< August 22 August 24 >

August 23[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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

IP Multicast Media Impact[edit]

Bizarre, non-encyclopedic rant. Kurt Shaped Box 00:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio? Secretlondon 01:19, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscientific metrology[edit]

Finish a VfD submission from Rktect. No vote, see below for thoughts on the article. Ken talk|contribs 00:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

For those just tuning in, the debate is, basically, whether all current systems of weights and measures can be traced directly back to a set of African or Middle Eastern measurements of antiquity. Part of this is whether the source society knew enough about geometry to base their measurements on something as arcane as a degree, one 360th part of a circle. There are reasoned arguments on both sides. Side questions include accuracy of the ancient measurements, which ancient society was the theoretical donor, and a bunch of things I'm leaving out intentionally.
Ken talk|contribs 00:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The article is a polemic against the anti metric movement which is attacked at least three times in the course of a page because it "spurred further activity".
It doesn't say what the activity was, but then goes off on a tangent to allege "many different" unspecified "theories" have a "common theme" and attempts to associate the anti metric movement with the French Acadamie of Sciences, Jean-Adolphe Decourdemanche, August Oxé, Livo C. Stecchini, John F. Neal, Alexander Thom and his ideas about a Megalithic yard.
Additionally this article engages in several other unsubstantiated attacks which have no basis in fact and taken as a whole is essentially patent nonsense. Rktect 01:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • The ancient units of measure of Mesopotamia and Egypt (dating from several thousand years BC) are directly defined by the circumference of the Earth.
  • All ancient systems of measurement were built on each other, and exact definitions existed that related them
  • There exists a Megalithic Yard. It can be directly linked to the Mesopotamian measures
Etc. I guess if this is to be accepted and described as bona fide science then Wikipedia is not what I though it was. -- Egil 03:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get the terms straight. Cranks are people who write pages like that, full of opinion and speculation but notably short on real scientific knowledge, references, cites and even specific objections.Rktect 06:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

so labeling what people have learned about measurement "pseudoscience" or "pyramidology" seems pretty weird.Rktect

Google [1] [2] [3] seems to indicate that proponents of this "science" don't call themselves metrologist, so metrology should be dropped from the name. pseudoscientific is sort-of POV and should be dropped. therefore:
  • Remove all unnecesary info and put historical info where it belongs. for instance put The circumference of the Earth under Spherical Earth if found accurate.
  • Rewrite extensively
  • Merge with Megalithic Yard
especially the introduction is lacking. -- Zanaq 19:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I beg to differ on two accounts:
  • Over-use of terms like metrologist and geometer are typical indicators of bs.
  • The Megalithic-Yard-believers are just one fraction. There are many others. What about this beauty? So I think merging with MY is not good. I would also hate seeing this stuff merged with metrology. Also, historic meterology is plain misleading. This is pseudoscience, but a more NPOV term can be found, like alternative. I'd rather call a spade a spade, however.
-- Egil 20:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by some of the last few weeks incidents, I've collected various material on Pseudoscientific metrology. I'd appreciate it if you would review it. -- Egil 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC) I've also posted this request: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Pseudoscientific_attack. -- Egil 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC) A pseudoscientific attack: that's exactly what seems to be happening here. I'll have a look at your page. Splitting Ancient weights and measures article was a good idea. I'd been thinking of doing that myself. Jimp 8Aug05 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimp" copied into the record by Rktect 16:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Thanks Rktect. I'm sure this will be very useful. Jimp 28Aug05

Zanaq 14:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of you seem to be saying that

So, is the previous from the last point an indication that you changed your vote? -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of you seem to be saying that" but I have to admit I'm fascinated by the idea that renaming it to something NPOV Like "Facts I didn't Know" and removing the POV content from the page would not leave a single full sentence in that article. All that page evidences right now is how little its author actually knows about the scientific method.Rktect 06:16, August 27, 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 was delete. --Coredesat 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for help[edit]

Call for help (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion in Aug 2005. Last Afd. (Wasn't sure how to do this, if I jacked it up someone please fix, sorry). Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, this article is a how to and little else. All of the important information is redundant and what isn't can be merged with the appropriate article (as was suggested the first time around). On top of this there are no references (its factual accuracy is disputed), the radio section is almost entirely OR, I would say. All of this and not a comment on the talk page since November 2005. IvoShandor 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On second glance a lot of the article looks like original research. IvoShandor 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe but I really can't see anyone typing "call for help" into the Wiki looking for the result to be distress signal, I suppose it's possible.IvoShandor 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Slender Means[edit]

This band doesn't seem to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC (their first album is released tomorrow, apparently, by a record label that doesn't appear to have an article in Wikipedia). I don't know enough about the indie rock scene to know if the article is worth keeping or if this is vanity. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what, delete them when they're no longer not famous? --Tysto 15:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gachake[edit]

Not notable Secretlondon 01:15, 23 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. Rje 02:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Charlie Vansant[edit]

Hosting a university radio show isn't a big deal, I've had a show in the past. As for podcasts, anybody can do that if they so wish. Non-notable, probable vanity Rje 01:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Miscreated a user page the first time, and went to edit the user page and was saving as an actual page. Please delete and accept my mixup apologies Charlievansant 10:07, August 22, 2005 (EST)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Korn unleashed[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 already speedy deleted. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Christronic.com[edit]

Non-notable website; only online since August 2005. Madchester 02:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Clandestine music[edit]

As my father would say, "pure d. (for 'damn') nonsense." Delete. FuriousFreddy 02:48, 23 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wernham[edit]

Google gives 2 results for this under-18s rugby player. Possible vanity Cnwb 02:56, 23 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

FuelDog[edit]

Not notable, ad. --fvw* 03:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 speedied under the new CSD. --fvw* 03:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Avnish[edit]

Non-notable. Also, it looks like the page has been vandalized. Cheese Sandwich 03:27, 23 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Bailey[edit]

Vanity, no evidence of notability. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC) PS. Please direct comments longer than 25 words to the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Kevin Bailey. Thanks in advance.[reply]

Comment This is not an article, it's a stub attached to lists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_designers The list also includes links to various other lists all the way down the food chain to lists of fonts not created in major foundries; i.e. freeware type designers who are listed alphabetically. I intend to be somewhat of a watchdog in this realm of the database and can see where improvements and better organization can improve the integrity within this category. Respectfully, It would be my hope that those that are not trained in this particular discipline can abstain from being too critical. You can trust that the community for which this information serves will be deliberate and expedient in maintaining the quality of the data as typophiles become increasingly aware of this expanding database. From the bylaws of Wikipedia: "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion."Kevinb3 14:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a British poet called Kevin Bailey who I've now knocked up a stub for. Thoughts? Hiding talk 21:19, 27 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Permised[edit]

Admitted neologism. Pity it's not a speedy. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:28, 23 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, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nero (band)[edit]

Vanity page. Hurricane111 04:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up article some. Alf 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Footsnam[edit]

Seemingly a colloquial term for Footscray, which the author can't even spell correctly, which has a sizable Vietnamese community Cnwb 04:22, 23 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. -- RHaworth 07:57:32, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Scarface references in south park[edit]

Scarface references in south park are non-notable. freestylefrappe 04:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. The material has already been added verbatim to the target, and this was not a nomination for deletion anyway. -Splash 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amorbis[edit]

I don't see a need for a whole article on this boss. It could probably be contained in the Metroid Prime 2: Echoes article. Thunderbrand 04:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. The material has already been added verbatim to the target, and this was not a nomination for deletion anyway. -Splash 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quadraxis[edit]

Like the Amorbis article, this could just be contained in the Metroid Prime 2: Echoes article. Thunderbrand 04:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per WP:CSD clause A7. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Roque[edit]

Vanity page. No entry in google search. Hurricane111 04:49, 23 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:10:30, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Andrew lawson[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 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Chustle[edit]

Dictdef, neologism. --fvw* 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. I've added a ((merge)) tag to the article as most of the non-delete votes suggested a merge and/or redirect. JYolkowski // talk 22:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Knight (principal)[edit]

Non-notable school principal. We have to let every school in the world in, do we have to allow their faculty? The last paragraph is an attack, anyway, and it was initially created by the original author, so it isn't vandalism of the article. Zoe 04:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

What changes need to be made to remove the article from the deletion list? I created it, and just removed the aforemented material - which while being quite accurate - is deemed inappropriate by others. The article should stay. For some, places and people they don't know about are not relevant, but for those that know of them - are quite relevant. - G 10:44, 23 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, copyright violation (or if copyright is given it's spam). - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

ECommerce Best Practices[edit]

Ad. --fvw* 05:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as hoax or otherwise unverifiable. Marriage not covered by any online news sources. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Princess Serena Bullock[edit]

Zero Google hits for '"serena bullock" brunei'. Unlikely that a 16-year-old Western girl would marry the Crown Prince of Brunei, even less likely that it wouldn't make any ripples on the Internet. Zoe 05:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was that the article was rewritten into a valid stub and kept. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Emperor Tianzuodi of Liao[edit]

Nonsense or hugely lacking in context. Not worth keeping either way. --fvw* 05:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Reserved pending changes by Nateji77. --Apyule 07:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after changes. --Apyule 05:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very short stub finished. Nateji77 04:51, 25 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). --Ryan Delaney talk 15:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Brigade[edit]

No evidence of notability. --fvw* 05:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 15:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furfire[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. --fvw* 05:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe Programming Language[edit]

Scripting language of which the first version was published a fortnight ago. Not notable. --fvw* 05:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ihyd[edit]

Non-notable neologism. --fvw* 05:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Luck[edit]

No sources or google hits for any of the relevant terms, probable hoax. --fvw* 05:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Boragina[edit]

Non-notable nobody who hasn't even won an election. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care. delete it if you want. Pellaken 06:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just dont care. I could fight this, but I dont have the energy right now. Pellaken 12:37, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Cheng[edit]

Non-notable editor, vanity. Zoe 05:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorama[edit]

Non-notable, apparent vanity of a local LAN-party. Boxclocke 05:57, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica (Stargate)[edit]

