Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 30 October 2 >

Purge server cache

October 1

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bushhitler

[edit]

Possible Hoax But defenaly hopeless POV Delete --JAranda | yeah 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lackorzynski

[edit]

NN & vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY USERFIED, so I'll remove the cross-namespace redirect. -Splashtalk 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polyparadigm/honeycomb

[edit]

Delete. (Possibly speedy?) This appears to be a user subpage mistakenly (assume good faith) posted as an article. The contributor’s user name is Polyparadigm (see article history). ♠DanMS 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, everyone. And thanks for the attention...I'm happy to do whatever, even to delete it. I'll try to "userfy" it myself, now that I (seem to) understand the problem properly.--Joel 20:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nannan

[edit]

This dicdef has already been transwikied to Wiktionary and can never grow beyond a dicdef. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. This doesn't preclude a merge. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OGS

[edit]

Acronym + advertisment ≈ jossi ≈ 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A complete merge requires the article to be redirected. If the title is inappropriate, please move it to a more appropriate one before the merge. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you merge and then make OGS a disambig page that refers to the common use of the acronym? Otherwise I suggest a move and merge with OSAP. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Sliver - The Best of the Box (already done). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sliver (album)

[edit]

Duplicate article see Sliver - The Best of the Box Case 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obidala

[edit]

More slash fancruft. Didn't we just have a spate of those? The name gets about 2,000 Google hits (but many do not refer to this) and the site that it flogs has an Alexa page rank around 3.1 million. MCB 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Stone (porn star)

[edit]

Not a encyclopedia article --Mosesofmason 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kontera

[edit]

Advertising, Non-notable. See also DynamiContext™ and AdLink. Sean 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has been transwikied to Yellowikis by User:Uncle_G's bot --Payo 12:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been transwikied, but we need to decide whether we still want it or not. Relisting for another 5 days. -Splashtalk 00:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Animal Hall of Fame

[edit]

Delete as Probable hoax article. No hits on Google besides those linked back to Wikipedia. If deleted, needs some fixes as I think it has propagated to a few articles. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Murietta 05:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a list - it's allegedly a real organization, like the Baseball Hall of Fame or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Categories are there to list animated characters, and if this is supposed to say which characters are worthy of a particular standard of fame, that's POV. And merge with what, precisely? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Community Schools

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of imformation →Journalist >>talk<< 00:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

claimed © 2005 Rochester Community School. We tried the it's just a list of X, not a creative work aproach with the britanica articles list. The lawers consulted were not impressed. The problem is it isn't just a list there has been some slection involved.Geni 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What lawyers? Rich Farmbrough 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It is a complete list of schools that fufill a certain criteria. The data has then be organised in a certian way which has been coppied exactly.Geni 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A certain obvious criterion of being in the district, not a judgement-related criteria of being the most important information to fit in a paper encyclopedia. I rearranged the data, I guess if you want I could add some random schools from other districts, LOL. Kappa 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kappa flippant responses don't help here. It is a valid point. However, and sorry to harp on this topic again, but wikipedia could have a very good niche with respect to schools if these school district lists made some attempt to clarify hierarchy. In other words, which elementary schools feed into which middle schools into which high schools. Even on the school district official web pages this information is often missing (are hard to find). If wikipedia wants to do something very constructive with regard to schools this type of hierarchy would be excellent and non copy vio. While I'm at it, if these lists are not linked to the pages for the relevant communities and visa versa they are not that useful in wikipedia. The first clean up response on these school pages needs to be creating this type of context. Actually you did a very good job with this regard here. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton Park

[edit]

Non notable? Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luigizanasi 03:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (5 votes to delete, 3 to keep, 4 to merge into a list); therefore, I have boldly listified this entry into List of minor Biblical figures, and invite anyone interested to add names to the article as appropriate.  BD2412 talk 00:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Uel

[edit]

Delete. No assertion of notability. The article provides nothing more than his genealogy. Very minor Biblical character. ♠DanMS 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've misread the section; sorry. He wasn't a priest. Also, I should have mentioned that his name appears in a list of (by my count) 111 people who had married foreign women. FJG 17:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect with either bisexual or bicurious · Katefan0(scribble) 19:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heteroflexible

[edit]

It was suggested on this article's discussion page that the entry be either deleted or merged with bisexual. I've therefore brought this here - if kept, I'll make the POV changes I previously proposed on the article's discussion page. CLW 11:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more involvement. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urban praise

[edit]

Non-notable radio show. --fvw* 16:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more involvement. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Functionability

[edit]

DicDef, or neologism as none of the online dictionaries I consulted referenced the word. Anyway, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Outlander 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more involvement. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hoey

[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted

This evidently never got...completed...since the nomination was created, I figure we should at least give it a hearing. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac(talk) 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Outsiders (gang)

[edit]

no notability assertion, just another teen gang. Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonrock Episodes

[edit]

Complete nonsense. The show does not exist. The user who created this also modified [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dragon_Ball_Episodes&diff=23802095&oldid=23740149 -- RattleMan 01:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky the Dog

[edit]

Delete as this is non-encyclopedic matter about an non-notable underground comic book. [edit] 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New chronology fomenko

[edit]

Not enough votes. Relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is mainly the personal opinion of the user Franck ver Stut on a topic already covered at New Chronology (Fomenko). The text is rambling, unencyclopedic and POV. The page was previously blanked and redirect to the main page on the New Chronology, but Franck ver Stut reestablished the page, calling the other one 'subversive'. As the page title is unlikely to be accidently linked to, it is better that this page is deleted Oswax 06:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete The anti-Fomenko article is but a massive damage control machination staged by history undergraduates in search of credits. Most of the counterarguments advanced thereof are non-scientific hearsay albeit orderly structured. Franck ver Stut --(preceding unsigned comment by 83.195.168.26 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Shuster

[edit]

An ordinary broadcast journalist. Does not appear to be remarkable in any way.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kwmn

[edit]

This article is an ad for a "non-profit community wireless metropolitan network locateted in Karditsa, Hellas." Even if it is cleaned up, it is not notable enough. -- Kjkolb 08:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete (though if there's something notable about the project I can be swayed to a Keep if someone demonstrates so). Community wireless MANs are somewhat on the bubble of notability because they represent a newish, technologically driven social phenomenon, but for precisely that reason they have to be taken case-by-case. Haikupoet 02:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac(talk) 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vital arch

[edit]

Unverifiable. --Jasonuhl 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Well, the numbers are 7d-3k which is above the two-thirds level. The debate itself is pretty standard AfD stuff, and there's nothing presented to suggest that a higher bar than usual is needed here. -Splashtalk 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph G. Stephens

[edit]

fail to meet WP:music -- WCFrancis 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Thomas Smith

[edit]

nn company, little evidence he owned it, no other notability claimed. Few, if any, Google hits. Dlyons493 21:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Academic Challenge

[edit]

Doesn't seem to exist any more. No claim that it was ever more notable than any quiz. Dlyons493 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Infamous

[edit]

Non notable keenspace comic, found here. Google search shows up nothing notable for this comic, Alexa does not mention it in the keenspace traffic report. Article makes no assertion of notability. Already exists at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 01:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey hold on a sec, am the original arthor of this article. Am still a bit new to the site but I found the webcomic list and, being a cartoonist, added mine onto it. The thing said "Webcomic without an article would be deleted". I added an article, updated it and am now keeping watch over it. Yeah it hard to search for, but many Comic Genesis comics don't have search links, aren't picked up by other search engines, or you have to go direct (i.e: use the whole address, not just the name) to look for it. You can't delete the article just for that. C'mon.
  • Reply - There is a problem with the inclusion criteria for webcomics, being that it is too lax. If the webcomic is not popular, has no real influence within the webcomic community and the outside community, it should be deleted. This website will probably be deleted, even though it has had some mention in the outside press and is probably a lot popular than this comic. That's because it's a website, and people are judging it as so. Because of overly slack guidelines at WP:COMIC, many non notable comics have been left on Wikipedia, and I believe this to be one of them. - Hahnchen 15:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Dragonfiend 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything I can do to keep the page from begin deleted?
    • Have you checked out the comixPedia entry? The entry belongs there for the time being. If it picks up a lot of readers and gains some sort of influence/notoriety within the webcomic and or wider community, then you could always copy it back over. - Hahnchen 12:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • :( Peachy. Two questions: 1.What do you guys mean by notability?

and 2. Will it still remain on the webcomic list despite the article being over in comiPedia?

