Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 27

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 27)
< August 26 August 28 >

Purge server cache

August 27

edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Mi casa es su casa

edit

Non-notable GinaDana 00:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Random happenings

edit

Non-notable GinaDana 00:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Commission, with the reduser vote discounted. -Splash 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10 percenter

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang - which this article says the term is Eddie.willers 00:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (but move to proper capitalization). -- BD2412 talk 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Addicted to bass

edit

It's a pop single by whom, exactly? And released when? And just who is its influence? Eddie.willers 00:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete executed by User:User:MacGyverMagic. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bezza

edit

Delete it is an article about a real(?) person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject Grcampbell 00:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Could use a cleanup. --18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Amy Yip

edit

Weak Delete not particularly notable except in niche-market, no biographical or career info. given other than link to imdb (duh!). Eddie.willers 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio [1]. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos washing machines

edit

Weak delete I'm sure there's something of relevance or interest in there but where? Eddie.willers 00:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nonsense/drivel. --Blackcap | talk 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • O.K., I just did some checking and found that this article was completely plagarised from here. "Chaos washing machines" gets a mere 67 results on Google (singular "Chaos washing machine" gets 63), the first two links being WP's. I had thought it was nonsense, and I was wrong. But it is pretty nn, and also copyvio. --Blackcap | talk 02:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is probably the original source: http://www.ama.edu.ph/research/amacc_e-journal_f/the_butterfly.htm . However I can't believe you would describe it as "non-notable". Kappa 02:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? Well, maybe I'm not thinking of something... but still, it seems like a largely ridiculous article to me, anyway, and that feeling is only exacerbated by finding so few Google hits and that it's plagiarised (suggesting that there isn't enough material out there to write an article about it). It's somewhat interesting, but not very notable (IMHO). --Blackcap | talk 16:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm surprised you would say it's non-notable, because it's both a big thing (a new product from a large company) and distinct from other things of its type (by having a "gimmick"). It's creative and has a large audience, and so it seems highly notable. Kappa 19:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. But there probably is an article to be written about the relationship between science and advertising.Zeimusu | Talk page 01:14, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
  • Keep, Vfd is not cleanup, maybe someone could provide a reason for deletion that has some basis in policy? Kappa 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to keep if copyvio is rewritten. Kappa
  • Delete, or, at best, merge non-copyvio stuff into Chaos theory#Popular conceptions. --Calton | Talk 09:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards a merge with Washing machine. I don't think these appliances are really notable in their own right, but they do represent an interesting development in Washing Machine Drivel (WMD). -- Visviva 09:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, Visviva: Is your vote "merge," or are you still thinking about it? --Blackcap | talk 16:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Goldstar is half of Lucky Goldstar, now known as LG. -- Visviva 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE-Merge back to Chaos Theory This article was a subsection in the Chaos Theory article, and was removed because it was marketing hooey. I think we should remerge it back to Chaos theory, under a new heading, like Chaos Theory in Popular Culture... or something....
  • Delete if it was removed from Chaos theory for being a marketing hooey, it should simply get deleted. Groeck 17:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Paul Klenk
    • Comment Do you have a reason for your vote? --Blackcap | talk 20:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic. Elfguy 01:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Merge into Positioning (marketing) as an example thereof as that article currently has none and could use several. Caerwine 03:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure I understand why you think it ought to go into Positioning (marketing) of all the places it could go. Some people think that this constitutes a valid article in and of its own right, so I don't think that if it belongs anywhere it should be as an example in an article about marketing. You can't just have a few paragraphs on a washing machine in the midst of a business article, so that would completely eliminate anything you want to say about CWM apart from the marketing sector. It seems to me that it would be much more fit (if the vote is to keep or merge it) to either leave it as its own article with a link from chaos theory, or merge it with aforesaid chaos theory. --Blackcap | talk 16:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Response Because as far as I can tell, the whole CWM concept is primarily an attempt to create a new market segment within the market for washing machines to make use of the buzz that surrounded chaos theory in the early 1990s. If there's anything out there that indicates that this was more than just marketing buzz, then it might warrant a separate article, but if so, why ain't it in the article already. Caerwine 20:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. Thanks for clarifying that. --Blackcap | talk 20:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cencered comic

edit

Vanity page (and badly written). Eddie.willers 01:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matlab problems

edit

POV, the article itself is well enough written, but a page on the problems of MATLAB cannot be neutral.Zeimusu | Talk page 01:06, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Astrology Prince Astrology book

edit

An article about a book which...does not exist?! No ISBN, No publisher. and online bookshops do not have anything with this title. 202.156.2.74 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maths debate

edit

No google hits for "World Maths debate".... what is this? I don't know enough about the subject.... so I'm not going to vote for now... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LPA, Inc.