Please do not vote merge and delete, those actions are incompatible. Merging requires the hsitory of an article to be retained (in for example a redirection). - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. You should discuss some of your proposed articles beforehand on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate page, to get a better feel of whether they're actually notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Madchester 06:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Could I just get a suggestion where to put it finally, then go ahead with the deletion? I think the content is worth posting, I just need direction with precisely where to put it.
I'm not familiar with the current Stargate project or the peeps working on it, but just feel free to drop a message on that talk page, and I'm sure that that the regulars there will decide whether the article is worthy for inclusion. There may be someone already working on a similar article for all I know. They already have some timeline for articles to be created, so just chat it up with them first. --Madchester 06:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Stargate SG-1.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:54, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circular_Album[edit]

This really seems to be a neologism, as a google test for "circular album" returns very few results, all of which are in the context of describing an album, and not as a widespread or notable concept. Therefore, this article should be deleted. Static3d 06:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I like the article, and can think of a few more albums to list. If it must be moved, It would probably fit better under Song cycle, as it already has a mention of the circular album. Dr Ellipso 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only link to the Circular_Album page on Wikipedia is, in fact, on the Song cycle page. However, the original author of the Circular Album page placed it there, and it was a simple replacement of the words "song cycle" in the final paragraph and rendered nearly all text after the link incorrect. To be specific, the paragraph talks about song cycles in popular music, then the inserted text reads "Other circular albums in popular music include: ..." It suddenly jumps to an unrelated (an incorrect) concept. Albums like this really do exist, and info about them could be added to the song cycle page, possibly by saying something like "certain albums take the concept of a song cycle even further, by allowing seamless looping of the entire album." Obviously, the term "circular album" shouldn't appear anywhere. Static3d 02:56, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Codes of silence[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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Giddenson[edit]

Appears to be patent nonsense associated with Grande Trilogie of Epick Workes - no google hits, first article by editor. - Bantman 06:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment This particular article was created by User:Hamonicamusings and subsequently edited by User:205.197.148.2, I have encouraged 'them' to comment here. Alf 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, this is hamonicamusings. I agree with Alf's suggestion, and put it up on the BJAODN. Even though it's a hoax, it was a pretty well thought out one...you have to give me that, at least. I am thinking though that it could use some historical references. No matter. I also thing that Tysto needs to lighten up a bit. But yeah, delete it or Move it to BJAODN. Probably the best place for it anyway. Hamonicamusings 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Tysto; this is an example of the insidious vandalism that poses the greatest threat to WP. It was undetected for about 12 hours, and even touched up by other editors; I only caught it because I was watching 1280 and sensed that the article didn't look right. It could have stayed up for a long time without detection as a glaring example of WP's shortcomings. - Bantman 21:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN. Awesome hoax. Wish it was true. -HX

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Trilogie of Epick Workes[edit]

Appears to be patent nonsense related to Bruce Giddenson - no google hits, first articles by contributor. - Bantman 06:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I have encouraged User:Hamonicamusings and User:205.197.148.2 to comment here. Alf 19:01, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fur Foot[edit]

This article is such nonsense I gotta pay out the wazoo sending this VFD in all the way from Panama City, Panama. This article is useless on its own, precedent set for deletion of all Toad Patrol character pages with the Slippery Jack deletion. [[8]]. Rainbowwarrior1977 06:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep if the toad patrol people think that their article is too long.--Apyule 12:46, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Raven[edit]

((Extremely offensive reason for deletion deleted. I think the reason is "vanity." Kelly Martin 19:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC))) CrunkGurl88 07:11, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paula P-Orridge[edit]

New Age woo woo vanity page. Calton | Talk 07:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monir Georgi[edit]

A 25-year-old "internationally renowned Vocational Education Expert" who has, nevertheless, managed to mostly escape the notice of Google (8 unique hits, mostly Wikipedia and mirrors). Delete. Calton | Talk 07:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

An obituary archive from a local paper, nanny rates at Christmas, coptic Christianity, and a kickboxing club reference that 404s. --GraemeL (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a feeble attempt at self-promotion. (edit 12:25, 23 August 2005 by User:62.49.6.17)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 00:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salted mustard greens and shredded meat noodle soup[edit]

Wikipedia is Not a reciepie book... Delete Usrnme h8er 07:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --GraemeL (talk) 14:56, 23 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 Userfy. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Boyd[edit]

Does not appear notable, more suitable for user space

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 00:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kampong Festival[edit]

Looks like an advertisement. The poster seems to be trying to market the event. Moreover, the poster has limited edits and all edits are related to this event. __earth 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


baBlonde:I can understand that you gentle beings would think that its an advertisement. My aim is not to advertise, but merely to create an awareness to wikipedians that there is a festival out there that showcases some of these elements. For instance, would you ever be able to see an 'orang asli' or experience an authentic 'kampong' lifestyle if you were in Malaysia? I'm merely suggesting where we can find these elements. My rationale is this: you can search for 'orang asli', 'kampong' and 'hulu langat' in the wikipedia, and I can tell you one place where you can experience or see for yourselves these elements in a most authentic state, ie not in a museum or shopping mall. To point a place on a map, so to speak. I would sincerely appreciate if you'd re-consider. And like I mentioned, is a place that bridges the gap between urban and kampong lifestyles in Malaysia. Thanks!


sugarbabe: I think its cool to have it in. There's nothing wrong to shout out something great like this fest. I don't really think of it as an advertisement. Let it stay, won't harm a soul.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 01:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave_Zarzycki[edit]

vanity, non-notable 193.190.253.144 11:35, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B683 road[edit]

While major highways are encyclopedic, B roads are not. Radiant_>|< 11:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B6186 road[edit]

While major highways are encyclopedic, B roads are not. Radiant_>|< 11:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by some other admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Vincent[edit]

Non notable bio--KURANDO 11:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any such assertion. What do you see as a claim to notability? I don't want to make the same mistake again. --GraemeL (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"His actvities in hacker culture include projects for the Phone Losers of America (for which he emceed a panel at The Fifth H.O.P.E.,) writing and editing the Phone Losers of America spinoff zine United Phone Losers, and regular attendance of the New York City 2600 meetings." It's a patently absurd claim of notability, but it's a claim nonetheless. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That interpretation would make WP:CSD A7 pointless. If a claim is patently absurd it isn't in this sense a claim at all. But in this case, it isn't a question of absurdity. If those statements are true it still doesn't make the person notable for wikipedia purposes, not even arguably. Thus what they claim isn't "notability". This should be speedy deleted. DES (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in its current form, CSD A7 is far too weak. But that's what it says. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See` Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable bios) for my views on this at greatger length. These views are not accepted by all. But I think pretty much every one would accpt that a claim which, if absloutely true would not be notable enough for a wikipedia article is not a "claim of notability" under A7. Check the debates at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 to see what people said as they were discussing what became CSD`A7. DES (talk) 18:42, 24 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Farinacci Fontecha[edit]

Vanity, only 2 links in google (plus one from wikipedia, and one of wikipedia mirror). andy 11:54, 23 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 no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B1249 road[edit]

The B1249 is a minor road from Willerby to Skipsea – see where it is on Google Maps. (Willerby is near the top of the page, in the middle, the road then runs South and then turns East in Driffield.)

The article was nominated for deletion once back in August here, when there was no consensus to delete; someone else accidentally put is up for deletion a few days later and quickly withdrew the nomination. The article hasn't grown much since, and there is not much to say about this road except that it is a minor road linking two Yorkshire villages.

Editors who are not from Britain might read the article on B roads. In Britain, B-roads are collector roads that funnel traffic into larger arteries; unlike A-roads they are quite unimportant in the grander scheme of traffic infrastructure and the numbering is used for bookkeeping and local reference.

Delete per the consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Consensus/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom. Pilatus 19:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spamglok and Strange Presence[edit]

The first line says it all: "Spamglok is a fictitious rock band...". Google search with "Lance Bland" "Christopher Bland" gives 0 hits. Also delete Strange Presence about the same people, nowhere found through google. 80.223.148.221 11:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (logged in as feydey 11:55, 23 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 DELETED by Raul654, per his comment at the bottom. -Splash 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adequacy Style Troll[edit]

I am submitting this VFD debate to the August 23 list, not because of a small number of votes (there are awfully many votes), but because it apparently wasn't submitted to the August 3 VFD listing. I am not voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ta bu was trying to turn a red link blue. But, if this article is not good enough to be on it's own, then I suggest a merge to Kuro5hin, since that is where AST got started at. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All who voted "keep" seem to miss an improtant issue: the article just reeks of original research, even if it is copied from kuro5hin. mikka (t) 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, real original when the information is all from from a secondary source. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the one who invented the notion and published at its own site. And someone other copied it here. The term "original research" does not mean "research by wikiauthor." The problem is not authorsip; the problem is absense of peer review here. Exacly in the same way I may copy into wikipedia an article of some kook that describes his discovery of a hollow ball inhabited by trolls inside Moon. mikka (t) 15:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls and sockpuppets not withstanding, consensus is to delete. I've deleted. →Raul654 20:44, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. Al 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem-Reaction-Solution[edit]

WP:ISNOT a how-to, especially for stuff like this. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:36, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Managing your inbound calls[edit]

Advertisment Usrnme h8er 12:55, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podcaching[edit]

This is certainly a "neo" neologism - coined less than two months ago. The term may cache on (sorry for the pun) but right now is has 287 hits on Google, many either Wikipedia mirrors or repeats of the blog that coined the term. It makes sense as a neologism, it's just a question of whether Wikipedia should be used to popularize a new term. -- DS1953 12:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Surely podcooking would find a place on the Cookbook as something to do with mange tout peas? As for Podcaching, delete per Sdedo and Tysto Tonywalton  | Talk 20:36, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Alice[edit]

Someone's band, Non-notable. Only mention of them on google is WP's Alice disambig. Also absent from allmusic.com. akaDruid 13:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself says the band is dead; there's no way that theyr'e ever goign to meet WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 14:00, 23 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. Since we prevail on placing articles at the most common usage, and the companies website itself refers to it as KTF, I'm not going to move it myself. I will, however, create the full-name as a redirect. Since that redirect will have a trivial history, anyone can WP:BOLDLY move the existing article over it if they want to. -Splash 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTF[edit]

This was previously deleted as blatant advertising. However, on VFU it was pointed out that the article was rewritten just before its deletion, and not all voters had been aware of that. So, it was decided to give it another chance. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 07:09, September 1, 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) 01:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Ivies[edit]

