This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a recently-started webcomic. FreplySpang (talk) 00:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. JYolkowski // talk 16:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Bruce Morgenholt
This is a hoax. (Article has now been rewritten) Phillip Masse is a fictional character from the Splinter Cell video game, as is the "Georgian Information Crisis" [1]. The Bruce Morgenholt article by the same anon author also mentions this fictional Georgian Information Crisis and is also a fictional character [2]. We have articles on fictional characters, but they can't be written as if they were real, and these ones likely aren't notable enough. -- Curps 00:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, poss. vanity. Minor Mugglenet-based "message board club". Less than 100 Google hits. Kwekubo 00:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This group is special because of the "strange" way they were created. How big they are: they may not have a lot of members but that doesn't mean that people don't know about them! They are like my second family! they've supoprted me when times got rough, and even, for instance, when one of our members developed cancer and the d69ers (I was new when it was going on) sent her a book with "get well soon" handwritten and drawn cards via snail mail! I think that makes them special! Saphira_the_Dragon (D69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.30.69 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 August 2005
I vote with Saphira. Why does this particular forum deserve it's own page? Because of the history of resiliency and the level of Maturity and kindness displayed; unique in the wealth of Harry Potter fansites. So great is the reputation of the group that Mugglenet (who, as it happens, recieved the very first Fan Site Award from JK Rowling, author of the books) not only put The D69ers on the page of links, but put them at the top. -WarnerRaider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.121.107 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 21 August 2005
Yes, Cool enough to look at it and vote delete, and hide the username from non-users. Proud of your vote then, I can see... Oh, and I'd prefer you don't put my IP on this, especially since I did put my username right on this. Ah, I can't say that I'm glad you picked up on that, however shocked I am that you did, Corey.Spring . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warnerraider (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 August 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be advertising a work in progress, almost certain vanity. Rje 00:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete . vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
--1 black hand 22:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this notable? We agreed to delete "ticalc.org" from WP, why not this? Frenchman113 00:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Acetic Acid 10:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
This article is way too long and just takes up space. 98% if the links are red and most of the towns are not notable. List of cities in Afghanistan exists in its place anyway. Banana04131 00:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - Don't clutter up List of cities in Afghanistan, making it hard to find major places (for those of us with serious foreign place name confusion). But, the secondary list is *easily* justified compared to the endless mass of lists for North American communities. Don't split the list up into sub-lists yet though, because then you'll just spawn a bunch of unnoticed orphans lists. With just two Afghan lists, we can put "back-links" to the list from the place articles, which will encourage "filling out" the info". --rob 09:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vote count so far: merge/redirect-2 Delete-5 keep-17
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems of dubious value to me. PhilipO 01:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Page has been protected from recreation. Dunc|☺ 17:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been deleted several times and has reappeared again, it's pretty obvious it should be deleted Corey.spring 01:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
(unsigned comment by 69.225.203.153. This person also blanked corey spring's comment)
(UTC)
I have protected the page, because a large number of anons and new users have repeatedly vandalized the page, including repeatedly removing the VfD header. Zoe 07:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. No consensus otherwise. JYolkowski // talk 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a copyvio, no other info, no activity for nearly a month Wiffle0rz 01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Any moving should be handled outside this VfD's scope. JYolkowski // talk 16:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not complete nonsense, but not far off. The title is the author's own invention, is not at all notable, and all the material in it is covered elsewhere.
Also see Hen that lays golden eggs, a redirect included in this nomination. 80.255 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a non-notable local youth group--14 displayed hits for "Saint Paul Youth Group". Niteowlneils 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. An attack page on a whole people. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine (Author wrote "This article highlights the true reasons behind the USA's constant threat to the global world. Oil."). Even the title is POV. Much of this stuff is unrelated (compare rape rates to bombings). As for the bombings, we already have a List of U.S. military history events. Any redirect of this, to anything, would be POV and arbitrary. CanadianCaesar 03:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete A1. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was recently vfd'd, with comments evenly split between transwiki and delete, and so was closed as keep. I've transwikied the article to Wikibooks, so deletion should now be non-controversial. —Cryptic (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gets a lot of google hits, but it seems very NN. Thunderbrand 04:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. Delete Blings 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Blings[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete with a copy to BJAODN.