edit

Advertisement. Can a landscaping/interior design firm be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry? Definitely not NPOV. Al 01:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Copyvio double-copyvio. tagged Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a corporate brochure as it stands and should be tagged for copyvio (although one assumes that this is corporate shilling). It is hard to assess the notability of this outfit because its name is an acronym for things like local planning authority or land planning authority which push up the google numbers. Precise hits on 'lpa, inc' suggest it is fairly prominent. Dottore So 01:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --tranquileye 00:42:47, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Padraic Stevens

edit

Delete I'm from this part of the world. It's nonsense. --PhilipO 01:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hoax. Padraig Stevens is actually a member of the Saw Doctors, per Google. Edit: redirect per Rob Church. Quicksandish 02:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Padraig Stevens as a mis-spelling of that person's name. Rob Church Talk | Desk 02:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either a hoax or a misspelling, and in the latter case it is wrong. Groeck 04:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as anagram of Passive nerd act. Paul Klenk 10:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I failed to find the relevant facts. Is anyone has any clue? --Bhadani 12:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Padraig Stevens as mispelling. Alf 13:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I apologise for my bluntness, but, come on! This is not even a convincing hoax. Yes, there is such a person as Padraig Stevens. But this guy is not him. Padraig Stevens is a Saw Doctor. How could a member of the Saw Doctors, a hugely popular band in Ireland (and fairly popular in the ex-patriate community over here) still be playing after apparently committing so many murders? How could this (hoaxed) person who hates the Saw doctors actually be a part of them? I very frequently read the Irish newspapers, and, believe me, if there were a serial killer slaughtering fans of the Saw Doctors, it would be huge news. In any circumstance, a serial killer would be on the front pages for more than a week, specifically if it were such an interesting case such as 'this one.' There would also be huge documentation online of it. Take it from me, there have not been many mass murderers in Ireland; if this guy were amongst them, he would be incredibly notable. But there is no such killer. I don't see why you should redirect this to Padraig Stevens. Sure, there should be a Padraig Stevens page, perhaps, but one about the Saw Doctors member. Making one out of this hoax is utter stupidity. IINAG 18:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --tranquileye 00:43:30, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shit-Storm

edit

Delete as self-promotion. FreplySpang (talk) 01:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

*weak keep What is the threshold of notability for comedy troupes? Do they have to be nationally fameous?Roodog2k 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollderella when factual and verifiable become the only criteria for inclusion, someone will let you know and then your votes will be welcome indeed. Admin, please ignore this vote; it's tendentious. Dottore So 07:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dottore So, your comment that "factual and verifiable" is not sufficient for inclusion is correct and relevant. I don't think your other comments are and I wish you'd consider editing them out. If you do so, please remove this comment at the same time. A vote is a vote, and actual VfD votes define our de facto policy, which policy pages codify. Trollderella cast his vote and gave a reason. I think it's a bad reason but that doesn't matter. I think it is way out of line to suggest that the acting sysop ignore a valid vote Sysops are supposed to judge consensus, not pass judgement on the rationale given by voters. By pointing out that the reason he gives is invalid, you may hope to influence him or other voters (or minimize the influence of his vote on other voters) but you shouldn't try to influence the acting sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was watching some show on Current, the TV Channel invented by Al Gore, and they were featuring this Billy Hot Chocolate guy. Shit-storm did not feature much in the show. My vote stands as above. :) Roodog2k 19:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as informative, especially in light of contributions maqde from Shit-Storm member Eric Appel as writer for The Andy Milonakis Show; this page shows background.(UTC) Unsigned vote by User:24.195.25.159 16:09, August 29, 2005
  • KeepShit-Storm!
  • Delete self promotion.
  • Keep Looking at the history of the entry, I don't think this is just self-promo.Bjones
  • KeepShit-Storm!