Personal essay. Original research. Non-neutral point of view. Article itself notes that there "is no authoritative list." So, where did the list come from? The personal authority of contributors, I suppose. It also notes that the term is "misleading." If good evidence is presented that this is a frequently used term that refers to a list of schools that is as well-defined as Public Ivies then I'd accept the topic as encyclopedic. Nominator votes "delete." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fungclunctious[edit]

Neologism. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:04, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the Eds-Treme![edit]

TV-web-site-game-cruft. That's right, three kinds of cruft in one article. It's all non-notable. Several Times 14:05, 23 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 delete.  Grue  19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

!! 6- -.4rtist.com[edit]

What is this?? I have no idea. Delete - unless he's some sort of famous graffiti artist, which is possible, but it's kinda hard to search. PubLife 14:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i´ve noticed later, that i can publish my "extended" 4rtistname

"6_or_SeX-_-█═════█████████──────.4rtist.com" in wilipedia but wikipedia can´t handle the name as a filename so the reduced version Unsigned comment by User:4rtist

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 01:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LaChambre[edit]

Appears to be NN band and a great example of linkspam (10 different links back to their site). Hard to get a Google listing what with "LaChambre" being a last name, but "LaChambre" band canada is down to 142 with a lot of irrelevant links still coming up -- I'm gonna guesstimate 10 hits, tops, are legit. Page also reads like a copyvio but I can't nail it down. Delete. — Lomn | Talk 14:16:37, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

I am adding band members Fred Noise, Dom Pace, Matt Groove, and MA Vox as part of the VfD, these added after Several Times and Marskell voted. — Lomn | Talk 14:30:21, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was kept. mikka (t) 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamín Urrutia[edit]

This article should be deleted, because it doesn't even explain well why Urrutia is important or which academic titles he holds or where he studied. It also doesn't give any details about his life. This person's not even well-known in Ecuador, like some politicians who are not even mentioned on Wikipedia. The article should at least be expanded and explain why this person is important. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have a book on my dresser, The Logia of Yeshua, co-authored by Benjamin Urrutia. The "Interview with Yoda" looks like the result of a mistake made by an editor based on this website (which seems to show that Benjamin Urrutia is still writing — in the review of The Lost Religion of Jesus on that page, he calls Jesus "Yeshua". --goethean ॐ 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you search for "Benjamín Urrutia" in Spanish, Google shows only about 13 results. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
When you search Google Ecuador or restrict the search to Ecuador, it shows zero (0) results 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Besides, we don't know who this guy is. We just have a list of publications. Anyone can publish books. That's irrelevant. We don't know what he did in Ecuador. We don't know where he studied. We don't know which university he attended. We know nothing, at least from the article. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Just because he studied at Brigham Young University, that doesn't make him more relevant. There are a lot of Ecuadorian intellectuals who've studied in the U.S. This article here is irrelevant. There are lots of people who have published books about Jesus or theology or Christianity. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
[13] "Benjamin Urrutia is a teacher, linguist, and scholar who has been writing and publishing about the Bible for a quarter of a century. He was born in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and educated at Brigham Young University. His numerous articles on biblical subjects have appeared in American Anthropologist, Dialogue, Egyptological Studies, and Mythlore, among others. Benjamin Urrutia lives in Chicago." (from 'About the translators' p. 67) --goethean ॐ 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I saw that one before, but that doesn't show that he's an important person.2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Mythlore: Mythlore is a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and the genres of myth and fantasy. Beginning in 2005 Mythlore will appear once per year as a double issue in late Summer or early Fall. [14] 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Latter-day Science Fiction is a collection of parables. From what I see, Urrutia is a Mormon story teller. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
[15] THE LIGHT OF EDEN. By Benjamin Urrutia. Of primordial importance in the contemporary novelist J. R. R. Tolkien's saga of Arda is the story of the Eden-like land of Aman, with its white and golden Trees of Light, whose destruction by the enemy Morgoth plunged that land into darkness. The story bears a slight resemblance to that of Genesis, Chapter 3, which also tells of a land of Paradise, which was lost because of the intrigue of an enemy, the Serpent. Two trees, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life, also appear in the Genesis account, but otherwise the similarity is small indeed: there is no hint that these trees produced light, or that they were injured in any way at the Fall. Surprisingly, a much closer parallel to the Tolkienian narrative can be found in ancient Mexican mythology-the story of Tamoanchán.
To me he looks like a Mormon Harry Potter fan, nothing else. He's irrelevant here on Wikipedia. On American Anthropologist he wrote about J.R.R. Tolkien. Big deal. He's not an anthropologist. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is what a reader says about Urrutia's article on Egyptological Studies [16]:
Nibley does give some useful citations in his discussion of the Opening of the Mouth on pages 106-109 which Urrutia cites. The whole value of Urrutia's article is in Nibley's discussion and sources. I agree that Urrutia's article has no value outside of the referenced material in Nibley.
So Urrutia's not an egyptologist either. He's just a story teller. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
He co-authored a book with Guy Davenport, a significant literary figure. In that book — which I have read — Urrutia and Davenport select and translate the sayings of Jesus from a variety of canonical and non-canonical sources. In itself, that establishes notability in my mind. --goethean ॐ 20:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So he is a translator, not author. Big deal. mikka (t) 20:48, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jacob soper[edit]

I am the author of this page. I am unsure what Wikipedia will make of it, and having now read the rules for Vanity Articles, I thought I should submit this page for Wikipedia to make its feelings known. Jake soper 14:31, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nascar celebration[edit]

Delete: Per guideline "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic" at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#What_to_do_with_a_problem_page.2Fimage.2Fcategory. This is a non-topic. Sports celebrations are not unique to NASCAR, nor is using a sport's equipment in the celebration, and certainly trophies are hardly unique to NASCAR. Further, there's virtually no content. Article has been around for two months. It is a sub-stub, and unlikely to ever be anything but a sub-stub. --Durin 14:52, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animexclusive[edit]

non notable, poorly written article Elfguy 14:58, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dudley[edit]

It's a bit of genealogy about a 17th-century settler. Nothing much to see here, except that his father was famous. Radiant_>|< 15:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$candalou$[edit]

Non existant phenomenon or extremely specialized jet set phenomenon. Shows no hits on Danish, Swedish or Norwegian google and no relevant hits in English Google. Author seems ignorant as to phenomenons meaning. Celcius 15:40, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomingpedia[edit]

This seems to be a vanity page on a minor topic. 69.237.198.2 15:33, 18 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B2031 road[edit]

Delete, per the consensus on B-roads 213.78.163.193User:Pilatus 15:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't count myself an "ardent inclusionist" but since the current article is completely encyclopedic I don't see why we should consider deleting it. It does no harm by existing and the information it provides is correct. I'm certainly in favor of deleting nonsense, vanity and whatnot from Wikipedia, but this road and most roads in England have been around for centuries.
Look at any road atlas of the British Isles. A general road atlas that omitted a single B road would not be worth buying. If an atlas purporting to represent driving conditions in England misses out roads like the B2031 then it's not going to sell very well, because it's a small country and that's what you're going to be driving on once you get off the trunk roads.
Here we track geography down to footpaths and bridleways, and yes, those are also considered notable. All public footpaths and bridleways are recorded in the UK. Every single public thoroughfare is recorded, and therefore intrinsically notable. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:19, 26 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Designers Theory[edit]

160 google hits suggests a literal neologism. Article is in such poorshape its impossible to tell if it could have merit in the future. At best, should be merged with Intelligent Design Tznkai 16:00, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RoseRush[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. This is plainly all this article is. Not notable in any other way. TheDeletator 16:08, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferecito[edit]

Delete, non-notable. A sketch on SNL done by an "actor" who doesn't have an article on him himself is not encyclopedic. Note also how poorly written and typo-ridden this is.TheDeletator 16:14, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brother chinese restaurant[edit]

Not "famous," but an ordinary, non-notable small business like hundreds of other restaurants in the DC area. choster 16:12, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BioIntelligence Age[edit]

Neologism/original research/spam. - choster 16:00, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Madden[edit]

Delete - recreation of previously deleted content. It might be a speedy, but I can't see the page history of the old version, so I wouldn't know. --Idont Havaname 16:16, 23 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 Nkeep. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bowl[edit]

This article was previously marked for speedy deletion, but I decided to post it here on VFD to get more opinions. This article is about a group of fans who organized a college football bowl game to entice the country's best football teams into playing to determine who is the real national champion. Of course, no school has accepted a Tom Bowl invite. I have cleaned up the article to erase the portions of what looked more like a press release. The only thing I can think of how this might be notable is that it has been written about by a few media sources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:13, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan m^2[edit]

Comment: Satori has a user page, not an article. Big distinction. — Lomn | Talk 16:47:11, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opa[edit]

MATIA 14:56, 24 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:23, 29 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Jones[edit]

This article's text currently presents two claims to notability. Firstly, that she is a webmaster for a site that seeks to ensure the public is informed about a particular political stance. Secondly, she is married to a journalist with the same political stance. I don't that either establish her notability Sliggy 16:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

forgot the explicit delete Sliggy 22:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • non notable, Delete --Raistlin 16:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under CSD A7. DES (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy or otherwise. Alf 21:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and burn; nn, van, adv | Celcius 22:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under A7Capitalistroadster 08:22, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Rappers[edit]

This page held no useful information, and is otherwise unencylopedic. Tznkai 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pointless article. --Isotope23 18:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is really more of a category than an article, as there are at least two wrestlers off the top of my head who have cut rap albums (Randy Savage and John Cena), as well as the hilariously flubbed WCW angle where rapper Master P invaded the federation... -HX
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 01:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Jo Rose[edit]