In evaluating this discussion, I merged the three related discussions. Given the topic, it seems to me that an inconsistent result would be the worst possible choice.
By strict vote-counting, I get the following:
Delete | BJAODN | Keep | Merge | could not call | |
"against..." | 8 | 11 | 7 | 2 | 1 |
"for..." | 9 | 8 | 13 | 2 | 1 |
"don't care..." | 13 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
summed | 15 2/3 | 12 5/6 | 12 1/2 | 2 | 2 |
The last line represents the opinions if you took all three discussions and merged them, then eliminated duplication. The fractions come from 2 people who voted differently in the different discussions.
I should also note that 5 of the "keep" voters did so with comments that make it very difficult to tell if they were being serious. Their stated reasons appear to have no connection to the discussion. My hypothesis is that the discussion is about a joke and they consider surreal comments to be humorous and therefore appropriate. Not every culture shares that view, however. I was within a hair's-breadth of putting those comments in the "could not call" column.
Noting that a synopsis is already in the BJAODN archive, I am going to take the last step to delete the pages and the related redirects. Rossami (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad joke. BJAODN. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was article has changed significantly, so not deleted. JYolkowski // talk 19:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 05:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 19:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity/advertising. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a link repository or a HOWTO. --Mysidia (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Naconkantari 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN Many fan wikis have been deleted for much less. Only one of the references is not from wikia.com. --Fandyllic 4:46 PM PST 1 Nov 2006
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable --Hooperbloob 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band vanity. Tysto 06:17, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band vanity; had cleanup request since June. Tysto 06:19, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity --Ryan Delaney talk 06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable website. Unranked by alexa [5]Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Save- DONT DELETE
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete or Merge. I'll probably merge. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a single character form a video game, and there is little or no useful info included in the article. Delete or merge into Panzer Dragoon. DES (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? Gibberish? At best, something in the future. Though there is no link to whatever page the article is talking about. Neither Google nor Yahoo searches get any hits for this word. Zoe 06:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
They are discussing about http://www.origenxbox360.com/ The site is owned by Microsoft and is a promotion to xbox360... http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=433989
I have protected the article because it was being vandalized by a variety of children. Zoe 22:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism --Ryan Delaney talk 07:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slang dictdef. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notabilty not established, other than being a professor. Note that the name is common, so Google may return links/results to many other persons of the same name.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 07:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for a completely non-notable piece of software. CDC (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN + Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: yes delete now, but I wish to see the child grows to become a part of wikipedia one day. --Bhadani 07:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)--Bhadani 13:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE
NN, Fails to establish notability because he has no NASA experience. Vanity. :P - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student film and its 13-year-old creator. Zoe 08:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, as the writer of thsi film I can say this movie is relevant and it is being backed by a group of investors. You have no idea wat is going on plz dont delete this cause this is going to be a movie which will be released. It is just as relevant as any other movie. From Ryan Moore
My parents are putting $350,00 towards the production of thsi film. It does exist and it will be made so plz stop it.
OK then I understand if u wanna wait 'till it comes out but calling it vanity is rude and I would apperciate an apology
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable original research. The Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a mirror for dubious sites like www.americanantigravity.com, www.electrogravity.com, or jlnlabs.online.fr. Not primarily relevant to VfD, but of course it's totally at odds with physics.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, tagged and bagged. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game, advertising, probably copied from a pamphlet somewhere. Zoe 08:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of several pages being created by 13 yr old Ryan Moore of IP 220.240.152.145 to promote a film he wants to make. Delete Corey.spring 08:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
All the stuff I written is real and relevant. It does exsist and you have you information wrong.