    • Reply, it will not be in the wikipedia List of Comics. Some aspects of notability - Is it extremely popular/well known? Has it received critical reviews from respected webcomic journals? the wider press? Generally, what has this webcomic done, which would lift it over the others. - Hahnchen 15:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthros and Dungeons

[edit]

Webcomic, which I can't find online. Google shows up nothing to suggest notability. The link in the article sends me to furnation, where I'm guessing this comic must have originated from. - Hahnchen 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googl Research & Development Dictionary of Pseudowords

[edit]

Rambling essay about chat room game, neologism, etc. — Mateo SA | talk 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AP Math

[edit]

non-notable, unverifiable, original research, and/or nonsense - no Google hits - GTBacchus 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario World Episode 13: Mama Luigi

[edit]

Synopsis of non-notable episode of Saturday morning cartoon from 1991. FuriousFreddy 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base that statement on? - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the show isn't on the air anymore in reruns is a good one. Another is its obscurity, the fact taht it only ran for one season, the fact that nothing notable happened in any of its episodes...need I go on? I suppose we should start making articles for every episode of Scooby-Doo as well? --FuriousFreddy 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A plot synopsis is essential to an episode article, what else do want to see included? - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anything but an unreflected summary of fictonal events. Beer Bad (Buffy episode) is an interesting article because it discusses the episode's simplistic moralising, for example. Plato's Stepchildren is an extremely interesing Star Trek episode because it showed the first interracial kiss ever depicted on (American?) television (although the article fails to discuss this properly). Articles about a show's plot arcs would be interesting too, because they'd represent collation of information.
(To clarify: A plot synopsis is fine. But I think just a plot synopsis isn't. Sorry for not being clear.)
— FJG 10:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, Super Mario World has no plot arcs. I saw every episode of it when I was a kid, I can honestly tell you that the series was not impactful enough for much more than a passing mention. --FuriousFreddy 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and possibly merge in a list of episodes to avoid fragmentation. If there's an article on a serialized show, episodes are a reasonable expansion of the subject (unless it's something like Top of the Pops.- Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Buffy (et al.) get episode guides, I don't see why this shouldn't too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which ran several season, was a top-rated show. Super Mario World was a thirteen episode Saturday morning cartoon, and is hardly as notable. The "they did it, so we can too" reasoning is not a valid defense of the existence of this article, especially since the other twelve episodes aren't covered. Why not , if plot synopses are desired, mae on article with all of them. They'll certainly all fit. --FuriousFreddy 05:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with FJG. And execrable content created by fanatics of various tv shows is not grounds to retain more execrable content. Dottore So 18:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like someone said, Buffy has episode guides, so can this. OmegaWikipedia 20:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. "There's a lot of useless crap in Wikipedia" isn't an argument for keeping this article. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with List of Super Mario World Episodes nn tv episode on nn Tv show that didn't that last long compare to Buffy and The Simpsons --JAranda | yeah 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not believe that because some television shows have articles for their individual episodes, therefore all of them are entitled to have articles for individual episodes. I am not convinced that Super Mario World is a show that needs articles for every episode (it ran for 13 episodes in 1991, and has not been seen in syndication for years), and this article as written tends to suggest otherwise. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, episodes of fairly large TV series deserve some mention, although I would support merging this into a bigger list of episodes if there are more of these articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The precedent is just about set for TV episodes. I'm going to vote in accordance with stare decisis on this. — Phil Welch 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Show me another instance where someone wrote an article for an episode of a short-lived Saturday morning cartoon and it was kept, and I'll agree with you. --FuriousFreddy 05:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might be surprised. Have a look at List of Drake and Josh episodes, which links to 22 seperate episode articles. We also have articles for (nearly) every SpongeBob episode, as well as Strange Days at Blake Holsey High, Grounded for Life, and many others. There's definitely an emerging precedent for TV episodes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Holy Moley." That is surprising. Although, truthfully speaking, Spongebob is far more notable a series than Super Mario World. I've never heard of the other shows, so I don't know what to make of the fact taht they have full episode guides. --FuriousFreddy 22:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Spongebob is certainly popular, but one could easily argue that this is at least as important, being part of the Mario phenomenon which has been going strong for more than 20 years now and with no end in sight. One could make a very convincing case that Mario is the most consistently-popular character of the past quarter-century. Have a look at List of best selling computer and video games and note that 4 of the top 5 bestselling games for all platforms are Mario titles. Who knows where Spongebob will be in 20 years? This is why I tend to be very inclusionist with pop-culture stuff... oftentimes, notability is in the eye of the beholder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, Buffy is much more notable than this short lived cartoon show, so comparing the two is maybe not the best argument, but I'm going to vote keep anyway. Millions of kids must have watched this episode, so to me that makes it notable. Everyking 07:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy redirected --Doc (?) 09:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Poetry

[edit]

was tagged for speedy, but it's not Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vai que é Mole

[edit]

tagged as speedy, probabaly not speediable Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no votes, so defaulting to keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halim

[edit]

somebody tagged as speediable, probably it's not, so sent to afd Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Egg

[edit]

None notable webcomic, found here along with its empty forums here. Alexa ranks the URL of which it is hosted at 1 million+. The article gives no assertion of notability and Google gives 25 results for "Edd Egg". The webcomic author is listed directly below. - Hahnchen 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eddache

[edit]

Webcomic author, see directly above. - Hahnchen 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MOVE to Wikipedia:List of TLA disambiguation pages. -Splashtalk 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of TLA-Dabs

[edit]

Could use more votes. Relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be made redundant by Category:3-letter acronym disambiguations. The only article in the main namespace that currently links here is TLA, and that link should probably point to the category instead. If kept, this page should at least be moved out of the main namespace. Ilmari Karonen 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I went ahead and changed the link at TLA. There are now no more links from the main namespace. --Ilmari Karonen 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 132.205.45.110 added a move template to Talk:List of TLA-Dabs yesterday, but did not list the page at WP:RM. I have added the listing, and will add a note to the talk page pointing the discussion to here. Since the consensus currently seems to be in favor of a move, I'll go ahead and move the page if no opposing votes appear within a few days. Ilmari Karonen 11:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Who's your daddy?. — JIP | Talk 15:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Your Papi

[edit]

Tagged for speedy without a reason (though the talk page refers to needing cleaning). Since I don't think it's a speedy, it comes here instead. -Splashtalk 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and tell the sock puppets that "abstain" means "neutral vote", not "save from deletion". — JIP | Talk 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capa City 711

[edit]

was tagged as speedy, probably not Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Has no context and makes no sense (to me at least). A google search for "Capa City 711" returns 0 results, so doesn't seem there's anything notable to write about anyway. --W.marsh 03:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research/essay. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Its very needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.225.15 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-01 03:50:23 UTC
  • A group of schoolchildren had a vague idea to make something called "Capa City". They couldn't settle on whether they were going to make a game, a comic, or a film. It doesn't exist, and this article is an outline of their idea, apparently written by them, along with a request for people to contact the group if they are interested. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. It is not a vehicle that people may use for hawking their ideas for games and films to the rest of the world. It's an encyclopaedia. This sort of thing belongs on the authors' own web site. Delete. Uncle G 13:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. It's skirting close to several speedy categories, but probably isn't quite speediable. Ilmari Karonen 15:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like somebody is using wikipedia as a free web server for personal use to me. --rob 17:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 04:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G. I can't tell if these people are brilliant or crazy, or both, but this is not a Wikipedia article. MCB 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain This is the greatest idea since the Colliseum and chicken fingers, it belongs on Wikipedia because Nishant is a genius and must be praised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.171.108 (talk • contribs)
  • Abstain While this hasn't been completed, it's a real cool ida that should at least be finished before it's deleted! --67.81.222.84 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain This was a project which if realized would influence generations to come. This does not seem to be a 'vanity project.' The Title refers to many things it seems like however abstract they are. There might be some ambiguous statements, but that does not constitue deletion. Let these free spirits continue for Wikipedia should in the bowels of all its knowledge in future years hold this concept, and it does seem as a concept, exist for the future generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
  • Abstain SAVE FROM DELETION!!! This article falls under a category that shouldn't be deleted. --67.81.215.131 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC) ~~note--67.81.222.84 01:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC): I fixed this because this person didn't comment correctly and added more then one Abstain67.81.222.84[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

StreamlineNet

[edit]

Advertising for an random hosting company. AaronSw 02:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, thus keep (but still marked as a copyvio). Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Muere

[edit]

The ultimate example of vanity. Delete-- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Celestianpower hablamé 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesism

[edit]

It's a page about sayings from "Wes," the person who probably created the page. Ben D. 03:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not about one person named Wes. Perhaps maybe it was made as a page for people in general, hoping that words by one person might make a whole bunch of people laugh. AlR. 23:20, 30 September, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power City

[edit]

non-notable imaginary city Cnwb 03:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Chevrolet SS - note that a number of the votes appear to be sockpuppets, and that there does not appear to be any salvagable material in the article that is not in Chevrolet SS. – ABCD✉ 08:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet SS396

[edit]

The article's fundamental premise and whole reason for existing is incorrect. The false idea is that that the "SS396" is a separate model and not just an option on models such as the Chevrolet Chevelle or Chevrolet El Camino. Deletion is also recommended because the article also has incorrect statements and does not add useful information that isn't already repeated elsewhere.