Previously marked for speedy deletion as not asserting how this person is important or significant. But I posted it here on VFD because the last sentence, "Her work has appeared in Flyway, Third Coast, and The Red Wheelbarrow," could make notability debatable. Thus, I need more opinions on the matter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If you're not sure, then don't list it for deletion. Trollderella 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Zzyzx11 was right to list it for deletion since it had been speedy tagged implying someone thought it ought to be deleted under a specific criterion. Since the admin was unsure of the application of that phrase, and one of VfDs jobs is determining notability, the correct course of action was the one followed. I wonder — is your vote based on the fact that it was brought here, or on the article? -Splash 22:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get 15 Google hits. That fails the WP:PROF test whichever way you spin it — even minor academics get more than that. Note that she has been published in things — presumably journals/magazines. That's what academics do, all of them. However, these publications have mighty odd names, and I'm not sure they even reach as far as a magazine: I smell vanity or a hoax. -Splash 22:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say nn, unless other evidence is presented. --Etacar11 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of sufficent notability. Gamaliel 06:13, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Hegarty[edit]

Vanity, nn, --Raistlin 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • no hits for her book on Google, no hits for either her book or her publisher on Amazon. Her publisher is a small privately-held company in Bridgend, Wales. No notability established, delete. Sliggy 17:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:23, 24 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 speedy deleted as per WP:CSD clause A7. Hall Monitor 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Galloway[edit]

This article is about a 17 year old website administrator. I'm fairly certain he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Scimitar parley 16:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For some reason, I seem to remember this article being created before? Sdedeo 16:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact, I can't see the reason why it isn't speedy under WP:CSD Articles 7. Sliggy 17:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Agree with Sliggy. Qualifies for Articles (7). --Durin 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete Under CSD A7 and I have so tagged it. DES (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly won't argue a speedy; I was just hesitant to tag it because some might claim that the website administrator bit is a claim at notability. In hindsight, this argument seems foolish.--Scimitar parley 19:26, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama gravy soppers[edit]

Band vanity. Bobdoe (Talk) 16:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Skwik. Try that for a change. Alf 21:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and wtf? --Phroziac (talk) 01:57, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Sulkowicz[edit]

Vanity page of a psychiatrist. delete Tokek 16:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. Sdedeo 17:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; adv, van | Celcius 21:59, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broadweave[edit]

advertising copy for nn company Ben-w 17:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Spam. --Durin 17:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 17:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert --208.215.25.131 19:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisiment. Alf 21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert -- Tucats 21:30, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

33rd SS Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne Online Gaming Clan[edit]

non-notable clancruft Sdedeo 17:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-23 T 21:16:35 Z
  • Comment I have greeted the new user and pointed them here. I have also suggested netusergroups wiki idea. Alf 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Martg76 22:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. Thunderbrand 23:12, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle-Ann_Reid[edit]

Delete: Non notable. Wiki is not a memorial. I ran across this article doing RC patrol. I assumed good faith and added the cleanup tag and a request on the article talk, and the author's talk page to try to establish notability. There has been no response in either location in almost 2 weeks, so I'm bringing it here. Wikibofh 17:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a biography with no claim to notability (WP:CSD-A7). Martg76 22:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I viewed In L.A., she became quite famous with big dance productions and appearances in music video such as: "Play" from Jennifer Lopez, "Hit'Em Up Style" by Blu Cantrell and "No No No part 1" by Destiny's Child. as an assertion of notability, thus removing A7 as a possibility. Wikibofh 15:42, August 24, 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, though there's nowhere to move this. I will be bold and move it to Fastest acceleration times. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile/Fastest cars[edit]

Subpage and non-referenced list that really can't be used anywhere. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 17:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and retitle within the Automobile article. "Fastest" would more appropriately apply to a list sorted by top speed than to a list sorted by 0-62 mph (presumably actually 0-100 kph). The list also includes at least one factory "concept" car, a one-off, among production cars. Barno 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with another automobile article. RossNixon 11:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckmere Haven[edit]

Non-Notable, nothing significant is here, Wikipedia is not a catalogue of every single patch of real estate under the sky.TheDeletator 17:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • NOMINATION WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR. Sorry jumped the gun a bit don't want to start off my career as the "Deletator" on the wrong foot! I agree now it is notable enough and the article is looking great...I'll have a talk with my committe about this mix-up. My bad! TheDeletator 01:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it is featured in a BBC program it can't be that trivial a place. Pilatus 17:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--seems to be a decently large region, not a patch of real estate, and featured on BBC as a tourist destination. Meelar (talk) 18:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--large historic region - Boli 19:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pilatus. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trollderella 21:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm fine with this article. Alf 21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a significant geographical place. Saga City 21:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep My school went on field studies here every year. If it's not an SSSI it probably should be. --zippedmartin 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now a good little article on a notable enough place. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Pilatus. --Blackcap | talk 21:43, August 26, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-moment[edit]

Created along with Co-moment, Tri-moments, Bi-moments and Atomic Portfolio Selection, all articles about a non-notable portfolio selection method created by Lanz Chan-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Snake oil. Dlyons493 18:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. as per nom. Alf 21:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --IByte 23:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. — Nowhither 22:17, 26 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freebooter the band[edit]

Appears to be band vanity. Google only yields an unsigned band of the same name. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Could be vanity I agree, but i've tidied up the page. If it does stay then the article should be renamed "Rebooter" and not "Rebooter the band" --user:Matt.whitby

Delete Vanity page. --Isotope23 18:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Skwik. Try it, you might like it. Alf 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 04:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to suggest such a transwiki is a little bit outrageous. Punkmorten 20:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe Wikipedia, judging and deleting what is vanity, or what doesn't belong according to Wikipedia's view. It's unfortunate that the obscure must remain so because people keep it that way. Not everything exists in many places on the Internet. (Unsigned comment by 216.58.12.102 (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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-moments[edit]

Created along with Co-moment, Bi-moments, Anti-moment and Atomic Portfolio Selection, all articles about a non-notable portfolio selection method created by Lanz Chan-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:46, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Co-moment[edit]

Created along with Bi-moments, Tri-moments, Anti-moment and Atomic Portfolio Selection, all articles about a non-notable portfolio selection method created by Lanz Chan-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:44, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-moments[edit]

Created along with Co-moment, Tri-moments, Anti-moment and Atomic Portfolio Selection, all articles about a non-notable portfolio selection method created by Lanz Chan.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:42, 23 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 DELETE

John_Karner[edit]

Pretty much content free and it seems like someone is playing games. -- Keramida 17:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Total content was "awesome dude". In the future, you can tag these for speedy deletion. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 18:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Radloff[edit]

Del hoax, sitting here since 5 July 2004. Shall we start a hall of fame Wikipedia:Ten longest survived hoaxes in wikipiedia? mikka (t) 16:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No googles outside WP mirrors is highly unlikely for "one of the most prolific Russian songwriters". Delete unless these claims are substantiated. Meelar (talk) 18:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not substantiated--Isotope23 18:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's no such "famous Russian singer" in Russia. KNewman 18:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per mikka, KNewman - Introvert talk 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del --Irpen 21:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's unlikely to result, but I've encouraged the original editor to comment here :) Alf 21:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The history page is pretty hilarious too -- a lot of well-meaning wikians cleaned this thing up. I'm going through now and verifying all of the editor's original articles. Huh. All his other articles appear to be factual and in good faith, ranging from spelling corrections to reversing vandalism to expanding the history of Constantine. JDoorjam 01:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ghirlandajo 18:29, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Willey[edit]

Obscure 19th century land commissioner, no other apparent claim to fame and the text was copied and pasted from another site. --Grmagne 17:56, 23 August 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 DELETE

Ajay[edit]

Non-notable bio. GeeJo (talk) 18:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've speedy deleted it. In the future, articles that make no claim of notability, like this one, can simply be tagged with a ((d)). Meelar (talk) 18:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Demon Community[edit]

I'm moving this to the vfd page, no vote. Flowerparty talk 18:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. A blatant case of advertisement here. If the community itself merits an article, this should probably be spared (aside from a rewrite and wikification.) If not, boom. I predict the latter - esp. given that the author's other edits consist of linking to this page. -- Kizor 11:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The Speed Demon Community frowns upon da Kizor for this uncalled for statement. -- k-nar 17:48, 22 Sep 2004 (Comment by 82.229.193.143 (talk · contribs))
  • Kizor lacks in girth department nuff said 8) Da ramrod
  • Strong Delete -- This is an entirely useless Vanity Article. This is not a community of any cultural significance and the article is poorly written. Articles like this turn wikipedia into a self-promotional tool. --Isotope23 18:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also should mention this article has been deleted on 2 previous occasions.--Isotope23 19:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, This sounds like a stunt by Ali G. Maybe they need more of a "moisture rating"... Karmafist 20:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links to the page have been removed. it is not advertising; it is enlightening ^^ (Unsigned comment by Coonieface (talk · contribs))
  • Delete - speedy if possible. Non-notable forumcruft of the worst kind. FCYTravis 21:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-notable to you, but it is highly notable to the piano community and both an interesting read and topic. (Unsigned comment by Coonieface (talk · contribs))
Can you explain why it's notable to the piano community, Mr. Invisible Man? Karmafist 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • because it's different. worth noting. also it is well-known. no reason why it shouldnt be in here; it's not hurting anyone. if you dont like it you dont have to read it, but many people in the community would like to. (Unsigned comment by Coonieface (talk · contribs))
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just read through the vanity article guidelines and this doesnt even come close to being a vanity article. Some of the things it would have to be:

completely uninteresting (which it isnt) using many outlinks (it has no links outside of Wiki at ALL)

your main claim that this is a vanity article is that the subject is quite obscure. If you look in the guidelines for determining whether or not an article is a vanity article, you will see that they SPECIFICALLY state that the obscurity of an article does NOT make it a vanity article.

So if you people want it deleted soo badly i advise you find another reason. (Unsigned comment by 69.17.120.143 (talk · contribs))

  • DO NOT DELETE - As someone who frequents many classical music forums, I feel that I am in a position to note that the originality of the SDC as a concept and its influence on music culture on the internet is such that it is worthy of a Wikipedia article. It is also unfair to consider this article for deletion when there are dozens of other "Internet_phenomenon" articles (i.e., Star_wars_kid).