OK then I understand if u wanna wait 'till it comes out but calling it vanity is rude and I would apperciate an apology BTW it is not several pages it is 3 relevant pages
I continue to demand an apology
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable website with no Alexa rank and a dismal 14 unique Google hits. Article makes no other claim to notability, and was created by someone who claims to run ChromePixels itself (incidentally, he's now been blocked for suspected sockpuppetry and an offensive user name). Vanity, advertising. CanadianCaesar 08:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish notability, in my opinion. Sietse 09:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not Star Wars fancruft as the name would imply (or Trekkie-cruft, if Doc Glasgow were doing the nomination). It's a non-notable forum clan. I thought you had to be doing something competitive to form a clan. Regardless, non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This text is of dubious encyclopedic nature, and shouldn't exist by itself. Long lists of people who donate lots of money to institutions don't really belong in university/college articles, as it is somewhat arbitrary and often information on the trustees themselves already exists separately on WP and on official instution websites. Delete Bumm13 10:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem known as latency in software engineering; duplicating a list maintained elsewhere risks getting out of date. I vote for deletion. Pdn 15:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (PhD Caltech 1960)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To the original author: I'm afraid this article, though interesting, isn't encyclopedic. Encyclopedias are supposed to contain information, not whole stories.
I'm voting delete as per Wikipedia:No original research. Kel-nage 10:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A band which is "relatively unknown and have not released any albums" according to the author. There were pages created for each member: Tom duffy, Nick campbell, Dave beadle, Neil Curran. Delete all TheMidnighters 11:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn teen band Punkmorten 11:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amarna Letters Dictionary Global, No. 1, Amarna Letters EA 205(Mayor of Tubu), Amarna Letters EA 245(Biridiya,No.4), Amarna Letters EA 296(Yahtiru), Amarna Letters EA 299(Yapahu), Amarna Letters EA 330, Sumerograms, No.1, in EA Letters and Category:Transliterations.
This clearly has something to do with the translation of ancient Egyptian documents - or at least one ancient Egyptian document - so I'm loathe to speedy it as nonsense. However, it's way too incoherent to be salvaged as an article. At best, it would contain the translation of an ancient Egyptian document, and notes on how it was translated; if anyone's interested, it could go on Wikisource instead. DS 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might belong in some other wiki, if author or authors want to start it there. Gene Nygaard 20:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. No consensus to delete this one. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Degrassi-cruft, non-notable actor with 14 Google hits. The reason I am bringing it here is to draw attention to User:Jenngonemad who has made several similar articles. Punkmorten 11:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is recent to the Degrassi show as the resident token Eskimo, and will be more prominant in the upcoming season, starting next month in Canada. There will be more content to add before the year ends. Besides, when he does become as prominant as any of those other Degrassi actors, this article will probably be created again if it gets deleted now. --Boycottthecaf 03:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nn, possibly definitely vanity. Ngb 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, maybe vanity.Zander 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article Biggest-selling female musician has been nominated for deletion. A record of a previous vote on the matter can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biggest-selling female musician.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, little content Cheese Sandwich 13:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete HappyCamper 13:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stub about a website which does not establish notability. About 40-50 Google hits for the name of the website, depending on syntax. No Alexa ranking. I see no reason to assume that it is notable. Sietse 14:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete HappyCamper 13:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, looks like an advertisement. Cheese Sandwich 14:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish commercial products such as this could be speedied.