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

The result of the debate was speedied as CSD A7 candidate. FCYTravis 19:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gosenca

[edit]

Vanity, non-notable band member. Quale 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Chevrolet SS. The article SS396 used to be a redirect to Chevrolet SS396, which was redirected as Chevrolet SS per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chevrolet SS396. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SS396

[edit]

This page only serves as a redirect to a page which is recommended for deletion. Novasource 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep! --Phroziac(talk) 01:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Perishers (band)

[edit]

By own admission, not notable Jwissick(t)(c) 03:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La docte Antiquite dans toute sa duree

[edit]

Delete. This article consists of someone asking a question about the meaning of a French phrase. “Please tell me what's the English for "La docte ... ” The question was answered. Now let's delete it. ♠DanMS 04:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - author requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Highbreed. But please continue the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:MMORPG research. -- RHaworth 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highbreed

[edit]

Looks like original research. What is "Highbreed"--the word doesn't appear in the text of the article? Any chance of salvaging or merging? Paul Hope 04:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title is the author User:Highbreed. -- RHaworth 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Disambiguation
  2. Split and merge with computer game series MMORPG. It's more than 30kb long
  3. Move or redirect the definition of terms to wikiionary. Rename the article to MMORPG afters research completion.
I need help please I am just a new user in wikipedia. Those that complain about my page being bad you can help edit my page. -- Highbreed 10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry Highbreed, but I'll have to vote delete. First of all, I don't think that a disambig for Highbreed is necessary..the word Highbreed refers to nothing except your username. Merging the bit about MMORPGs to MMORPG wouldn't also be a really good idea in my opinion, since your opinion doesn't really add new information to the article. I assume that most of the words which you want to move to Wiktionary already have articles, but we could add those entries. We can't however move that whole section to Wiktionary, since that would be violating the Guides of Style on Wiktionary. And don't forget to mark your posts using four tildes ~~~~; it makes things less confusing for both of us :P -- SoothingR 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I did not mean that I am gonna move the whole page to wikitionary. I mean just some of the definition of terms. That's why I said I am going to rename it because It isn't really supposedly to be highbreed. Okay I will reopened it by the name of MMORPG

hey this is me again. Just wanted to remind you people that you can help edit my page since I already gave my username and passwrod. Okay

I vote undelete because the information quite interesting although, the page sure needs a lot of work from the experts.

Keep Hey the page is worthy. It's just that it needs more restructuring and editing. Keep Cursed user talk zoe for starting the deletion page. Grrrrrr

If you don't need a password to edit the page then why not do it then. It's your choice. However marijuana is everywhere.

1 What Wikipedia is not 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia My article is not an encylopedia. Ahehehe 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary Definiton of term can be relocated to wikitionary 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought This is not my thought I don't even agree with soem of it. 1.4 Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine I am not an ad man 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files I don't even have pics 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider Hey I am the one paying here and contributing 1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Well it sure looks liek one. Ahehehe 1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Hey, who will win in the election. Place your bets now! 1.9 Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors Then why did you censor my username and password. Hypocrites! 1.10 Wikipedia is not an instruction manual They should write idiots guide to wkipedia. 2 What the Wikipedia community is not 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground It is a cemetery 2.2 Wikipedia is not an anarchy It is dictatorship 2.3 Wikipedia is not a democracy It is corrupt 2.4 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy We have no money to pay for bureaucrats! 2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog I agree. Anti - blog 2.6 Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Then why did you put a discussion room. arrggHH.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask-it-here

[edit]

Non-notable website NeilN 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by [User:Petaholmes] as an A7 --Doc (?) 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aethyr clans

[edit]

Gaming clan vanity. Quale 04:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan of the Dead Goat

[edit]

nn community vanity, and they even mention that they're not well known in the article. Delete with an AWP headshot.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete MONGO 10:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 11,900 google hits, is good enough. It seems to be a notable group and website Its parent site, www.csnation.net seems to be what may be notable, and the fact that these customization communities exist would be more encyclopedic/should be mentioned somewhere, so perhaps merge with another article... --Mysidia (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wrote the article, so I won't vote, but its like Mysdia said, it is a large community. Also, the forums are not well know in the ENTIRE CS community (which could easily consist of 1 billion+ people) but are very well known in the CS customization community. Hope you guys will take this into consideration. --Banana! 01:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're allowed to vote; it's when floods of people with an interest in the article but no interest in Wikipedia as a whole that votes start getting disregarded.
      I admit, I'm not a CS buff of any kind, but I've never heard of CotDG despite being fairly well-informed about computer/video gaming in general. Has it had any mentions in press, either gaming press or mainstream? How has it influenced the modding community as a whole? The answers to these sorts of questions help establish notability, and it seems like this is a borderline case. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There are lots of Counter-Strike communities out there and most of them are not notable. Nevertheless, appears to have an OK Alexa rating (13,327). Andrew pmk | Talk 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is actually the Alexa rank for the entire CSNation site, a much larger group which only hosts the CDG forums. (csnation.net has exactly the same Alexa ranking. It's like trying to figure out the traffic for a blogspot blog.) --Icelight 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- On the other hand, due to their use of multiple domains including gunshop.clandeadgoat.net and www.clandeadgoat.net, it seems to be impossible to figure out what their overall Alexa ranking would be. --Mysidia (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable CS forum and skin designers. The article itself confirms this, and the 85 unique hits for "Clan of the Dead Goat" confirms that it doesn't have a wide presence. The Alexa rank is because it is hosted on CSNation, a much larger site. --Icelight 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Icelight has it about right on this. I'll change my vote if convinced otherwise. Marcus22 19:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Mossrockets

[edit]

Apparently non-notable band. No all music entry, limited Google results and has only released one album according to the article. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bent St. Jam and Spud Gun (band) --Scott Davis Talk 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanat Va Honar

[edit]

Small, non-notable brake manufacturer. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Rich Farmbrough 19:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thangata

[edit]

I don't know if it can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Weak Delete Titoxd 05:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comments only: I found [7] that it is also the name of a place in Kenya. Someone knowing more may please comment further. In case, it is the name of a place, deletion is not appropriate, changes will have to made in the contents. --Bhadani 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- because it is a good stub, and there is a good possibility someone may expand it beyond a dicdef. --Mysidia (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor

[edit]

Advertisement and non-notable technology. (TRANGO and hypervisor) gets only a handful of Google results excluding Wikipedia mirrors and spam sites. -- Kjkolb 05:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Megan McCauley

[edit]

Rep of the singer gave permission for use (they didn't specifcy if that permission was compatible with the GFDL), but artist does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, delete.--nixie 05:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

[edit]

Obsessive Wonkacruft minutiae; nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yowza

[edit]

Non-notable website. 53 Google hits, most of which are pages on the site itself or blog ads. Reads like an advertisement. Quicksandish 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have just had a look at this page I cant see what the problem is. I remember a guy on my local radio station saying yowza. I think the page should stay. Steve Canterbury UK (preceding unsigned comment by 82.34.171.149 (talk · contribs) )
  • Great to see some infomation on Yowza, I agree with steve that this entry should stay. Yowza was used at the station which I work at. It is defenitly something I feel other people should have infomation on.

Regards Jon --JonMax1 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (user's first edit) [reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex theorem

[edit]

Page is made up. "Stachnikov" gives only 2 (unrelated) google hits, no record of book on Amazon. See also listing of Stachnikov below. -- SCZenz 05:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Searching arXiv and Google show that terms biflexian, triflexian and quantum multiplex are unknown to physics. If this is not a hoax article, it appears to concern a very cranky 'theory' [sic] unknown to science. So delete as patent nonsense.---CH (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • patent nonsense is content that is irredemably incomprehensible, which this is not. (Note that hoax articles are explicitly excluded from the definition.) The phrase that describes what you are talking about is either "original research" or "unverifiable". Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • An admin should perhaps compare User:Lionosmom with 155.198.78.191 since the latter IP addy has just been used to make very similar edits to the articles in question, but previously was used to vandalize National Science Foundation; check the contribs of this anon! A Google search on Lionosmom is also suggestive regarding this persons reasons for coming to Wikipedia. Admins should probably monitor this user and this IP addie for further problems and possible blocking---CH (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only developers can check whether an IP address is associated with a pseudonym. Administrators have just comparison of the contributions histories to go by, just like everyone else. The edit from the anonymous account was 6 months ago, and is not necessarily the same person, especially as the IP address belongs to a University. Uncle G 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, UncleG, but do a Google search on Lionosmom.---CH (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stachnikov

[edit]

Page is made up. "Stachnikov" gives only 2 unrelated google hits, no record of book on Amazon. -- SCZenz 05:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Can anyone verify or debunk the claim about the placque in Red Square? I have to agree that as far as I can see, if he even existed at all, this Stakhnikov was at best a very very obscure crank, but did he have some other claim to fame in the former Soviet Union? If not, the article should be deleted.---CH (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is why I am changing my vote: I left a query addressed to User:Lionosmon on the talk page of the article in question, which was 'answered' by an 'anonymous' editor using IP address 155.198.78.191, which has been previously used to vandalize National Science Foundation. The anon simply asserts the placque is real, but his credibility has pretty much vanished, I think, in light of prior vandalism activity.---CH (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Votes, No Consensus Karmafist 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zaidlin

[edit]

I have been unable to verify that this writer or his works exist throught Google, but that might be because they are in Arabic/Hebrew. -- Kjkolb 05:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 wasSpeedy delete as single-person vanity

Dallas dowdy

[edit]

NN / Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 06:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 07:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about disasters

[edit]

Disaster has rather flexible nomenclature. Thereby rendering this list unmaintainable.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographical songs

[edit]

Any song can be autobiographical to a certain degree.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lessthanthree

[edit]

Non-notable internet slang, WP:NOT / Wikipedia is not .. a usage guide --Mysidia (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes geographical names

[edit]

According to the article size, this list renders unmaintainable.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about laziness

[edit]

The term laziness obviously has variable nomenclature; rendering this list unmaintainable.