--AlkanSite 05:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Jake)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv K Singh[edit]

Seems to be a vanity page. Unable to nn-bio as it claims he is the ruler of a princely state. Gets only 10 Google hits, five of which are duplicates. The most notable hit is to a school page. GraemeL (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del hoax. Speedy? mikka (t) 19:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity--Isotope23 19:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a Sanjiv K Singh of Graham Beck Wines, he's in New Dheli, I couldn't find his ghost dog, maybe I need to be more psychic. Alf 22:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. --Botsie 04:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious from the other contributions of the author [17] Tintin 08:56, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nrpnaia Scostreloo and Sporcen Maninger[edit]

Pair of hoax articles. --Michael Snow 18:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just checked [18] for evidence of "Biological Beats". Does not exist. Stlemur 19:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedy? mikka (t) 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I don't think there's really any doubt here, but there's no applicable speedy deletion criterion that I know of. --Michael Snow 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. The only assertion of notability is "Biological Beats", which is hoax. mikka (t) 19:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I wasn't using vanity criteria because it's not vanity at all, it's garbage. In all likelihood, nobody even exists with either of these names, let alone matching the description provided. The hoax goes beyond the made-up single and Live 8 performance. --Michael Snow 20:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both. I can't find anything relevant, assumed hoax. Alf 22:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure Nrpnaia's parents could have afforded an extra vowel or two? Neither name sounds even remotely Italian if you ask me. Not that that's relevant. Delete as nonsensical. Radiant_>|< 08:19, August 24, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unonym[edit]

  • Looks believable, but Google / dictionary.com / Merriam-Webster all come up blank on this neologism. Deletonym. — Lomn | Talk 19:01:01, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
  • It is really rare. I don't know where, but I fully remember seeing this someowhere and I know this was not a fake. And the Wikipedia is for showing everybody the meaning of strange perculiar words.If anybody had to find out what this obscure word meant then they come to the Wikipedia. Is it actually wrong to make an article about a rare word which helps anybody who needs to know what it means? I say no,but I'm not sure what you think. (J.Sagnella) 2005-08-23
    • Comment: There's nothing wrong with making an article about a rare but existing word. However, I find no evidence that this word exists at all. Not in dictionaries, and not a single English-language Google hit. Provide a good citation and I'm sure it'll be kept. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ — Lomn | Talk 20:23:00, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is for showing everybody the meaning of strange perculiar words — No, that's the dictionary's job. The dictionary is over there. This is the encyclopaedia. The job of the encyclopaedia is to tell people about the people/places/concepts/events/things that the words represent. The encyclopaedia is on the use side of the use-mention distinction.

      Is it actually wrong to make an article about a rare word which helps anybody who needs to know what it means? — Yes. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia will have the article on immunopathology, telling readers all about the field, but it is Wiktionary that is there to tell them the meaning of the word immunopathological.

      If anybody had to find out what this obscure word meant then they come to the Wikipedia. To look up the meanings of words, it is better to use a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 23:16:52, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

  • Now before you post you need to know a few things:1.I saw the word Unonym ages ago.I don't know how long as I am very bad at timekeeping but probably about a year.Now I have a bad memory so I can't be compeletely sure where i saw it.2.I only just saw the Wikipedia a few days ago and because it was so great I wanted to put an article in to say thank you.The one word I remember in the corner of my brain was unonym-so I checked the Wikipedia and it didn't appear so I decided to enter it.Now I might be wrong here but I think I remember seeing it in a puzzle in a newspaper. (Can't remmeber which one,probably T2 though) Now I wouldn't try to put in a random thing a low-IQ freind or chatboard said so wherever I saw this,it must of been a valid source. (J.Sagnella)2005-08-23
  • For information, Chambers 21st Century dictionary comes up blank as well, Sorry, "J.Sagnella" (please sign your edits as Lomn asks, with ~~~~), but there seem to be no valid sources that confirm this word as existing. I really wish there were, as it's a good word. However if I coined, say, the word 'splontish' as meaning "sharp and spiky" my coining it wouldn't make it a valid source, nor would someone having seen it here a while ago make it any more valid. Delete unless author can find some verifiable sources. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending verification. Not much more than a dicdef too. ManoaChild 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay you have my authorisation to delete it. If by any chance I do find the valid sources i'll post this back on the wiktionary.Let me Draw the Curtains on this.IT IS NOT A MADE-UP WORD.I'M POLITELY LETTING YOU BRIEFLY LOCKING THIS AS IT IS A BIT TOO RARE FOR PEOPLE TO DEFINE AS A "PROPER" WORD. (AND HAS NO WRITTEN SOURCES ON THE NET)(Until i find some valid sources.)(J.Sagnella)
    • Comment: too rare, all right. It's also not in OED (2e) or Cassell's slang dictionary... Bikeable 04:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        TOPIC CLOSED-UNONYM DELETED UNTIL VALID SOURCES FOUND
  • Speedy delete per author, and speedy deletion guideline 7. Unonym is a completely made-up word, and even if it weren't it would belong at wiktionary, not here. JDoorjam 21:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. -Splash 22:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. mikka (t) 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete splontishly, unverifiable neologism. Barno 19:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not only non-existant, but practically useless. Budgiekiller 12:38, 25 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stray katz[edit]

Appears to be band vanity. "Stray katz" and various band members google 0 hits. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Google finds a couple-hundred hits, but none appear to be relevant. Do not redirect to Stray Cats since this is neither a misspelling not a common typo. -Splash 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that is: the band name and various member's names googles 0 hits. The band name on this own finds unreleated sites. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Splash. Fang Aili 12:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with Splash --tranquileye 13:52:27, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide resources[edit]

Wikipedia is not a list links, whether they're books or URLs. References belong in the appropriate articles. --fvw* 19:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Comment Have moved the article from Armenian Genocide ressources to the correct spelling of Armenian Genocide resources. I'll check that all the VfD links are updated accordingly. KeithD (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The ressources section is pretty long in the Armenian genocide section, and many others will be added. As well, there are various cathegory of studies regarding the Armenian genocide, and their relevant books, which will be added. As it is, including this in the Armenian Genocide section, would make of it way too long, only for the ressources. Besides the footnoting is still pending, and once added, it'll increase its size even more. The Holocaust has its section for ressources too, and the only reason I can't work on the ressources section, is because being it included with the Armenian genocide, make of it very limitative. I agree that Wikipedia is not a list, but what do you propose? Fadix 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the resources listed are sources for the armenian genocide article they belong in that article's sources section. It's not a problem if it gets long, wikipedia is not paper. The resources that aren't needed as references there, you shouldn't put a list of them on wikipedia, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate information repository, just an encyclopaedia. --fvw* 19:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't disagree, but if you think you can go and delete sites and references not mentioned in the article in question, go ahead, you'll get a revert war by some that will add them back even when those resources have nothing to do with the article in question. Right now, all I know is that I want to expend the article, and because of it, adding in the resources section the references, which will increase the size of that section, without considering that footnoting will probably take over 1/3 of the articles size. Fadix 19:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is probably too large for the main article but it's also a useful list of resources. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful part of the work on the Armenian genocide, and it is too long to keep in the main article. Perhaps there should be a general rule for where to put bibliographies/resource lists like this. I guess subpages are frowned upon, though.... --Macrakis 22:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No subpages please. I would prefer this being part of the main page, but I can see that it would make it overly long. Hm. How about some expert removes half of these links (I'm sure some of them are more valuable than others) and merge it back? WP:NOT a web directory. Radiant_>|< 07:21, August 24, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renotalk[edit]

del nonnotable website. mikka (t) 19:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It doesn't seem to be a notable web forum, because it has only 975 registered members. -Hapsiainen 10:13, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Jones (cricket)[edit]

Amateur sportsman of no major repute

  • D'oh, forgot to sign again. There was an Edward Jones who played county cricket for Glamorgan, but that was one match in the 1920s. Average Earthman 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible A7 speedy candidate. Club cricketer for Grove Park Cricket Club. As there is no grade specified, he could be in fifth grade as far as we know. Even he was in the firsts, the article does not outline any cricketing achievements of note. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Edward Jones of 1920 played first class cricket, regardless of it being just one match, I'd let him have the article, to me having played first class cricket is pretty notable. Hiding talk 20:43, 27 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moti Corner[edit]

  • del. Nonverifiable. hoax? mikka (t) 19:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ah that's where the ghost dog got to. Alf 22:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. If verified, merge with Lawrence School, Sanawar. --Botsie 04:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Hoax. Probably related to Sanjiv K Singh which is also a hoax Tintin 08:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax --Dysepsion 00:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have heard about this somewhere?May not be a hoax
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DQN[edit]

Should be moved to Wiktionary or deleted. Reason: Wikipedia is not a dictionary Zerofoks | Talk 07:55:45, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

  • Delete appears to be website-specific slang. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DQN is the Japanese equivalent of luser and is widely used in Japanese internet culture. - Thatdog 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that article does not abide by Wikipedia's policies, either, or does it? zerofoks 14:16:58, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep I found this article useful, with all the places where people use "DQN" many people do not know what it means. Not "website-specific slang." --richjkl 20:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not "website-specific slang", however my objection regarding Wikipedia's policies still stands. Would you say that it is somehow invalid in this case? zerofoks 20:52:02, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
Relisting on August 23. I'm leaning towards delete but I only count about two valid votes in the above. Too many newcomers and suspected socks. Five more days. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we got a "Japanese online slang" article to redirect this to? Otherwise, delete. Also commend Tony for handling this VfD like this. --fvw* 19:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    PS: I've discussed this with User:Thatdog and agree with him that I was probably applying criteria too aggressive for this kind of discussion. I probably would have closed this with keep if I had counted his vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First Post and other catchphrases that have website-specific origins and have their own articles. However, a redirect to 4chan or 2ch could work fine, since that's where some other of their memes are listed.
  • Keep more than just a dict-def. --TimPope 21:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an article about the meaning, usage and origins of a word or phrase. That's a dictionary definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete from Wikipedia. (I would also accept endorse the content with the soft redirect, Template:Wi.) Rossami (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notably source and then trans-wiki per Rossami. JDoorjam 01:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ja:DQN redirects to ja:2ちゃんねる用語, we could do the same and merge to 2ch. --zippedmartin 02:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2ch per zippedmartin. I'm sure the Japanese know best about their own language. Radiant_>|< 07:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If deleted, please make sure to redirect it to a page where the phrase is easy to spot. I've seen this article often refered to when the frequently asked question "What is DQN?" shows up. This is not a 2ch specific phrase. -- 129.241.146.239 17:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge 2ch - This is IMPOSSIBLE to find anywhere else on the internet. I found this article by sheer force of luck. It's also a really powerful, popular meme like first post, or pwn Gamera2 08:50, 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 Deleted before, recreated, protected from re-creation. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Lara[edit]