lots of issues | leave me a message 14:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 14:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep --Tony SidawayTalk 18:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Musical singles are/should be unworthy for an encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 14:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web site Rx StrangeLove 14:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable website, Alexa indicates ranking >100,000; Google test indicates 42 hits. If the site is non-notable, then neither is a pseudonym for its webmaster --Mysidia (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No good. Erwin Walsh
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 11:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete posthaste. Erwin Walsh
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete HappyCamper 13:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous, dictionary esque. Erwin Walsh
I started this article. It is mainly aiming on people who've asked this a dozen times in various internet forums, as they could not find what it means. - andy 80.129.122.72 12:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't deserve its' own article, possible merge candidate. Erwin Walsh
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 03:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN. Erwin Walsh
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 11:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How vain. Erwin Walsh
*Keep Over 130,000 results on Google. How can someone be too young to be notable? Lindsay Lohan is 19, and she got her own page. Jeremy Mora is five years her senior. Acetic Acid 17:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Scott Tenorman Must Die. -Splash 03:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another stub like Phil collins (south park) and Mr. Garrison's Father (South Park). I'd say delete unless someone is interested in creating and article on the relevant episode. Soltak 16:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the more unusual biographies I've run across. A high-school musician, and later possibly arrested for getting too friendly with a dog. Probably skirting CSD. Joyous (talk) 16:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vanity Elfguy 16:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedied. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page. --Ian Pitchford 17:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable lawyer. Full text: "Martin Enda Marren, a highly respected Dublin barrister, is descended from one of the famous County Sligo Marren's. The Marren's are an Anglo-Irish Protestant family well known in both Ireland and Britain for their involvement in the arts, academia and the law." Rl 17:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page and all pages created by the user are nn and fail WP:MUSIC. Delete this for sure. I'm not sure how to actually nominate all of them, though. We can discuss it on the talk page. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 18:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up this page a bit, but I don't believe that a 600 hit/day bulletin board turned online magazine is considered notable. A search through Google only reveals one hit, a press release from the magazine on a public press release database. The magazine's website itself isn't even listed. -D. Wu 18:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable editor in chief of a non-notable magazine (see Word On The Street vfd above). Search through Google reveals no hits in the first two pages. -D. Wu 18:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page Nemonoman 18:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? Why does it make no sense to me whatsoever? Francs2000 | Talk 18:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its a good site but its still spam, spam/vanity. Nifboy 18:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a dead-end dictionary definition and is unveriable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possible vanity. The article only mentions his uninteresting childhood. If he did found a cult, it has yet to do anything notable. Acetic Acid 19:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
del promo of a record label with no releases. mikka (t) 19:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism; Google search doesn't indicate a widely established term (voters - please confirm). Cheese Sandwich 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
A dictionary definition of a non-word. Google mainly recounts the same Fry and Laurie anecdote. Secretlondon 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 04:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if a highway is notable enough in its own right to have an encyclopedia article. Cheese Sandwich 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny band, fails WP:MUSIC criteria Secretlondon 19:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Member of Dead Messenger, non notable band Secretlondon 19:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Member of non-notable band, see above Secretlondon 19:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Member of non-notable band, see above Secretlondon 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was COPYVIO, without a rewritten article. -Splash 03:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unencyclopedic and appears to be written in a way to advertise the resort the article is reporting on. Since this is a type of vanity article, I suggest that it be deleted. Solarusdude 19:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Self-promotional, non encyclopedic article EdwinHJ | Talk 20:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam advertising. Jobe6 20:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Deleted: +4/0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax. There's been something about this article that just didn't feel right to me, & after a bit of research learned the following:
Please vote delete; after this foolishness is purged from Wikipedia, I'll add an article with some genuine information. llywrch 20:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax. Yes, Ethiopia did enjoy significant economic growth between 1950 to 1970; however Google returns no hits for this phrase independent of Wikipedia; this growth was fuelled by exports of coffee, not "kimavi cha kuku" (which appears to be Swahili for Ageratum conyzoides, a wild flower); I can find no explanation for "kashi-kawu" (Google provides no hits independent of Wikipedia). Another contribution from an anon editor, whose IP resolves to another Ameritech DSL router. Delete. llywrch 20:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly not worthy. Cheese Sandwich 21:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Transwiki. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A silly article about an insignificant movie character, with uncited sources, that reads way too much into the movie 65.49.152.201 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Keep {The written quality of the article is done to a high degree of effectiveness and a quick IMDB.com search of Roy Chiao will indeed verify that the actor, who portrayed Lao Che in the film, did indeed die from complications and heart disease in China in 1999. The Temple of Doom was also indeed criticised for its perceived racial undertones, especially later during the Indian sequences of the movie. These facts are indisputable. To remove an article simply because it relates to a "minor film character" would be entirely counter-productive to the very purpose of having Wikipedia -- that is to say, inform the public and provide as much information as possible on an infinite number of topics and listings.} -65.49.152.227 21:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Unless we have sources of these stories being true, it reads as patent nonsense to me". It doesn't fit the definition of patent nonsense, but does look like it might be original research. Kappa 21:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Will merge. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think this is worthy of a full article. Merge (where?) or delete. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was userfy. JYolkowski // talk 19:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vanity, non-notable Dvyost 22:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does this genre not exist, but this page only lists one example (Emperor and Satyricon are most definitely not "vampyric black metal") whose style barely has any basis in black metal in the first place. Not notable. Dysfunktion 22:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:21, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
A slew of vanity/advertising pages, created by username User:Fast films. Only Google hits appear to be on amateur video blogs, apparently self-authored, and own website. Also, many variants on the above, created by User:Fast films and User:68.23.149.212, and accompanying vanity images. -- The Anome 22:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Allen3 talk 21:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Fictional work masquerading as the entry for H.G. Wells short story The Chronic Argonaut (singular). I have added the correct entry and adjusted the links accordingly. ae7flux 22:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Is this information or marketing? An unreleased niche game for an unreleased console... 193.190.253.144 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe just add it to some sort of category about Beta software? It seems too sparse to be any sort of plug for the game or the console. If anything it's a really bad stub... kvidell 00:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - section has been removed from 21st Century Emo. --80.4.224.6 20:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would actually suggest redirecting 21st Century Emo to Emo Fashion... 193.190.253.144 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I recreated the fashion article, it was originally at Emo (that article was subject to a long POV dispute), someone moved it to 21st Century Emo but it relates to both plus others. I am working on a summary for 21st C article. It forms part of series on Emo linked by the Template:Emo. Paul foord 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) User:80.4.224.6 has been rewriting articles to try to resolve POV issues and development of usage of term Emo. Redirect comment above may fit in the POV dispute Paul foord 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the issue of emo fashion needs to be a separate topic from the music itself. either that, or somehow connect it more directly with the "scene kids" article. -chadski
Redirect - most of the content is extremely subjective. for instance, i have never heard of 'refused' getting credited for that hairstyle. on top of that, when you click on the link to the 'refused' page, there is a picture of refused, and none of them are sporting the said hairstyle. furthermore, the part about weezer doesn't make grammatical sense, and anyway weezer displayed the previously-established 'indie-rock' look.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Marskell 09:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A list without a list. Page admits that there will likely only be ever two political parties (which does not make for a list). Note the territory has 9500 hundred people so I don't think this page will ever be necessary. Marskell 00:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm recommending the page for deletion because it's a "completely idiosyncratic non-topic", in the words of the Deletion Policy. I've Googled on Jacob Mumm and can't see anything noteworthy. To me, the page is rubbish. (Perhaps it should be a speedy delete?) --Finbarr Saunders 22:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. A google search on "jacobb mumm" returns 40 hits. --zandperl 23:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
No entries on IMDB, and has a very poor google score (with this wikipedia article the only one being in English), so I can't attempt to save it. If anyone else can, good luck! Created by anon IP last November, with only mop-and-bucket edits since. Delete. The JPS 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef. BrainyBroad 00:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article repeats content of Laura Bush, duplicative, cannot grow beyond a stub because subject is not notable. Delete Toshiba 00:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Power (international). There's nothing to merge. -Splash 06:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This entry's topic encompasses too much information, and, since each of the topics listed within here are discussed elsewhere (and would be more in-depth in their own context,) I find this topic to be non-encyclopedic. Jolb 17:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]