keep them


  • Keep it. This is informative.
  • Delete vanity. nonsense.
  • Keep A legitimate and respected improv group, keep this. User:Mattmoses
  • Delete I've seen them perform several times. They are neither legitimate nor respected except by the few of their more loyal audience members who still believe improv which "breaks the rules" is innovative or important. They're barely worthy of their ultimately meager following let alone of their inclusion in Wikipedia, which they admit on another webpage (http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/showthread.php?t=38587) began as a joke for the sake of both vanity and self-promotion.User:BJH
  • Keep BJH sounds like sour grapes. It still is helpful and interesting.
  • Delete BJH is basically correct. And the previous voter doesn't know what "sour grapes" means. 216.27.44.254

KEEP: Shit Storm is good, and worthy of this entry. delete: guilty as charged

  • I cant decide but one thing I am sure about is that Im going to see this handsome group shit-storm for myself at school night, hosted by Justin Purnell, on sept. 14 at the UCB theatre in New York
  • Keep Why not keep them. This is history.

Keep: We may yet discover their importance.

DeleteOne time I farted and everyone blamed it on my teacher.

  • Happy B-Day Billy Hot Chocolate

KEEP: Yeehaw!

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEDIATARY

edit

Neologism-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC) – Copied from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MEDIATARY, which now redirects here. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added the tag to the page, but didn't complete the process, so I'm doing it for them. At a guess, I'd say they nominated it because it amounts to no more than a neologism. Rob Church Talk | Desk 02:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EVE iPortal

edit

Current content appears to be advertising material. Google search for "EVE iPortal" returns 5 hits, making this non-notable. Rob Church Talk | Desk 02:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consociatus Insula

edit

Brand new micronation. Not encyclopedic. Also Consociatus Insula/Constitution. RADICALBENDER★ 02:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

software prograom, sub-stub. no indication of notability. Delete unless expanded to show signifigance. DES (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 10 year old product by huge company. Gazpacho 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded from a stub to a real article during vfd period. Dlyons493 07:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oracle. (and leave as red-link) No content to speak of, which is not to say that it would be impossible for a good article on the subject to be written, but this is sub-stub. --Mysidia (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a merge to be completed, you need to redirect. This way the edit history is retained per GFDL. See Guide to Votes for deletion link on top of main VFD page. Merge and delete is not a valid vote, so there's no good way to get a red-link. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm all about the obscure software packages, but there is no assertion of notability here. Speedy delete. Nandesuka 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability, well apart from the blindingly obvious, Java Developer's Journal's readers voted it "Best Java Persistence Architecture" in 2003, it also won the Editor's Choice JavaWorld 2003 Award for Best Java Data Access Tool, and the 2003 Java Pro Readers Choice Award for Best Java Data Access Tool or Driver. Northrop Grumman used TopLink on a project to integrate some US DoD databases. I could go on but it's utterly ridiculous to be discussing deletion of an article on this product. In database terms it would be like not having an article on the Beatles' White Album. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is the same way I feel about the topic, but I didn't have information about the significance about it like you did. I added those awards into the article, but if you know more about TopLink then I think it would be great if you could edit in more information on why it's considered to be the #1 object-relational mapping tool. --BSTRhino 03:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Oracle. Radiant_>|< 09:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 05:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lawley

edit

ug - nn, vanity Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. HappyCamper 05:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EarthTHESHIP

edit

Your guess is as good as mine. Borderline patent nonsense. No Google hits. RADICALBENDER★ 03:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Leick

edit

Not notable - not a single reference found on Google with name in quotes Groeck 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If she is, I don't think mearly being in the same family as someone noteable constitutes noteability. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and re-direct into Hudson Leick if it can be confirmed that she's her daughter (sounds like it, since the article mentions her not being as famous as her mom). --rob 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Fong

