press. Don't even remotely pretend that it is. --SeanHoward 08:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Btw, "Against" is not a vote. Woohookitty 07:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ode to spot[edit]

Contains the text of a poem recited by a fictional character. Not encyclopedic. Might belong on memory Alpha, but not on wikipedia. Delete. DES (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Friendship[edit]

Delete nn Big Brother cruft. An alliance formed on the show. TheMidnighters 20:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfall Bot[edit]

Just another bot on just another IRC channel. Doesn't even seem to be custom code. —Cryptic (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Ingoolemo talk 19:55, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Digital certificates[edit]

Should be merged with Public key certificate. Note that "Digital certificate" (singular) already gets redirected to "Public key certificate" --Finbarr Saunders 20:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nezill[edit]

Vanity Crid 20:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Militarisation of space. -Splash 02:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Militarisation of Space[edit]

This page exists as the introduction to what looks to be a POV original research / crystal ball article. I really don't see anything NPOV arising out of this that wouldn't be better suited to an existing article like spy satellites. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:44:00, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Except -- what is it? AFAIK, there is no militari(z)ation of space apart from spy satellites. Isn't space a weapons-free zone per some treaty or other? I don't disagree with a redirect in principle save that I don't see any content to redirect to.

— Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:55:41, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Lomn, militarisation of space is about how nations are becoming more and more interested in space weaponry and space defense mechanisms. It was the Collaboration of the Week last week, so it is actually notable. ral315 17:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

EMC Stunt Team[edit]

Delete some form of nn vanity or cruft. Article does not assert notability, nor do 2 unique google hits: one from their site and a myspace. TheMidnighters 20:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move to Monkeys on ships. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor monkey[edit]

Doesn't eppear to be a term actually used. delete UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Note added by Paul Klenk: I found three mentions of this practice on the Web and posted them at this articles talk page. Paul Klenk 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheilaism[edit]

Information of no value to Wikipedia, potential Vanity page Avery W. Krouse 21:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete!!! A Yahoo search of this term produces over 1300 hits. This term was created by well-known religious scholar Robert Bellah (also creator of the term 'civil religion.'

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spongyabob[edit]

Short page about a Hungarian Spongebob website. All text is presumably in Hungarian. ral315 21:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was there's clearly no consensus to delete. Even if I don't count the "votes" that weren't signed, Mr Denni. Harrumph. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lissaexplains.com[edit]

Lissaexplains.com was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissaexplains.com/2005-08-28.

(Moving new comments to the bottom) NOTE: UNSIGNED VOTES WILL NOT BE COUNTED. Denni ☯ 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia1.jpg Another user that editted the article was punished also: http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia2.jpg Site owner admits it on the second screen. Two more users that either voted for delete or editted the article also went in problems. I think that the voting will be disturbed by these actions. If her site was good enough there was no need for these actions. This plus the other reasons stated above are clear enough for me.

Site owner banned my ip since she discovered my ip while i was editting my vote without being logged in. What a democratic voting proces! Dave83 16:23, 29 January 2006 (CET)

Comment: The process you are participating in is neither democratic nor a 'vote' in the sense that you are using the word. Refer to WP:DP for more. -Ikkyu2 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It wasn't vandalism. The article was updated to reflect the current state of the forum, and was factually accurate. Lissa is definately trying to influence the outcome of the vote by retaliating against those that vote against the article. I resonded to her first comment, but it was deleted. I pointed out that she was lying in her comments here, and since it was deleted, I feel as though she is being allowed to say what she wants (whether accurate or not), and nobody else is allowed to provide the truth- either because it will be removed or we will be retaliated against. If that's not "disrupting the credibility of the AfD process", I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.0.178 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Green[edit]

Delete nn musician/producer. Allmusic has never heard of him, unless this is the same Kirk Green who provided background vocals on a few R&B albums, either way he's nn. On Google a search of "Kirk Green" bassist returns 17 unique results (most of them unrelated), and "Kirk Green" "lauryn hill" returns 2. TheMidnighters 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was RESULT.delete.