Non-notable Carleton University student. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copy to Uncyclopedia and delete. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Not notable. --Quintin3265 19:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as I may personally think it should be a speedy, I don't see which of the accepted speedy deletion criteria this could legitimately fall under. Just a regular delete. Bearcat 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bearcat, this article meets the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, A7 - it makes no claim to notability. Accordingly, I've deleted the article speedily. FCYTravis 21:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The creator of the page, who is also its subject, took it upon himself to recreate the page and vandalize my user page. I've redeleted it, and any further recreation will cause it to be protected. FCYTravis 00:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if the IMDB page is to believed, he had a couple of uncredited parts in motion pictures, as per the original text in the page history.[19] So that much may be true. However he still doesn't appear particularly notable. Delete — RJH 16:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This yutz also gave himself a sentence on the Carleton page (since removed) ...Industrial design students were comparatively mature in my day. Delete. --Dhodges 04:02, 26 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frome and District Pistol Club[edit]

I'm sure it's a lovely club, but at 130 members and with nothing else to go on, it's not encyclopedia material Outlander 19:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re - Outlander`s comment Chambers dictionary defines encyclopaedia as "a work containing information on every department of human knowledge". To say that something is not encyclopaedia material would be to deny its existance.195.93.21.71 14:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It says "information on every department of human knowledge", not every single thing that can be known. --Outlander 15:20, August 25, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondancer[edit]

Delete, hoax as far as I can tell. I cannot conjure Google hits for diamondancer combined with any of the relevant terms from the article. Appears there might be a band by this name, but they get about 180 Googles, so are nn anyway. -Splash 18:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination stands. -Splash 00:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though it's not a hoax: here is her website. Still, not notable. JDoorjam 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I know Diamondancer. Although she is very young, she's a genuine contribution to Great Lakes fashion and culture. She is an organizer of region-wide events, and she travels internationally in pursuit of cultural exchange. The person who posted her biography didn't understand the rules of Wikification, so I will Wikify the record. 208.54.15.129 21:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Wmjuntunen 21:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After working on her biography, I discover that she edited poetry for Detroit Furnace magazine. This literary magazine is very key in this city; it's the best handle Detroiters have on cultural life in the city. Historians will need this information. She is an exceptional example of a Detroit Diva, an artist who can produce in mulitple art forms, create art events that have real audiences. You could learn the entire art context in Detroit by following her career. Wmjuntunen 03:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this on August 23. There isn't enough discussion. Five more days. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still voting strong delete: Google comes up completely nearly empty on this "notable Detroit persona." I get as many hits with my name and my hometown as she does. (Go on, try it yourself with... yourself.) And don't let all the false-association blue-links fool you (like the random link to Andy Warhol): if you actually read through most of them aren't notable by wiki standards. JDoorjam 02:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable evidence exists for claims. Like JDoorjam I have not been able to see such evidence from the links provided. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 07:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. I recommend googling Vievee,published poet and associate, Detroit Furnance Magazine, which has a web page, Niagara (the Detroit performance artist) who learned her craft by visiting Warhol's Factory, Blair of the Urban Folk Collective, who co-edits poetry with Carolyn Ferrari, the birth name of Diamondancer. BTW: Blair, her associate, brought back the National Poetry Slam Cup to Detroit several years ago, and that's connected to Anne Waldman, poet. Googling Carolyn Ferrari itself will access older articles on her in Detroit's Metro Times. Plus, she has been acknowledged, juried by the CHARLES H. WRIGHT MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY http://maah-detroit.org/. That's a museum in Detroit's Cultural Center with a multi-million dollar budget, supported by every Detroit-based philathropy, housed in an architectural marvel, a marvel completed in time for the funeral service of Mayor Coleman Young. MAAH is a good touchstone of notability in Africana. I could contact the museum personally because I've written interviews of their emergent artists before. A good sign of an artist's notability is a record of juried appearances in shows in serious galleries. Diamondancer has that.

More, the theatre at the Redd Apple Gallery is authentic African-American theatre. And here's the real reason to keep. This woman is pure American Africana. Her work is collected by notable African Americans in the City of Detroit. She is a model of entrepreneurship and creative career in the city of Detroit. If Henry Louis Gates, Harvard-based author of the Encarta Africana was paying attention to this discussion or Spike Lee was paying attention, I wonder what they would say?

It is possible, gentleman, that googling isn't enough. It is possible, also, the a local wikipedian in Detroit has access to materials and direct site visits that aren't accessible on the web yet? I was there at a fashion show when models wearing Diamondancer designs waltzed onto the runway in white, mythic robes and owl masks Detroit Fashion Week, and I have pictures of this. As an art critic, I was much bestirred.

I agree that the article could use clean-up, and the signficance of her links can be better supported --- but Wikipedia is an interactive process. If we can get this out of the deletion process, I will undertake this rewrite process. Wmjuntunen 15:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A reminder of the Britney Spears' cousin principle: knowing, being related to, or even being friends with notable people does not make you notable. Neither studying Warhol, nor even having work purchased by notable people, is in itself notable. JDoorjam 20:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Britney Spear's Cousin principle is a useful principle. In Diamondancer's case, we are referring to relationships based upon artistic judgement. Ms. Ferrari has numerous relationships based upon artistic judgement. For example, Ms. Ferrari edited poetry with Blair, a position bestowed upon her by an editorial panel. The BSC principle applies to kinship and friendship relations, awarded by birth or casual considerations. A co-editorship is usually awarded as an act of detente, a way of recognizing two equals. I have taken care to define Redd Apple Gallery, Niagara, Arts Beats & Eats, The Furnance, and will continue defining. In two cases, I have defended Detroit cultural resources from deletion successfully --- one of which had an unusual name. I believe the unusual name and the lack of academic institutions, art schools, are false weaknesses of this article. I've had artist stubs with less information readily accepted based upon an ordinary name and art school credentials. Wmjuntunen 21:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondancer is an often juried artist, and an artist stub. Artists are notable once juried. Artists are notable once written about in the arts press, and she's been NOTED by the Detroit Metro Times and the Detroit dailies. That's what jurying confers.

Can anyone who has voted delete come from an art history perspective and prove non-notability? Emergent artists are notable. Look at the record of Durand, who bought the paintings of obscure Monet for a song. If you disagree, please produce your criteria for notability for artists. I'm looking for something more than the Britney Spear's Cousin principle. That's not a principle. That's a smear of Britney Spears, a notable topic for the Wikipedia.

Not one of you are talking criteria, besides the Google hit count. Without a criteria for notability, you're just rendering an opinion. An artist doesn't have to be dead or on the wall of the Tate to be notable. Diamondancer was an juried participant at three to five Detroit galleries: Redd Apple, MAAH, 4731 and Arts, Beats & Eats. ! Her work has featured on the cover of magazines that print 100,000 of weekly issues.

Please recuse yourself if you are unfamiliar with the way the arts community functions. Be honest. You might not see notability if you are unfamiliar. How many of you are familiar with Detroit? You might wish to recuse yourself if this city is unfamiliar to you. And here's the kicker. If you are unfamiliar with African-American art and African - American aesthetics, kindly recuse yourself. Wmjuntunen 00:00, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BW3 Baseball[edit]

Delete; Non-notable fantasy baseball league Cje 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Groeck 21:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ^ Drdisque
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 02:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the Jedi Temple[edit]

Delete, nn fanfic. Reeks of copyvio but Google doesn't find it, so could be from a print book I suppose. If someone recognises it, then please do copyvio it. -Splash 18:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. Not enough discussion. Five more days. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've only seen RotS once, but isn't this just the scene from the movie where Anakin kills all the jedi in the temple? Surely we don't need articles on every scene in the movie...that's going way to far into cruft. --Etacar11 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. We don't need an article for every scene, but in the Star Wars Universe, The Fall of the Temple is a significant event in the grand scheme of things. -- Zanaq 20:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Jedi Temple - which is pretty thorough already. Remove fanfiction. Rewrite: Make clear which elements are from the movie, some novel, or isn't canonical but still notable. -- Zanaq 20:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What he have here is unencylopedic in the extreme. Even in the best case do we need an article on a movie scene which lasts acouple of minutes? DJ Clayworth 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. This page should be about an event not a movie scene. The text should be extensively edited. Zanaq 21:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Trollderella 21:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikifyJournalist (talk · contribs)
  • redirect to Jedi Temple. mikka (t) 21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Unworthy of existance | Celcius 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Great Jedi Purge should suffice, this page adds no information of encyclopdic value. If this is the actual dialogue from the movie, this is a copyvio. Martg76 22:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulk of the current content is unsalvagable. Any article about this "event" should be discussed in context, not in a breakout article. I see nothing worth merging from this article. Delete. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Great Jedi Purge makes this article redundant. --Scimitar parley 23:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we've got a full plot summary at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and we've got Great Jedi Purge and Jedi Temple - that is more than enough, even for this film. --Doc (?) 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unequivocal delete. Cites no references and is so wholly unencyclopedic in tone that the fan-fiction cannot be distinguished from any material of encyclopedic merit. This is why Wikipedia:Cite sources is so important. Existing related articles already cover this territory well enough, as mentioned above by Doc Glasgow. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Darth Cruft. Even Trollderella couldn't say "keep" unequivocally. JDoorjam 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duh. Fang Aili 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Great Jedi Purge. Radiant_>|< 07:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Proto t c 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't close deletion discussions that I have extended, so seeing that this one had attracted so much discussion in its extended period I thought I'd take a look. It seems to me that this could most usefully be redirected to Great Jedi Purge, which covers the same event in a more encyclopedic manner. There may be some salvageable material and if this is so no doubt it will find its way from the history of this article into the other one. The writing has a certain youthful brio that we don't normally expect in encyclopedia articles, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that style; it can make the fictional events more interesting to read. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:42, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Order of the Veiled Prophet of the Enchanted Realm[edit]