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't feel that this is an indiscriminate collection of information, or even that difficult to maintain. Lists like this do pose some problems, but I think they are worth it in the end. --Apyule 12:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list might be useful to some music and song lovers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize Lists should be used instead of categories only if there is a definable set of members for which it would ever be possible to have every member listed. This list is by its nature uncompletable, so a category, with appropriate subcategories, is the way to go. We have a category system, we should use it for collections like these! Caerwine 02:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 20:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April Severin

[edit]

From the article, it appears that she has only written self-published books, websites and greeting cards. Kjkolb 06:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Single-person vanity.

Jordan DiBona

[edit]

NN/Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 06:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Say bye-bye to Jordan. Vanity article. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (socks disregarded) · Katefan0(scribble) 19:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleSign Astrology

[edit]

The creator of this article, WalterJKin (talk · contribs), is also mentioned in the article as the inventor of the "DoubleSign Compatibility Calculator" at doublesign.com. It seems that this is an article about a particular company or website rather than about a distinct branch of astrology (and the capital letters in "DoubleSign Astrology" indicate a proper name rather than a generic term). This company or website might not be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Google gives confusing results: a number of hits, but possible use of multiple domain names by the same organization or syndicated content? Needs further investigation. -- Curps 06:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note this Google Search for "DoubleSign Astrology". When I run the search for 100 hits per page, I get "Results 1 - 76 of about 4,910 for "DoubleSign Astrology", indicating a lot of mirrors (4910 pages, but only 76 distinct pages). Some pages indicate a registered trademark: "DoubleSign® Astrology".

Similarly, a Google search for "double sign astrology" gets only 31 distinct pages out of 551 pages. -- Curps 06:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Combining Chinese zodiac signs with Western ones? Come on, astrologers should be more inventive than that in their endless quest to tax the gullible. This isn't nearly as stylish as that Russian woman who tried to sue NASA for impacting a comet. . . Anville 12:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE, PLEASE

DoubleSign Astrology is a branch of Astrology Hey guys... I'm Walter J. Kin, who happened to be founder of DoubleSign.com which uses DoubleSign Astrology as its main basis for matching people. DoubleSign.com, by the way, has more than 55,000 registered members. But I'd rather talk about DoubleSign (or New) Astrology. It's not my invention and is very popular among readers. Inventor of DoubleSign Astrology Suzanne White published her first book "The New Astrology" in 1985 and this book (along with 3 others that discuss DoubleSigns) sold in millions in 15 languages. You can check www.SuzanneWhite.com and Yahoo News about her.

    • I did removed my name from the article if it seems to be unacceptable for any reason.


I also mentioned 5 other astrology experts, bestselling authors that wrote books about combined DoubleSign tradition in DoubleSign Astrology. As you can see on Google search for "DoubleSign" produces 14,600 results, search for Suzanne White, returns 38,000 pages. When I search for The New Astrology" I get 16,200 pages. Another search for phrase "New Astrology" returns 35,800 pages. In case it still seems as not enough to recognize DoubleSign Astrology as a branch - here are more Google results for this expression "Combination of Chinese and Western Astrology" returning 152,000 pages.

  • "Suzanne White has written COSMOPOLITAN'S annual 50-page horoscope pamphlet in French each year for the past ten years. She has written columns for major publications in both the US and France and in the past few years, has regularly forecasted the future in Chinese Astrology for both Tarot.com and AOL.com."

Source SuzanneWhite.com

  • "1986 THE NEW ASTROLOGY - first published in French as LA DOUBLE ASTROLOGIE by Robert Laffont Publishers Paris. In the same year, THE NEW ASTROLOGY was published by both St. Martins Press (USA) and Macmillan (London). This book still is a long time best seller. It sells over 20,000 per year in the US alone. THE NEW ASTROLOGY also exists and sells well in British English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Polish and Czech. This book's concept is unique. White blended Chinese Astrology with Western Astrology thus inventing 144 "NEW" astrological signs. (12 animal signs combined with 12 sun signs makes 144 "new" character types). It's amazingly accurate. Suzanne White actually created 144 NEW character types."

Source AstroSoftware.com

  • Keep - I found my husband according to DoubleSign Astrology and we are happy for more than 8 years
    • That's pretty good since, according to the article, DoubleSign is a compound word first used in 2000 to describe "The New Astrology". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - although the term DoubleSign pretty new, the DoubleSign Astrology books exist for many years. They call it "The New Astrology" or something else - but it's the same combination of Chinese and Western horoscopes and really good advice to choose a husband.
  • delete This is an advertisement. The article contains next to no information, opaque allusions to celebrities and vague handwave towards related astrological systems. Note also, entry above, that an anonymous product endorsement is a poor reason to argue for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 21:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support. Thank you for voices of support. Although I apparently had a bad start, constant work on the article which I intend to continue, hopefully will make it a useful and clean of advertisement piece that people can enjoy and benefit from. I took a liberty to paste back information about 144 celebrities and their DoubleSigns, which I think is very enetertaining - it took me long hours within many months to compile it - gathering information from respected sources and checking celebritys' signs against DoubleSign calculator. I totally agree with clean up that removes anything that is against Wikepedia policy, especially vanity and advertisement. I'm happy to continue to work on building Wikipedia knowledge base and appreciate your cooperation. --WalterJKin 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, WP:ISNOT a undiscriminate collection of information. The celebrity lists must go if the article wants to even have any chance at staying. Restrict that information to your website and keep the article about DoubleSign Astrology itself. I will not change my vote, but some people may if you do this. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move GraemeL's version seems a reasonable and encyclopedic article, but I'm extremely leary about keeping the article under its current name due to the inherent advertising value of using one trademark for one version of the basic idea in the article name when the Wikipedia article (and its clones) show up in search engines. Suggest moving to Chinese and Western astrology (or a better neutral name) and leaving DoubleSign Astrology as a redirect to the general article. Caerwine 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pavle lukin

[edit]

Lukin is a muay thai fighter, according to the article. I have been unable to verify the article through Google. (Pavle lukin muay thai) doesn't get any relevant results and neither does "Pavle lukin". Also, I don't know if the accomplishments in the article would merit an article. -- Kjkolb 06:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Peoples Host

[edit]

Non-notable web host. -- Kjkolb 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so please don't put your fingers in something u have no clue about first learn about it and it's not that everything is on the internet well if u wan to see the proof why don't you call BRANKO CIKATIC OR PRESIDENT OF IAMTF FEDERATION AND ASK? so learn something now "IF IT'S NOT IN THE GOOGLE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT REAL"

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sdrg

[edit]

Not notable DarbyAsh 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agim Coma

[edit]

Non-notable actor. The "article" is just four links to movies on IMDB and amazon.com. IMDB shows only three of these, the other link is to amazon.com. The roles are non-notable (hotel clerk, bailiff, unnamed) as are the movies themselves. IMDB has no bio info for Coma, so there seems little hope of expansion. All of the google hits appear to be unrelated or else wikipedia or IMDB mirrors. The page is linked from List of Albanians, so that entry should probably be removed if this article is deleted. Quale 07:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0(scribble) 19:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Alker

[edit]

Not notable and will date DarbyAsh 07:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Free trade. Robert 20:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freetrade

[edit]

Not notable DarbyAsh 07:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Profaynes

[edit]

I was unable to verify that this group, or one of its more famous members, DJWatchman, existed through All Music and Google. They didn't tour over a wide area. Also, they only released a few singles. -- Kjkolb 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TRIPODS

[edit]

Not notable. Jwissick(t)(c) 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U Dae-keong

[edit]

nn bio. 202.156.6.60 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have since discovered that he was shown in Europe as well (see entry). (Kdammers: I don't know why four tildes don't record my name regardless of where I place them:Kdammers 12:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
First, thank You for calling attention to my spelling error. The name should be 우 대갱 / Thus U Dae-Kyeong. I have moved the article. Second, a negative search of the Internet is hardly adequate basis for non-notability - especially in creative, noncommercial areas. If You live in Korea, You could call the Nonsan Culture and Arts Center at 041-734-0815, since they just had a showing of U's works, and ask them about his notability. Third, where is notability (i.e., that it is relevant and what constitutes it) discussed: I searched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and the word is not used.