The War of the Worlds 2[edit]

IMDb has nothing on it. There are Google hits on it, but most seem to be speculative, based on a quote by Dakota Fanning. WP:NOT a crystal ball. ral315 21:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I can barely believe that's a real name! -Splash 02:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Djedptahiufankh[edit]

This was tagged for a speedy delete, but I don't think it falls into that category - there does seem to some information elsewhere on the web about this person. I suspect there is so little known about Djedptahiufankh that the poor fellow only merits a footnote on some other page. I've no opinion one way or the other, so I'll leave it up to others to decide. (I.e. don't take this as a vote for or against deletion.) Finbarr Saunders 21:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Fabian Boudville 23:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of things put on resumes considered to be cliché[edit]

Not at all notable or interesting unless you're working on your resume, and last I heard, how-to guides were supposed to be moved to Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf. I can't imagine this article being expanded into anything encyclopedic that wouldn't go better in the resume article. Also, the title's really awkward. Penelope D 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lowter[edit]

Non-notable website. I abstain from voting; the website owner (and probably article creator) is an online acquaintance of mine. ral315 21:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am actually the creator and owner of the website, but I had no part in its creation. Just so you can rule that out. Ethan 22:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're the creator but had no part in its creation? Neat trick. :) Penelope D 22:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can check its history if you'd like. I was just searching through Wikipedia to see if any cool websites have pages. Since my website is so cool, lol, I stumbled on this page. I'm voting to delete it, as to be honest it really isn't much more than an ad. Although we don't make any money, lol. I have no idea how to go about deleting, but I'm putting my vote toward it. 23:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite correct. Ethan 14:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thedore William Swang II[edit]

Vanity page. The only mention of him on Google is in a family tree. Mcfly 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). Ingoolemo talk 20:02, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

5.11_Tactical_Series_Clothing[edit]

This is advertising a commercial interest: it's a clothing and accessories company. Veg0matic 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial religious leaders[edit]

Can I add Jesus, Osama bin Laden, Mother Theresa and Ghandi, or shall we just delete? (unsourced and inherently POV) --Doc (?) 22:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snn core[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crysatal ball, 15 Google hits, mostly subsites to this. Denni☯ 22:46, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and delete Ingoolemo talk 19:59, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Missionary Kid[edit]

Just a no-potential dicdef as stands - wracking my brains for a redirect, but can't find one --Doc (?) 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to (Somewhere). A Man in Black has offered to do it, so I'll just tag the article. -Splash 02:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McGar[edit]

This pokemon cruft is so 'inside baseball' as to be almost completely unintelligible to anyone not steeped in the game. I think it should be deleted. DavidConrad 23:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devoucoux[edit]

Advertising. Zoe 23:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks to Paul I'll change my vote to a weak keep. I don't know anything about these things.  :) Zoe 04:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Ledge[edit]

Wikipedia is not a rock collection. Denni☯ 23:42, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. brenneman(t)(c) 00:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vegoose[edit]

Wikipedia is not a playbill. If something notable happens at this event, I'm sure we can add an article then. Denni☯ 23:50, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