This page makes no sense. Gibberish. Fang Aili 20:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems genuine info [20] but could do with a rewrite & wikification. -- Zanaq 20:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but it's so badly written. Perhaps a deletion of everything but the first two sentences (and reworking those sentences into standard English). I've tried to read this article several times and have gotten nothing out of it except that the society has something to do with Sufism. Fang Aili 21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's pretty bad, ain't it? When the voting's over a ((cleanup)) or something should be added. -- Zanaq 21:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I've made sense of who they are, see newer revision, I'm not particulary interested in this one and it needs a lot of work. Alf 23:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to Alf for taking the time to turn nonsense into something worth having in WP. --GraemeL (talk) 10:20, 24 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 votes apart from the nomination. Will resubmit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valladares[edit]

Not notable and family-name-vanity. --fvw* 20:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was resubmitted. From what I can see there is only one actual "vote", the one of the nominator Tonywalton. Apart from that there is a lot of commentary, some of which seems somewhat pro-keep. Nonetheless, I cannot see enough information here to make a real decision, so I will resubmit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tompkinson Unit of Cultural Incongruity[edit]

either a hoax or OR. Not verifiable elsewhere Tonywalton  | Talk 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting concept, I suppose, but zero Google hits on various combinations of Tompkinson, incongruity, and so on, and none on the "pop culture theorists" cited (there are Benjamin Grangers, but I doubt whether either the one getting married in 1773 or the diarist of 1887 qualify). Tonywalton  | Talk 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Is it not the "Ben Granger" who writes for Spike Magazine? link title(This unsigned edit by 62.6.139.11)

could be - I see the article has now been updated to refer to "Ben", rather than "Benjamin" Granger. Still no apparent sign of the Tompkinson Unit, though. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read about this before. Believe it had to do with Memes. [[memes:] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme] There was some more "technical" depth before.(This unsigned edit by 195.92.67.67)

I remember reading about this some years ago in a Manchester-based fanzine. Ben Granger is a rising star in the field of pop culture theorism. Don't know who this Simon Telford fellow is though. (This unsigned edit by StephCarter)

Some guy said it to me at a club night in Manchester a couple of years ago. The DJ was playing a different style of music to what was normally played there(he was playing house music at a breakbeat club night). The guy said something along the lines of "I can't believe what this guy's playing. He's off the f*****g Tomp!" When I asked him to explain what he was talking about he said "You know, off the Tompkinson", and then preceded to tell me that his mate read about this theory of a measurement of culture clash based on a comparison of how much of an outsider the priest from Ballykissangel was. He seemed surprised that I hadn't heard of it since he knew a lot of people who used it for all sorts of situations.(This unsigned edit by 80.176.80.17)80.176.80.17 15:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What "some guy" in a club said his mate had read somewhere is hardly verifiable, though. Sounds more like an urban legend if anything.
And could contributors please sign their edits by putting ~~~~ at the end (which is converted to a username or IP address and the date and time the edit was made). Thanks. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per one of the earlier posts I recall reading an article on this issue in a magazine while I lived in Manchester. It was a few years ago, so my memory is a little hazy, but I think it the magazine was called 'sub' (or it was at least something extremely similar). I can't confirm that the whole entry is consistent with the original article (for example I don't recall muslim/wider environment refs) but i'm pretty sure it is at least consistent with the general thrust of the article (in terms of the drama/ comedy tradeoff w.r.t. ballykissangel). Rather than delete the whole entry, would it not be preferable, if necessary, to just tidy it up a little? 62.253.64.15 00:13, 27 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) 02:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopes of lithium[edit]

nothing here that couldn't be in Lithium Ben-w 20:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, which doesn't require a VfD. Be Bold. --fvw* 20:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been expanded with isotope-specific data that would be too much for the main article, keep. Femto 11:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Not that I created it, but Femto created an excellent article on the isotopes. Enzo Aquarius 16:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worthy of separate article. Fg2 05:25, August 26, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minim.ro[edit]

Not notable bogdan | Talk 20:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. Alexa rank 645,000. However, these Alexa ranks are 3-month averages. This week's average is 82,000 so we may have an up-and-coming new site here. Once it's made into the top 1000 or so, the article could try again. -Splash 23:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems significant enough now. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The site was just founded in 2005 and the article was created by User:Minim.ro, so it's spam. bogdan | Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 speedied, no notability claimed. --fvw* 20:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lee_Waters[edit]

This is me, and I didn't put it here. I want it removed. 38.117.177.194 20:38, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ebtx[edit]

It looks like a vanity page that's escaped notice for over a year now. It has been only edited by one person, and has no back links to it. Check Google: it only shows the user's website as listed in Wikipedia. Syrae Faileas 20:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I put this up here (instead of marking for Speedy Delete) because the post claims some notariety. You decide, but I don't think the person is notable, and doing a bio of a screen name certainly doesn't lend much credance. ~ Syrae Faileas 20:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 21:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio, and would not object to an A7 speedy. -Splash 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not-notable. Makes a claim to notability which is bogus. Don't think it can be speedy deleted. --GraemeL (talk) 10:22, 24 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Antartica[edit]

A better version of the page already exists: Flags of Antarctica. PBP 20:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, be bold, you needn't have listed it here, you could have just gone ahead and done that yourself. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect concur with Francs2000 D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Flags of Antarctica article manages to spell "Antarctica correctly. This article's title is mis-spelt anyway. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On thinking about it, if the previous votes are for a redirect to a common mis-spelling of "Antarctica", (per the Antartica redirect) rather than because a better article already exists, Redirect. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:52, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disperse[edit]

Local Christian group with only one album. Doesn't seem to meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC, but hopefully someone who knows more about the subject area will weigh in. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Somewhat famous and toured in the Ohio/Indiana area (which is larger then some "medium-sized" countries) and has potential to grow more famous. Guerberj 22:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that they toured in an area in which I am vaguely familiar with Christian music doesn't actually increase my impression of their notability. There are tons of small Christian bands in the Ohio/Indiana area. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minimal listing on All Music Guide [21]. I'll tidy the page a little. Alf 23:35, 23 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 Redirect to Abandonware. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh Garden[edit]

A laudable goal, but barely an advertisement for a non-notable website. WP:ISNOT a web directory. Al 21:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdblurb[edit]

Combination of vanity page and advertising. JHCC (talk) 21:28, 23 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-grunge revival[edit]

This article is original research. A search on the web brings up no varification of this genre existing (with the exceptions of mirrors of this article, which don't count). LGagnon 21:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, probably per both WP:V and WP:NOR. The most useful Google hit for this is the nominator's talk page message! -Splash 23:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Splash -Satori (talk) 15:44, 24 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butch Carter[edit]

Non notable bio Kurt Shaped Box 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Sibling envy, nn | Celcius 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a no brainer D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — being someone's brother is not a claim of notability, no matter how famous they are. The article needs to assert this persons notability, not someone else's. -Splash 23:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete- no content, no assertion of notability, no place in Wikipedia.
  • Keep per addition of content and notability.--Scimitar parley 23:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coaches the Toronto Raptors, assuming its the same guy. Kappa 23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- see Cris Carter and verified by Google. I stubbed it, but it could certainly be expanded more. --Howcheng 00:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Former coach of professional team. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the new information. Pburka 02:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa and Howcheng. -- DS1953 04:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per ditto --Awyllie 05:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Major sports team coach? Maybe it's the booze talking, but this ain't so bad. Needs expansion, tho. --Tysto 06:52, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems I was utterly wrong about this. Butch is notable after all... --Kurt Shaped Box 15:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --tranquileye 13:58:02, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Eisenberg and the Aunt Bessie Self-Help Book Line for Creative Artists[edit]

Was listed as a copyvio but doesn't appear to be. --fvw* 21:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Article indeed it's a copyvio (I gave the url and the copyright notice that original tagger failed to mntion. Since it stayed a long time on [WP:CP], shouldn't this already go to speedy delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 21:50, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasm Films and Enterprises[edit]

--Simply a vague explanation of this company, should be deleted or for the least added to extensively. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:03, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P2pmud[edit]

Advertisement, non-notable. Kurt Shaped Box 22:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concur with nominator. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn alpha release software. ManoaChild 00:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amren (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity ad.  Grue  05:41, 24 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avedis[edit]

Pokemon fanfiction character. Not remotely notable. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 22:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fancruft to the max. --Howcheng 23:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I delete you, pokecruft JDoorjam 02:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Wow. Fanfic character. Wow. This makes me lose faith in the wiki concept. --Tysto 06:49, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sliggy 11:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this piece of crap. Fanfiction character? We don't need that. Optichan 17:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Groeck 15:29, 26 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Dean Moran[edit]

Vanity. Kwekubo 22:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity and stupidity. D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gotta be kidding. I'm sending it to speedy deletion for either nonsense or A7. --Howcheng 23:57, 23 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 07:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darode[edit]

There is no evidence of the existence of such a sword; google returns only irrelevant links (names of people) or mirrors of wikipedia. Query from April requesting sources was never responded to. siafu 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As nominator. siafu 23:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. --Howcheng 23:56, 23 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 07:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pincey Park[edit]

An article for a band who have yet to release a record, although the article claims that this may change in the near future (although the 8 google hits suggests it is not exactly widely awaited). non-notable, probable vanity. Rje 22:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete agree
    • Previous unsigned comment from Drini.
  • Delete non-notable bandcruft. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this vain?????
    • Previous unsigned comment from 70.51.162.250.
      • It's vanity in the sense of WP:VANITY. It means that the article was probably written to promote the band, rather than simply to describe them. It's not intended as an insult to the writer -- in fact this article does seem to be factual and written in an appropriately neutral manner. However the band does not appear to be sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia at this time. Pburka 02:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. --Howcheng 23:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this should be deleted. It's just factual and does not seem to be promoting the band. Considering the band is signed to a major Record Label, I think it should be included in Wikipedia. (preceding unsigned comment by 70.51.137.179 03:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • Did you read WP:NMG? The band doesn't qualify under any of those conditions. --Howcheng 21:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This user is from the same IP range as the previous anonymous voter. Poss. sockpuppet? --Kurt Shaped Box 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably the same person just writing a second comment. --Howcheng 23:58, 24 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Jones (artist)[edit]

Non-notable, non-informative, non-capitalized. Probably just a vanity page. Sneftel 23:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concur with nominator. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7. --Howcheng 23:51, 23 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 07:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jew slaughter[edit]