Fourth, invitational international showing would seem to me to be at least prima facie evidence of notability in the visual arts. Kdammers 03:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted and redirected to Gang. — JIP | Talk 08:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Boyz Gang

[edit]

This has no references and no meaningful google hits. If deleted, also remember to remove from List of street gangs. Thue | talk 09:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to speedy this, not least because it is being continually vandalised - but I can't see a WP:CSD that it obviosly falls under. (delete, btw) --Doc (?) 13:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CURNOACKS

[edit]

Not verifiable, no Google hits. Wrong name or possibly hoax. --Vsion 09:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indulgeo Primus Syndrome

[edit]

This term has no google hits. Thue | talk 09:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and MOVE to Zenith Data Systems. Robert 21:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith data systems

[edit]

non notable. its link to zenith is actually something else 202.156.6.59 10:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Highway Casanovas

[edit]

Non-notable band. they only released one demo album 202.156.6.59 10:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was} DELETE. The first keep vote is by a user who has only four contributions, the second seems to be by the article's author. — JIP | Talk 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disfunctional Generation

[edit]

non-notable gaming clan. 202.156.6.59 10:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable biography (WP:CSD A7). Hall Monitor 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Scragg

[edit]

Unencyclopedic; personal info that would be better on a user page. Nach0king 10:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One for the Road

[edit]

An alleged demo album of a non-notable band. 202.156.6.59 10:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doom 4

[edit]

Covers a single interview mentioning a hypothetical future game that is "[not] in production" and for which there are "[no] imminent plans of starting something". Fredrik | talk 10:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macroculture - small scale social interchange

[edit]

Non-notable concept, but perhaps someone could prove otherwise? 202.156.6.59 10:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Should be a term definition. The construction is logic as to "macro" just specifies the relative size to a micro- and subculture.[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 12:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite day

[edit]

Almost all of the article, including the term's supposed origin in Calvin and Hobbes, is unverifiable. Anville 12:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Shah Alam

[edit]

NN Vanity. 202.156.6.60 12:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Syam

[edit]

NN vanity page. 202.156.6.60 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salary-celery merger

[edit]

Possible hoax, unverified. Google turns up two hits, both of them forums. --Blackcap | talk 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a real merger, it has sources. 64.200.124.189 12:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Keep as references were added --NeilN 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article title may not have the best name, but topic of article seems valid, and Google returns many non-WP, non-webforum links showing that Cox + Palethorpe are Australian linguistics researchers ([10], [11], [12], for example), and this genuinely looks like something their research would cover; in fact, [13] says, in a footnote on p 13, cf. Australian English vowel changes in progress in some areas such that "salary" and "celery" sound the same. See Cox, F., and Palethorpe, S. (2001). The Changing Face of Australian Vowels. In Blair, D.B. and Collins, P (eds). Varieties of English Around the World: English in Australia: John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam, 17-44. Proof enough for me. Keep DS 13:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • verify This appears to be some kind of linguistics-related article. If its not primary research, then keep. Roodog2k (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't much like the title as it stands and will shortly propose a better one, but it's very much a real merger, and very much not original research. Another reference for the Victorian merger is Cox, F. M. and Palethorpe, S. (2003). "The border effect: Vowel differences across the NSW–Victorian Border". Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society: 1–14. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). (All refs so far have concerned the Victorian merger and if they mention the New Zealand one at all, I think it's mostly only as a tangent. I have some refs on the New Zealand merger but not immediately at hand, and haven't read them completely enough just yet. I may do so during after mid-October.) Cassowary 2005-10-01 14:30:37 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 14:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)) (yes, it was me —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • QUESTION You state that it's very much a real merger, and very much not original research but all the work seems limited to the two authors cited as references (and presumably this article has been authored by them or a related party). As such, is it accepted enough to justify inclusion here? Can you provide a non-Cox and Palethorpe reference? Dottore So 19:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your presumption is wrong; much of the text was originally written by me in a post on a web forum not too long ago (and plagiarised when included here), and I'm very much neither Cox nor Palethorpe. Cox and Palethorpe seem to have been involved in a relatively high proportion of what's been published on Australian English phonology in the last decade (or perhaps my searching methods are geared towards finding stuff by them...), and I haven't seen anything on the Victorian merger except by them. (But then, I'm not a linguistics student/linguist and haven't read all that much.) I've never been too concerned about the lack of diversity in authorship because as a merging speaker living in a predominately merging community I've made and heard many puns/been confused by the homophony on a number of occasions. There seems to be more diversity on authorship of the merger in New Zealand, but as I say I haven't read much on that so can't talk much about it... —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 23:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for content (title change would be OK) see [14] for reference to celery-salary. Dlyons493 Talk 14:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Australian English —Wahoofive (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This could easily be summarised as a paragraph as one section in the phonology part of New Zealand English, with a similar section in the Australian English phonology article. It doesn't need a separate article. Some of it also seems quite odd, if not incorrect (like the bit about it being the only feature shared between NZ and VIC but not the rest of Australia, which I'm sure is not the case - the word "chance", for instance, is pronounced the same in VIC as in NZ, but not as in the rest of Australia). Grutness...wha? 01:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: How is the word 'chance' pronounced in NZ and Victoria, and how is it pronounced in the rest of Australia? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "a" is as in "part" in NZ and Victoria. In many other parts of Australia it is as in "pants". In SA and Tasmania, it is slightly closer to the "a" in "fall". The same pronunciation is found in the word "advance" - it is often possible to pinpoint which state an Australian comes from by asking them the name of their national anthem. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real, verifiable conditioned phonemic merger. To those who don't like the name, examine Category:English phonology and you'll see its name is consistent with many similar articles. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge, I can remember this being discussed in my college "Dialects of English" course, and that's something, because I slept through much of it. Xoloz 08:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks legitimate. The name is no sillier than the foot-goose merger. Ilmari Karonen 23:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bryce 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge. --Zeborah 02:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nofingers, Mohammed Hasfi, Muhammad Faris

[edit]

Guess who? Nn vanity bandcruft that fails WP:MUSIC completely. --Blackcap | talk 12:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as A7 --Doc (?) 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Owen mcateer

[edit]

No claim to notability.--Carabinieri 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting faster --Doc (?) 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Al's Patented Weight Cutting Technique

[edit]

Potentially dangerous hoax. Google gives nothing for "patented weight cutting technique", and nothing for various spellings of "allen umberidgson". There are plenty of hits for "Tyrell Biggs", but though the article claims Dr Al is his trainer, there are no hits for "Tyrell Biggs" + "Dr Al". DS 12:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. As an aside, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. As a boxer and a weightlifter myself, I can personally attest that no one in their right mind would do something as totally ridiculous and bad for one's own health as to induce vomiting and diarrhoea to make a weigh-in, especially in boxing, when you can often just go up to the next tier. There's no cut-off for heavyweights, all weights are allowed of boxing, so before the weigh-in, you'd just sign up for the next class. If you need to lose weight that badly, then you're in the wrong weight division. --Blackcap | talk 13:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. feydey 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sammoud

[edit]

Would be vanity, but claims notability as creator of Tornado Os - which is itself up for deletion. If the creation goes, so too should he whose only fame is being its creator. DS 13:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable.--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 13:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. (Will move to fix title.) · Katefan0(scribble) 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blender Magazine's 500 Greatest Songs Since Your Were Born

[edit]

possible copyvio. 202.156.6.62 13:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was that nobody seems to want the article to be deleted in the first place. The nominator abstained, everyone else who expressed an opinion expressed the opinion that the article should be kept, and no-one came forward, after notice was given, wanting the article to be deleted. Uncle G 11:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Batman Vs. Dracula

[edit]

Hmm, the article itself is poorly written but I recall there is such a movie made by Andy Warhol. Perhaps a redirect will be appropriate? Abstain for now. 202.156.6.62 13:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wharton school publishing

[edit]

Blatant advertising. may also be copyvio. 202.156.6.62 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 13:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a Stupid Question Day

[edit]

This article is causing confusion among admins. It was speedied once as a hoax (which can't be speedied except in extremis) and then as a recreated article, which doesn't fit the G4 CSD since it wasn't AfDd. Since Google returns plenty of hits, I figure the questions should be settled here. -Splashtalk 14:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and REDIRECT to Cumulative distribution function. — JIP | Talk 13:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CCDF

[edit]

Looks to be silly vanity/nonsense Whitejay251 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 19:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Dentistry - What's Happening 2006

[edit]

Very clearly unencyclopaedic, an FAQ or something into dentistry. Feels like a copyvio, but I can't find where from. [[Sam Korn]] 14:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found it. Copied from here [25]--inksT 21:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this entry was copied from my website www.simonjenkins.co.uk and is an attempt to explain to people what is actually happening in the real world. We are all familiar with government spin and dentists know that government is forcing them into private practice and then accusing them of going into private practice. For the full detail please see my website above, if you decide this is not an appropriate entry into Wikipedia then so be it, but it is the truth.