  • Yes indeed, Vegoose is "slated to become an annual event in Las Vegas around Halloween", and "is expected to draw 50,000 music lovers". I gathered this information from this source. I've recently edited the article, and mentioned this. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 01:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • ...is slated to become...is expected to... Then it's pure speculation, ennit? --Calton | Talk 04:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually "slated" means to schedule or designate, that sounds pretty confident to me. Also, what can they say? "There are definetly going to be 50,000 people there."? No, they can give you an estimate. It's not like theres gonna be 100 people, or 1000, even 10,000 people. I think we all know they'll be more... much more. At least common sense tells me that. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 17:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding your reference to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, here is an excerpt, "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion". Vegoose falls under this distinction. Also, this article was not intended to be an advertisment. I have nothing to gain from this. In fact I'll be losing a great deal of money attending the event ;*) And Vegoose will do well regardless of a wikipedia article, my intention was not to increase ticket sales. This event will undoubtely occur, and will be notable. Doesn't that make it notable now? - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 01:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Produce a news article that says George W. Bush is planning to attend and I'll agree it's notable now. Heck, produce an article about it in the mainstream news media like The New York Times that says the rock world's eyes are directed on Las Vegas and I'll agree it's notable now. An assertion by R_Lee_E's that he knows the future and that it will be notable is not notable, unless R_Lee_E personally is notable, or a recognized authority. The future is not verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P. S. Why on earth is it important to have the article in Wikipedia now? What's the problem with "userfying" it (moving it to a subpage of your personal user page) and then submitting the article again after the event has occurred? Quite likely there will be more to say about it then, and it will be a better article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me say, with no negative intention, I find this VFD rather ridiculous. Especially considering the articles I mentioned previously, and the excerpt I mentioned from WP:NOT. Only an act of god can prevent this event from occuring now, and although I can agree that the possibility exists, I think we can agree the possibility is rather remote. Same thing goes for 2008 Olympics. It will be a very notable music festival, I think thats obvious. Though considering the direction this VFD is heading, and being that its not much of a big deal to me, I am willing to retract my vote. Though we all know it'll be back in 30 days, and sheesh, I can't see it recieving a VFD then, unless it's just out of spite. ;) Thanks for your votes, you might as well delete it now. But my opinion stands, the delete votes this VFD recieved were rather ill-concieved and apparently submitted on a whim. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 03:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. Might wanna check out some of those articles I mentioned, if this very notable music festival is being considered for VFD, I can envision the same for many of those articles. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 03:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.S. Might it have been more appropriate to tag it with something similar to:
This article or section contains information about an upcoming sporting event.
It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available.
featured on 2008 Olympics? - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 03:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • The above post was submitted by User:209.234.66.97. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 04:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • The vote above is what I mean by "submitted on a whim". - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 04:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I created a new template, just for the heck of it. I updated the article to include it. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 07:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
((future music festival))

Here are several news articles about Vegoose that come from large reputable, non-local companies:

All of the above mentioned articles are not local to Las Vegas at all as far as I know, and they are very reputable companies. I specifically weeded those out of many, many other articles available about vegoose. While people invest hours of their time adding every single pokemon character, or every single obscure star wars character, or every single zatch bell! character to wikipedia, I'm trying to provide relevant info about a very notable music festival, expected to bring in many tens of thousands of people, and that will likely be an annual event for years to come. Thats why I think it's important now. I believe I've answered both of your questions. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 17:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • NOTE: The above vote was submitted by the same user who created this VFD.- R Lee E (talk, contribs) 19:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • The references to Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball above state the criteria, and Vegoose falls under this criteria. I understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia (thanks for demeaning me) BTW, you started this VFD didn't you? Doesn't that mean you've already submitted your default 'delete' vote? Is it nessecary, or allowed to vote twice? I may not understand the process fully, I apologize if I'm wrong. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 18:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. But is there something here that I'm not understanding correctly? > "Nominations imply a Delete vote unless the nominator specifically says otherwise." from Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Nomination and possibly "When someone has listed an article for deletion on one of the lists, anyone ELSE may comment on the request." from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Commenting_on_a_listing_for_deletion Sorry to keep this going, but I have never seen a nominator vote. I mean its not a huge deal to me whether this gets deleted or not, but I don't want it done illegitimately. Your comment for nomination at the top of this page, "Wikipedia is not a playbill. If something notable happens at this event, I'm sure we can add an article then. " sure seems to insinuate a delete vote. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 08:39, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, the acting admin is not going to count it twice. Relax about it. I happen think Denni is mistaken about this, but it doesn't matter. It will be perfectly clear to any admin who closes this VfD that Denni's intention is to cast one vote for deletion.
  • Theres nothing wrong with me trying to prevent my article from being deleted. Among the other countless tasks and chores I perform, I also like to keep tabs on my own work. I respect your vote to delete, I would hope you respect my wishes to keep. In regards to your only apparent objection to the article (crystal ball), it's been discussed, and in my opinion, shot down. - R Lee E (talk, contribs) 07:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty 06:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger OS[edit]

Nothing on Google, crappy article, and in the article it says the company says it won't release any info until 2006. Delete --Shanel 20:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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