Nn band, only 30 hits for '"Jew slaughter" Alcoholocaust', no entry on allmusic or artistdirect, although both have entries for an album called Alcoholocaust, but by a band called the Piss Drunks. Zoe 23:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I had an embarassing number of hits with "Jew slaughter band" on Google, including a mention on the Anti-Defamation League website. (Link included on my rewrite.) I was also the person who undeleted this article when Lucky6.9 zapped it; I don't like this article any more than you, Zoe, but if Skrewdriver is included, this band should be also. -- llywrch 23:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How come they don't show up on artistdirect and allmusic? Just being disgusting Nazis doesn't make them notable. If their music was about puppies and kittens and they only had 30 Google hits and didn't show up on allmusic and artistdirect, would we be having this conversation? Zoe 23:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • So what's the criteria here: over hundreds of hits on Google or a mention on those two websites? Not that I'll shed a tear about this article about these drunken hatemongers being deleted, but last time the standards for notability had been up for a vote, the number of Google hits was more important for a band than just where the band is mentioned. -- llywrch 00:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The criteria is firmly established at WP:MUSIC Wikibofh 01:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Which, as Doorjam points out below, can be used to defend the inclusion of this article. -- llywrch 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Skrewdriver at least gets an AMG entry. NN is still NN, regardless of their politics. --Howcheng 23:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established (and after reseaching that filth I'm going for a shower) --Doc (?) 23:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NE - Aleichem 23:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaughter. NNBV. -- BD2412 talk 01:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not meet any of the seven WP:MUSIC guidelines. Wikibofh 01:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even though I want to throw up saying so. The fact is, they are notable per WP:MUSIC for being notable within their genre: white power, racist, anti-semitic rock. Blech. JDoorjam 02:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure I'd categorize that as a genre. Wikibofh 03:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't believe this is even up for debate. Yes, I pulled the trigger on this idiocy and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. We play by rules. Rules are for nice people. These are not nice people. We are giving them five days of free advertising. I'm going away before I say what the hell I really think of being reverted on this. - Lucky 6.9 02:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, exactly, do you mean by "rules are for nice people. These are not nice people"? That disagreeing with their ideology means that it's not encyclopedic? It sucks, but sometimes doing our job as wikipedians means recording the feats of racists. JDoorjam 03:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I would disagree with Lucky if this were a band which had several releases and showed up in allmusic and artistdirect, but the fact that they don't is why I listed them and argued for their deletion, not their style of music. Zoe 05:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Lucky, I hope your deletion of this article on sight was an isolated act. By listing this article here, Zoe followed procedure & behaved responsibly so that the fate of this article can be justified. Even if an article is indefensible nonsense, it still must needs to undergo a defined process on Wikipedia: it has to be listed on VfD or at least Speedy Delete first, where the rest of us contributors are given time to offer their input whether the article should be deleted. We do it this way not because Wikipedia is a democracy, but because it is a form of peer review, the primary rationale for using Wikiwiki software to build an encyclopedia. If you can't understand why we follow this process, maybe you should resign as Admin. -- llywrch 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this isn't a democracy and I believe in the rules. I made a decision on a bit of filth that basically resolves to a few bits of data on which we've already spent entirely too much time discussing. As far as resigning is concerned, I have entirely too much of said time, effort and brain cells invested in this site. Including this article does not further the cause of this site nor can it serve as an object lesson to someone doing honest research on hate crimes. Look at the arguments it's causing right now. - Lucky 6.9 19:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What arguments? AFAICS, all of us are discussing this matter very civilly. Commendably, I would venture to say. But if you don't want to participate in discussion over the material & explain your own POV, then I would say you are going to leave Wikipedia out of frustration, & much sooner than you expect. -- llywrch 20:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoe hit the nail on the head. We have lots of distasteful articles on other wastes of flesh who, despite the fact they're scum, deserve an article. Using the lovely and talented Chancellor Hitler as an example, it would be patently ridiculous not to have an article on him. I'm not debating the right for distasteful articles like this to exist. Historical figures, living and dead, are fine for inclusion. If, God forbid, these schmucks had a shred of notability, hey...let 'em stay. These schmucks do not...and I'm using a Yiddish term on purpose. I stand by my opinion since they're not only flaunting the rules, we're letting them do so. - Lucky 6.9 05:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite to establish notability, although I doubt that will happen --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable, fail WP:MUSIC. This shouldn't even be a discussion. Proto t c 11:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn vanity, fails WP:MUSIC. Redwolf24 (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, fails WP:MUSIC ----> only one album Roodog2k 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as repugnant and disgusting as (I hope) we all find this group, we should not vote to delete based on their wretched views. Roodog2k 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete doesn't seem very notable. ADL mention is notable though. With more mainstream media coverage I would vote keep. Klonimus 09:23, 27 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 07:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military vehicles (neé Army vehicles)[edit]

Information is minimal. Only linked to from Austin_Motor_Company. AttishOculus 23:16, 23 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With Honor[edit]

Vanity for nn band—no albums, charted songs, notable tours, or in fact any of the criteria list in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines choster 23:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NMG. --Howcheng 23:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep they have an allmusic entry, two albums listed. --Etacar11 04:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They have released one album and one EP, not two albums. -Hapsiainen 09:50, 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 consensus to keep, so I won't delete it now, but if the content was a copyvio it will be deleted as such per the procedure at WP:CP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black_Pullet[edit]

Fanciful and unverifiable information on non-notable book. Google search for "Black Pullet" "magical talismanic rings" produces just 14 results.
Magick-cruft, not encyclopaedia material. 80.255 23:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Search for "Black Pullet" grimoire and you'll find more results. --Howcheng 23:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amren (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Of all the reasons: "Fanciful and unverifiable information on non-notable book" - are you a fool? There is an external link to an ACTUAL source which is in fact the book itself! Not to mention the fact that if you Google the term Black Pullet it comes up with lots of results referring to the book, look on Amazon.com where you can still buy the book - The Black Pullet. It's not "Black Pullet magical talismanic rings", it's a book about the Science of Magical Talismans. I reccomend you research or even read the article properly before you put it up for deletion, this is just ridiculous trigger-happy deletionism taking place! Piecraft 14:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can buy the book on amazon - as you can almost every other book that has been written in the last century! Are we to have articles on every book sold by amazon!? This is not a notable book! As for the "actual source" - this doesn't make it notable. I maintain that this book is not notable; it's obscure and generally not of a level of relevance that merits inclusion here. 80.255 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you're not being serious with that above comment, because it is plainly clear that you have no idea about what you are taling about. We might as well put Necronomicon up for deletion as well then. There is more detailed information about the origins of this book from [The Study of Solomonic Magic in English] by Don Karr. Piecraft 17:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look up on [Google] and you will find more than enough results, look on the other pages as well. Also please look on [Amazon.com] for the book itself. If you don't understand or know anything about the occult I would reccomend you do not try to use your unqualified opinion to condemn an article which is based on an actual Grimoire which is even listed in the article of Grimoires on Wikipedia.

    • Reading your reasons make me laugh 80.255, when it's blatantly obvious you're a hypocrite - if no one believes me see for yourself in the VfD for Outsourcing to India Talk page, and I quote:
  • Keep, notable book. 80.255 20:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why notable? Amazon.com Sales Rank: #540,801 in Books as compared to... Dlyons493 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unquote. Looks to me as though you like to throw that word "notability" around but only use it to your own advantage.

I have noted your attempt at ad hominem objection to this listing, and also the fact that you have failed to provide any acceptable objection! "Outsourcing to India" deals with a topic of far greater inportance than this supposed 'book', and the former produces far more google hits, too. 80.255 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct copy from the first review on amazon. I have listed it as a copyvio. Zoe 22:58, August 25, 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 to PlayStation Portable. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Portable piracy[edit]

Wikipedia doesn't promote piracy and this article has nothing other. I was even expecting the article to have links, but the creator was not that creative. feydey 23:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge some of the information into PlayStation Portable. --Howcheng 23:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There's some useful info there that belongs in PSP.Amren (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as well. Thunderbrand 17:36, 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 speedy delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gruppnorpning[edit]

Delete. Some rant in Swedish, see WP:PNT --IByte 23:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd run this through online translators and come up with it having something incoherent to do with laundry rooms, but thought I'd leave it to someone who spoke the language. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Tysto 06:44, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. It's in Swedish, and the contents is someone living in an apartment building ranting about how "students, artists, anthroposophes and other freeloaders" steal 18:00 washing times from in front of his nose. Utterly non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It looks like a (rather poor) Swedish joke. Valentinian 09:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Släng den här skiten genast. (Speedy delete). Unencyclopedic rant in Swedish (not funny). --DrTorstenHenning 11:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gone. A6. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 26 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 07:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Rodriguez[edit]

This article was populated with an astounding number of vanity images after adding an ((unreferenced)) tag and formally requesting that sources be cited on the respective talk page. My observations lead me to believe this is a vanity page of sorts, so I have brought it up here for discussion as such. Hall Monitor 23:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This web page is about a man who is very athletic and talented named Cameron Rodriguez. Not only is he an excellent soccer player, but he is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter as well. He deserves to have his own page. Please do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmatador17 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 August 2005
  • Delete the whole thing. If you wanna tell jokes, move it to Uncyclopedia. If you want a personal page, go find a blog where you can tell all the gossip you want and speak out. Don't come here with lame explanations. Wikipedia is not a blogging site. Period. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Captaining a rec-league soccer team is not notable, and I can't verify any of the fighting claims. 66.11.174.6 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. I got logged out somehow. Previous vote is from me. Pburka 02:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. After reviewing the article once more, it appears that User:Elmatador17 is in fact Cameron Rodriguez, captain of his local soccer team where he sports jersey number 17. Hall Monitor 17:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly vanity page. rbonvall 19:33, August 24, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koumpare[edit]

Submission from anon editor almost a year after its previous appearance in Wikipedia's pages. I'd be far less likely to dismiss this as a vulgar practical joke if another article linked to it. (Old discussion here.) llywrch 00:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. On the verge of patent nonsense. -- BD2412 talk 01:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete— --Tysto 06:43, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 10:38, 24 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