regards Simon Jenkins www.simonjenkins.co.uk

  • Delete this is a personal opinion of a political situation written for the direct purpose of explaining to patients why dentists are leaving the NHS and was never intended as an encyclopedic material by the author, ie me. Simon Jenkins
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. But may I suggest this is relisted or Transwiki'd anyway? Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Budget

[edit]

The Swedish federal budget for 2004-2006. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. DS 14:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Stone (porn star)

[edit]

Not a encyclopedia article --Mosesofmason 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ngoyo

[edit]

Inaccurate. --posted by Beerbuzz on Ngoyo article at 10:37 UTC 1 October, 2005; reproduced here by Dvyost 14:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've finished the postings for Beerbuzz's AfD to try to act in good faith here, but I don't think the deletion of this article is called for. There may well be some inaccuracies--it currently seems put together from a few net sources--but the kingdom of Ngoyo clearly does exist, and was a Iron Age kingdom in Cabinda. There's even a scholarly book on the subject 1. I think the best thing to do here is to fix whatever inaccuracies there may be. --Dvyost 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article is inaccurate, please help correct it. Pburka 16:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inaccuracy is not a reason for deletion, just improvement. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's inaccurate, edit it to make it accurate. Ben D. 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue (band)

[edit]

Two for one! Two different bands named Prussian blue, both apparent vanity, both crappy articles. The first one is an english band, with an empty entry on AMG but no other hint to WP:MUSIC. The second I'm not sure about. It's an "aryan pride" duo of young twin girls, who do claim to have done a national tour. I've tried, but can't verify this (nor do I know what counts as a tour, since they seem to be tied up with the National Vanguard organization). No AMG entry, hard to google. Because of this I'm only a weak delete. — brighterorange (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albrecht Fölsing

[edit]

unverifiable: cannot find indication that two books 'cited' by author of biography exist, and his reply was useless; the Einstein biography is genuine but I don't think it makes this Folsing notable CH (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since I nominated the article various editors have replaced the questionable books which books which I do not doubt are genuine, and at least one I already verified myself, so, er :-/ I am changing my vote to keep.---CH (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY USERFY. ~~ N (t/c) 17:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of James Bond, Harry Potter and Earthsea

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (and protect page from being recreated). HappyCamper 16:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Owlboy

[edit]

Not notable character. User vanity etc. feydey 15:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. bainer (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nonexistent article

[edit]

Created by a vandal. pamri 08:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emp3world

[edit]

Advertisement for Emp3world.com Dlyons493 16:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a significant website. Doesn't establish why it is notable. It is just like any other audio search engines in thepast. Spam. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --J. Nguyen 01:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Alexa ranking is 4,822, which would be very good for a forum site, but is poor for a search engine. Can anyone shed some light on its popularity/notability? MCB 22:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the white turtle

[edit]

Unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per precedent. ~~ N (t/c) 17:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

[edit]

Previously marked as a speedy, but I don't see how it is one. Similar-but-not-identical article deleted in June. Google on "wikilinking -site:wikipedia.org" gives 9000 hits, but on cursory inspection none seem relevant to this game. Delete unless proven to exist. ~~ N (t/c) 16:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Dharmasastra (P.V. Kane)

[edit]

Verbatim copy from sections of Pandurang Vaman Kane and an unnecessary duplication as the articles have the same content while the titles suggest difference. btw, I am the original author of Pandurang Vaman Kane-- Gurubrahma 16:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: An article should add value - if I follow the link to the book from Pandurang Vaman Kane, I'd find it a duplication of material well placed in the Kane article. Either the info about the book should be expanded or it should be made a re-direct to Pandurang Vaman Kane. Also, it may be pertinent to point out that Machaon is the author of the Afd. --Gurubrahma 06:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is about a book by a particular author, who also has an independent article in wikipedia. Here, the issue is duplication of some texts from the article about the writer. In my opinion, to begin a stub, sometimes such duplication/ same contents with minor changes would be inevitable. This has perhaps happened in this instance. Over a period of time, other editors shall surely add relevant materials and this page shall continue to grow and the contents shall have further value addition. As such, there appears no justification to delete this page on the ground of duplication of contents. The contents should be allowed to mature. I am not sure, but I may add that the page may be moved to a page name 'History of Dharmasastra, book' or something similar. --Bhadani 09:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and definitely rename - sorry for listing the article on afd. Now I am clear about the purpose of having an article on the book as well. would edit both the pages on the book and the author significantly by the end of this month to reduce unnecessary duplication. Pls suggest a better re-name (am thinking of ---(book)). Hope this serves as a lesson to me before crying wolf on Afd in future. --Gurubrahma 06:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 02:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction (band)

[edit]

No AllMusic entry, only album gets 171 google hits. Punkmorten 16:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 19:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Frog

[edit]

I found this article by following a link on Talk:Joseph Blanchette. The link admits to cheating, and that article was deleted in this AfD. Whilst I have no opinion, I think this article should also been seen by AfD. Note that it is not speediable as a recreation, really, since it is a rewrite (just). -Splashtalk 16:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Joseph Blanchette. It seems to me the article on Joseph Blanchette was deleted in error, the subject is clearly notable enough. --Mysidia (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep rewrite After reading the article and talk, I agree. — brighterorange (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  • Keep for reasons given on the talk pages of both articles, as well as my objections to the original VfD on the other article. And the "cheating" line was probably a joke, man. (As for the naming aspect, people are just as likely to search for Legendary Frog as Joseph Blanchette; he puts both names on every movie he does. Whatever happens, one should redirect to the other.) CaptHayfever 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclosure: I created this page). I'm not sure I can say much more than what I've already said elsewhere. If we are to have any articles on flash animated artists/series at all (and we certainly do), then Legendary Frog is more than notable enough for inclusion. (I have a much bigger defence for keeping this article, in the article's talk page - please go there.) In any case, whatever the outcome of this vfd, I'm relieved that this issue will finally see some formal resolution. Wandering oojah 15:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for my comment about 'cheating', yes, I was mostly joking. It's true I created this article in a, ah, fairly sneaky manner...but I was also under the impression that rewriting deleted articles, when there is due cause, is generally tolerated on Wikipedia. Wandering oojah 15:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP and MOVE to Coventry and North Warwickshire Cricket Club. — JIP | Talk 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry and North Warwicks Cricket Club

[edit]

Non-notable amateur cricket club out of many. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case. Coventry and North Warwicks Cricket Club is a long-established cricket club in the first ever cricket league in the world. It is also a club with a close association with arguably the most successful County side in modern times (Warwickshire County Cricket Club). Perhaps the relevance and importance of this imformation being on wikipedia is lost on a Canadian, but people's areas of interest are wide and varied and being so dismissive about information some people will useful and informative has no place on an Encyclopedia site. Keep. User:Chris W | 19:28 (GMT), 1 October 2005

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parafinalia

[edit]

Not notable school group formed in February 2005, no releases. feydey 17:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable yet, "up and coming" is very tenuous future speculation. --Mysidia (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy redirect to paraphernalia, apparently not the easiest word to spell. — brighterorange (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont delete - The band is getting more puplicity recently, this page is to give anyone wanting to find out about the band the infomation they need. The bands name is not spelt "paraphernalia" it is spelt parafinalia, so a redirect would not be appropriet. user:cons. 21:15, 1 October 2005
    • It's true that this band spells its name "Parafinalia," but under the criteria at WP:MUSIC the band does not appear to qualify for a Wikipedia entry yet. The purpose of the redirect would not be to help people find the band, but to help people find the word "paraphernalia" which is often misspelled. Looking up "Parafinalia" on Google I find several references such as "Pipes, Rolling Papers, and Marijuana Parafinalia," or "There was plenty of drug parafinalia in plain sight," or "im telling you depeche mode would never use drug parafinalia to promote themselves" [sic in all cases]. I'm not finding references to the band. So redirect (non-speedily, the article merits a full AfD) as per Brighterorange. If the band becomes successful, they can have a proper article at that time. --Metropolitan90 03:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity, certainly not notable. --Ariliand 21:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (speedily or otherwise) as per Brighterorange. Thryduulf 22:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont delete - The bands web site is www.parfinalia.tk, this article is just to futher th bands awareness. user: cons
    • You're not being very consistent with the spelling, are you? Also, you don't get to vote twice, though I can't really accuse you of sockpuppetry since you signed both votes. The band clearly fails WP:MUSIC, so I say delete or redirect per Brighterorange. Ilmari Karonen 23:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis Ice Bats Broomball

[edit]

non-notable defunct amateur team, heavy advertising angle Pete.Hurd 17:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, non-defunct, non-notable amateur team whose page contains little other than lists of their sponsors. Pete.Hurd 02:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Era Flair

[edit]

Listed for deletion under Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD1. Looks non-notable - "era flair" "buddy luv" returns 0 googles. ~~ N (t/c) 01:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete Does not come within a mile of WP:MUSIC CastAStone 18:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting orphaned nomination from August 24. No vote. Titoxd 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Notice that this is a VFD subpage, not an AFD subpage.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to alternative lifestyle. --Jacquelyn Marie 05:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative people

[edit]

Too broad a classification to be useful. Dlyons493 Talk 18:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep); both articles are merged at The Million Dollar Homepage. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Dollar Homepage and Milliondollarhomepage

[edit]

There are two articles on the "Million Dollar Homepage", one at The Million Dollar Homepage and another at Milliondollarhomepage. Both are up for deletion and have their individual AfD subpages. It's probably better if both pages are discussed together. The statements from both AfDs have been moved here. Please add new statements to the bottom. Pilatus 19:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milliondollarhomepage

[edit]

Advertisement page with no other content Naturenet | Talk 15:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read something about this page just a couple of days ago, I think in TIME magazine the Guardian. It has an Alexa ranking of under 25000. To be honest, I think we should have an article on the subject, even if this isn't a great one. I'll see if I can find some time to expand it into a decent stub. Keep and list on articles for expansion, if I don't do it myself. [[Sam Korn]] 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If he succeeds getting the money he needs for uni, then let it be recreated... till then it is one of many non-notable fund raising schemes. Jwissick(t)(c) 01:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the odd reference! What I meant is that someone could make this into a decent article, but most people (including me) will probably stand around and do nothing. Oswax 18:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Dollar Homepage

[edit]

It's Spam. Much and all as I'd like to see him make a Million Dollars. Dlyons493 Talk 18:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common section

[edit]
  • Keep - It is equal to Slashdot in terms of Alexa pagerank [26] and is already an Internet phenomenon. BBC has done a story on it [27]. Fuzheado | Talk 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major press in newspapers and TV + heaps of copycats + original idea showing business potential = article worthy of inclusion.

I hope no one minds, but I took the liberty to merge Milliondollarhomepage and Million Dollar Homepage into The Million Dollar Homepage. --Chuck SMITH 16:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if it is a worldwide talking point / event ? then surely it must stay , thats what encylopedias are about right ? if not what is the point of this site as well ?? to be selective about what it logs in human development and history ? that does not seem right ....

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Withdrawn/Keep Marskell 10:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Association

[edit]

An odd one. The name and the text are generic enough I can't prove it exists. The Royal Historical Society and the American Historical Association both have articles and this refers to neither (its cat'ed as a British Organization). Delete unless someone can prove what it is. Marskell 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Powergen Cup. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Welsh Cup

[edit]

The data on this page has been moved to Powergen Cup as the Anglo-Welsh Cup is sponsored by Powergen the same as the old Challenge Cup GordyB 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no content on this page that is not already on Powergen Cup. The situation occured because the Challenge Cup (known as Powergen Cup) was abandoned and a new Anglo-Welsh tournament was created in its place. So I created the article. It was then announced that the tournament would also be sponsored by Powergen and use the Powergen cup name. I'm pretty sure the original trophy is still used. Then somebody else creates an Anglo-Welsh section on the Powergen Cup page. I don't really care what is decided but merger has already happened.GordyB 13:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contents and turn into a redirect. Though it's not easy to decide whether this is a new competition or a continuation of the old Powergen Cup with Welsh sides added. Everybody seems to refer to it as "the Powergen" anyway. Rhion 11:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Children of ragnarok

[edit]

Subject is non-notable. Subject has less than 100 google hits, and the majority aren't relevant. May be notable in the future, but isn't notable yet. It's also a copy-n-paste of a user page. Biography articles are usually better written by someone else. --Interiot 19:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chester County High School

[edit]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it reads like a News-story. Additionally, the information is not noteworthy enough to be included on Wikipedia

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

this was not really readable until today so now it is added to october 1 2005 Yuckfoo 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Butt Infirmary

[edit]

Hoax. Zero google hits. --202.156.6.61 19:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinikini

[edit]

It's just a family name. Pretty much everyone has one. Dlyons493 Talk 19:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnacris

[edit]

No mention on allmusic, no Google hits for a band with that name. The name occurs 11 times on Google as someone's username on a webforum. Do I say "Garage band vanity"? 129.215.194.205 Pilatus 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dike Road

[edit]

Delete. Nonsense. ♠DanMS 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M.O.B.

[edit]

I see no evidence that they fulfill WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I come from West Palm Beach and they are actually slightly well-known on the underground scene. They recently had a performance actually at a nightclub named Ray's. Although they currently don't have a record contract, the rumor is that there is one in the works and the album is almost finished.
  • Delete promo/vanity, come back when you're famous, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They do have at least a mention over at allmusic.com, however brief, which helps. I would have nominated it for deletion had it not been. That's why I hung a cleanup tag on it. The myspaces.com website doesn't help. Neither does the "in yo face, mutha" style of the article. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'redirect to Sranang Tongo. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taki language

[edit]

Delete this article as a possible hoax. I can find no independent evidence that this language exists, least of all the claim of having the world's smallest lexicon. Googling "Taki language" brings up mostly hits of the Taki Taki language in Suriname, which is different. When I asked the creator of the article for sources, he provided me merely with a Wikipedia mirror. Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE'. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fogarty

[edit]

Doesn't look very notable. Deb 19:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kontinental Brekfes

[edit]

Member of the above-mentioned band M.O.B., also up for AfD. Joyous (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archeon Tarot

[edit]

This user created a series of advertising pages in a short time. Some of these are copyvio, some are close to spam, some probably wouldn't draw much comment as they are less blatantly promotional. I'd appreciate an Admin looking at the whole set of them. Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Stefan Selakovic. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selakovic

[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Probably Serbian, but in Roman alphabet. Apparently an article about a last name, has a link to a genealogy page, so probably not worth keeping, but I'm listing it here to get input from someone who can actually read it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is indeed Serbian. I agree it's not worth keeping; it discusses the origins of the family name Selakovic and it's frequency in Serbia. Denis Kasak 23:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End moved text

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dvd duplicator

[edit]

Advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 20:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Webster

[edit]

Most likely non-notable autobiography. It's difficult to tell, because there are many google hits for "Christopher Webster". However, some amount of googling found practically no references to the "nationwide" "Porridge, at McDonalds?" quote, and I can't find any online biographiess for a Christopher Webster born on 1986. If someone manages to find real biographical information that can be used to expand this article, then possibly Keep. --Interiot 20:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete IMDB [30] shows there was an actor by this name who had an unnamed role (not identified as a schoolyard bully) in "About a Boy" and a TV movie, and no other acting credits. Googling for variations on the name and McDonald's, porridge, etc. turns up nothing. There is no evidence that the stuff about acting in porno movies is more than just someone's overactive imagination. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. -- At least more context has been given (middle name, birthplace, girlfriend). So it's a lot easier to combine those things in various Google queries [31] [32] [33], but I'm still not finding anything notable. (there's a lot of google queries that could be run on variations of the names and such, but the fact that almost nothing is really popping out probably means non-notable). And the "studying hard for her A-levels" line didn't make me think this was a distanced biography either.
  • Speedy Delete as CSD:A7. I don't consider "aspiring actor" as an assertion notability. "Aspiring" == "wannabe". If he actually has acting credits sufficient for an article, someone will re-create it. MCB 22:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 05:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in fusion

[edit]

Admitted non-notable band: "Lost In Fusion a band that began in the summer of 2005 ,Compose just by 2 guys at the moment" 202.156.6.59 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speed deleted: band vanity with no claim or evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band failed to pass WP:MUSIC and thus should be deleted, but A7 specifically does not apply for bands. The band CSD proposal failed, altbeit slimly (see the poll). The speedy deletion was a mistake, and therefore Wile E. Heresiarch's asserion that Kappa is wasting people's time is completely unjustified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sjakkalle is correct. CSD A7 applies specifically and only to articles on individual persons whose notability was not asserted in the article. If this page was indeed speedily deleted under the impression that CSD A7 was applicable to it, it was improperly deleted. I hope, Wile E. Heresiarch, that you would consider restoring it for the duration of the AfD, failing which it shall be nominated for undeletion at VFU.—encephalon 10:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to clarify: As Wile E. Heresiarch himself writes above, the wording of A7 specifically states that it covers articles about "a real person". Since general consensus seems to be to interpret speedy deletion criteria rather strictly, the use of singular is generally taken to mean that it covers articles about one and only one person, not bands, clubs or any similar groups. I don't doubt that the band was non-notable, but since speedying can be rather controversial, and once done also non-transparent to the ordinary user, what we need isn't rules-stretching, but better (i.e. wider, but specific and unambiguous) criteria. / Alarm 12:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fat pat and the lovely lads

[edit]

NN ≈ jossi ≈ 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felanil Baaks

[edit]

Fancruft. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davenant road

[edit]

Delete as unencyclopedic road vanity. The last thing we need is a disambiguation page for every "Davenant road" in the world. [edit] 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Rich Farmbrough 20:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mijksenaar

[edit]

Delete, possible candidate for speedy deletion (CSD A7). [edit] 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN-Bio, Vanity. I don't see a problem with speedy-ing it either.--inks 21:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just needs editing and restructuring. Paul Mijksenaar and his company Mijksenaar-Arup are responsible for the signage of JFK Airport and several other big American airports. So he is quite a name in the world of information design. [39] [edit] 13:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saber Swift

[edit]

This isn't an article, it's a discussion of a fiction "work in progress." Joyous (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to validation. — JIP | Talk 05:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

validate

[edit]

Dicdef, has been transwikied. Ingoolemo talk 21:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Yogi Tea. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi tea

[edit]

Transwikied to cookbook - can now remove from here. Dlyons493 Talk 21:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Dall

[edit]

granddaughter of Franklin Roosevelt, no notability of her own established TimPope 21:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE! "No notability of her own established"? She is a direct descendant of one of our country's presidents. That alone garners interest. User:Mdiane ← user's only edit is this comment --TimPope 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being descended from a President is not a claim to notability. They need to have done something of their own. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Really. We're probably all descendants of Charlemagne — does that entitle me and everyone else to a vanity page? Ilmari Karonen 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ilmari Karonen. In a few generations, the number of descendants of any given person is likely to be numerous. MCB
  • DO NOT DELETE she is a noted scholar and historian and provides relevant facts to the lives of her grandparents and great-grandparents. She is among the very few still living who can provide us with useful historical facts. Mrs. Seagraves is 78 years old now. We don't know how much longer she can or will live and with her death dies and encyclopeida of history.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Momentos de Amor

[edit]

Article about a local radio show in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Not notable. Ariliand 21:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Kushnick

[edit]

Non-Notable Person. Just because she was Jay Leno's agent doesn't mean she is notable and qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Hell I work in the entertainment industry so does that mean I can have a Wikipedia article too? I think not. Misterrick 21:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. As Hollywood agents go, she was pretty controversial. Kathy Bates won a Golden Globe and was Emmy-nominated for playing her in the TV movie The Late Shift (about the Jay Leno-David Letterman rivalry), so I think some people might want to look her up in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is so little info available about her online, and much of it is very biased against her; she co-founded an AIDS awareness organization and much of her work in her later life (post-Tonight Show) was involved with AIDS research. Further, she is an important figure in the "late night wars," whether or not people want to acknowledge her role in severing the relationship b/w Leno and Letterman. She was a representative for several other Hollywood figures besides Leno, and in many ways was famous in her own right, and so my vote is to keep this article with expansions. Telestylo 07:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her role in the 'late night wars' alone makes her notable, if not for exemplifying how not to handle a client. Being Jay Leno's agent is not what makes her notable; his current agent - whoever that is - is certainly not notable. But she was particularly notorious in hollywood for many years, particularly because the tonight show is such an important show for the industry. Aspersions 07:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book and television movie, as well as coverage in celeb. magazines, make her a notable person. Xoloz 09:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as single-person nn vanity.

Del Toro

[edit]

This is just a page on a poster on a forum. No sense creating one here. ErikNY 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baristanet

[edit]

Minor blog site. Alexa ranking of 281,364. Joyous (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to UH-1 Iroquois. – Rich Farmbrough 19:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bell_UH-1

[edit]

This article is a duplicate of UH-1_Iroquois Sylvain Mielot 22:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Kaijser

[edit]

I am not convinced Arne passes the average professor test. If the article were created today I'd be tempted to speedy it for not making any assertion of notability - however this article has been around since 19 May 2001 and has attracted only 4 minor edits since then, including the Conversion script and my addition of the afd tag (the first edit in over a year). There are a grand total of two inbound links.

Because of its age this article has been picked up by just about every Wikipedia mirror site going, making raw google hit numbers irrelevant. Almost all the other hits seem to be directory type listings. The lack of an interwiki to the Sweedish Wikipedia makes me doubt he is significantly more notable in that language, but my knowledge of Sweedish extends to one word - Igelkott (Hedgehog) - so I cannot say. Thryduulf 22:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, the weird things one finds in Wiki-land. Keep -- since the article has been here forever, I give it the benefit of the doubt and presume it is notable. As nom. suggests, its age also makes it unclear what set of criteria to apply to judge it. Absent a positive case that this fellow is non-notable, I think such an established, if obscure, article does no harm in remaining. Credit to nom. for even finding it, though. Xoloz 09:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to find some more information about him, but I can't tell if he's notable or not. // Liftarn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 19:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solypsis

[edit]

Besides verging on patent nonsense, this person/band/noise doesn't have an entry on artistdirect or allmusic. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was already deleted by Arminius, just one minute before it was re-created (see the deletion logs. Delete. --Fibonacci 23:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i made changes to the entry and will continue to add important info.

extensive updates have been made, with multiple links added.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma (Mortal Kombat character)

[edit]

Page begins: Akuma is a not really a part of the Mortal Kombat storyline and had absolutely no appearance in an MK game. Delete articles on non-existent video game characters. Quale 22:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleSign

[edit]

Delete Advertisement PhilipO 22:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I followed this example Fotki - are articles about web portal considered an advertisement? --WalterJKin 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fotki has over 2 million hits on Google [40]. "DoubleSign Astrology" has ~600 [41]. There is a serious difference in notability between these two sites. The tone of the article ads nothing but basic information about the site, reads like a low-key advertisement and doesn't demonstrate its particular notablity over any other astrology site. Statements such as
The website is popular among users due to cool images of both Chinese and Western Zodiac Signs, as well as DoubleSigns, daily, bi-weekly and yearly horoscopes (Chinese and Western), descriptions of Zodiac Signs from different point of view, including books, celebrities, love and sex; and Are You Compatible? Calcluator.
are intrinsically promotional. Since you appear to be the creator of the site in question, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to be creating articles about it [42]. My vote remains at Delete. Cheers --PhilipO 23:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to replace this entire article about a web portal, with one the describes DoubleSign as astrological term, its meaning and application from astrological point of view. I tried to it yesterday, but the old article (about the portal) was restored.
I restored it because you removed the AFD (Articles for deletion) tag at the top of the page. You will need to re-edit this article without removing this tag. Cheers --PhilipO 15:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netcohort

[edit]

Neologism, coined a couple of months ago. Joyous (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gin Sour

[edit]

Delete. This is nothing but instructions for mixing a cocktail. Wikipedia is not a “How-To” manual. ♠DanMS 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Watch

[edit]

Delete Very nice, but doesn't merit an entry in Wikipedia. PhilipO 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why? It is simply an article about a municipal recycling program - and basically the instructions pasted here at that. So many towns and cities have one that I can't see why this one is particularly notable. Now, if it was the first of its kind....--PhilipO 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a provincial, not municipal, recycling program, it's mandatory, which is unusual, and the article contains numbers on its success rate, which means its more verifiable and encyclopedic than most articles put up for deletion. It needs cleanup, but I would like to see more articles in Wikipedia on verifiable, real-world concerns, not less. Jkelly 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cboc

[edit]

Delete. Two acronym definitions only, and dubious ones at that. Move to Wiktionary if the acronym is known. One definition is POV, the other does not seem to make sense. ♠DanMS 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup --JAranda | yeah 04:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher & Paykel

[edit]

Currently advertisement. Needs at least a major re-write. Dlyons493 Talk 23:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime (person)

[edit]

Not notable except for naming himself after Optimus Prime, the fictional robot. I don't understand how this survived an October 2004 vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Optimus Prime (person).--Pharos 23:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drich

[edit]

Incoherent nonsense. It had been tagged as speedy but the user removed it. 202.156.6.60 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to allegation. — JIP | Talk 05:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly

[edit]

Not only is it a dictionary entry, see WP:NOT a dictionary or usage guide, but I think the article is also biased and inaccurate; in case the subject were encyclopedic, it would have to be rewritten anyways. --Mysidia (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tireball

[edit]

Vanity and unnotable site. (No Alexa rating for those who care) Kushboy 23:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Lonely Soldier

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable. Ashenai 23:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shrivatsa

[edit]

Does not appear to contain any information not present in such articles as Shiva, Vishnu, or Trimurti. Furthermore, doesn't actually specify what Shrivatsa is. Shrivatsa may be a topic deserving an article (unfortunately, systemic bias comes in to play: I can't make that call, and I doubt many of us can), but this is by no means that article. The Literate Engineer 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WorldUnited

[edit]

Advertisement for worthy but nn organisation. realted to grassroots.orgDlyons493 Talk 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Henry Gang

[edit]

Incoherent nonsense. This article has been speedy deleted already but the user keeps recreating the page. 202.156.6.60 23:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been previously deleted and the content is similar, Speedy it. At the moment it comes under nonsense anyway.--inks 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of speedy-ing it, under CSD:A1 and A8. I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do with an active AfD entry, but no doubt an admin will know what to do.--inksT 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect as non-notable. Thue | talk 19:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carter

[edit]

Not especially notable businessman.Dlyons493 Talk 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Land of me

[edit]

Advertising for a blog. Wikipedia not a repository of links. Jkelly 02:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_1&oldid=1081093309"