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameglio

edit

Hardly notable. Found only about 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Agree with previous poster in that I found many Google hits, but most were in Spanish, a language I cannot read. It does seem to be correct that Pietro Ameglio was a co-author of a Spanish language book on Gandhi, and his most recent appearances in the news involve trying to block the destruction of an ostensibly historic hotel building in Mexico.Crypticfirefly 03:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's a minor figure on the fringes of Mexican peace activists. His writings, such as this, are largely rehash and the google mentions are mostly on specialty sites. To the point about 140 google hits, please click to the last page and you will see that half or more represent duplicate content. Dottore So 05:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a comparison, wikipediea gets 196 hits by this method. [2] Kappa 08:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that's a completely fake comparison. Haven't you ever wondered how one of the world's busiest websites only has 200 non-duplicated references? The preponderance of Wiki-hosted results throws Google's duplication tagging for a loop. If you remove the wikipedia site from your search, you have 10 million different results and you don't trigger a Google duplicate tag. Here's one way to do the [search]. Per mgm, the news sites are not, in my view, notable, but I admit that is my view. [This] is fairly typical. Sur al Sur is hardly notable. And the article less so - a sort of quo-vadis on the nonviolent movement, mostly consisting of Gandhi remembered. I don't see notability, my vote to delete stands. Dottore So 17:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another comparison is with google, which gets 432 "unique hits" [3] the moment. Perhaps you'd like to explain why this comparison is completely false as well? Kappa 19:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. As I said above, 'you have to remove the site itself from your search.' So go back to google and type in google and then add -google.com and see if it makes a difference. Dottore So 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, now wikipedia gets 852 [4] and google gets 511. [5]. Kappa 23:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I should have been clearer. As you may know, Google limits its returns on searches to 1000, so as it processes through the top 1000 results it filters for similar results and eliminates duplication in the displayed 1000 . What you have discovered is that searching google for "google" returns roughly 50% duplicate content on the top 1000 pageranked matches. (Excluding the site is a good way to get higher individual returns in your 1000 sample since, for high-profile sites like Google or Wikipedia, the site itself has a high pagerank score). Put in a random word ("frank", "hairdress", "kappa", whatever) and click through - you will see that most times Google returns a duplicate message before you reach the 1000 limit even if the search term has millions of results and is seemingly random. This is because there is inherent duplication in the 1000 sample that Google returns on whatever search you do. Let me sum up: "Pietro Ameglio" triggers a TOTAL of 124 results of which half are duplicated; that is a sample size of 100% Wikipedia generates millions of returns; the duplicated content on the sample you have linked to above (which is itself so small as to be unrepresentative) is a mere 15%; the overall duplication, were it possible to run a 100% sample, would probably be considerably smaller still. Your google link is also a good example. Between the time you conducted the search, and the time I clicked it, the pagerank of the top 1000 sites that mentioned Google had change significantly enough to alter the duplicated results within the sample by over 15%. For high return search terms (like Wikipedia) simply waiting an hour (or hell,maybe five minutes) between running the search can change substantially the duplication level in your 1000 sample. You surely didn't think that google only somehow triggered 511 non-duplicated entries out of tens of millions of results!? Dottore So 01:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to suggest you look at the quality of the links rather than the number of them that show up in Google. If the majority is from reputable news services (I didn't check), I think it can be worth keeping the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trollderella please, PLEASE stop voting in VfD. I am factual (verifiably) and verifiable (factually), but can't claim an entry in an Encyclopedia. When factual and verifiable become the only criteria for inclusion, someone will let you know and then your votes will be welcome indeed. Admin, please ignore this vote; it's tendentious. Dottore So 07:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Article contents moved to new namespace: Amiya "Kani" Deb, current namespace deleted.

Amiya(Kani) Deb

edit

Not notable. Found less than 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Purdy

edit

Not notable Groeck 03:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 06:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ivette Corredero

edit

Another digusting attack page that an anon won't leave as a redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series). Another non-notable game contestant who doesn't need her own article. There seems to be an agenda among the anons to make certain members of the game look as bad as possible. Zoe 04:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete HappyCamper 06:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angie laakso

edit

Vanity, not notable Groeck 04:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animal chin

edit

The mentioned film and the character exists, but the context seems to be made up. Groeck 04:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could use a cleanup, but the Search for Animal Chin video is pretty legendary, and worthy of a more intelligent entry than this User:OllieRagdiprice

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Titoxd 03:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_L._Feinsod

edit

non-notable filmmaker OllieRagdiprice 04:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, blanked by creator. Thue | talk 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lionhearts

edit

nn-band. if we had a speedy criterion for bands this would surely qualify. Delete. DES (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jubby Laurente

edit

nn, vanity Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as vanity with no allegations of notability. Zoe 05:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality in Brazil

edit

This is simply a non verifiable personal opinion. Following this user's contributions around [7] is providing great fodder for our deletion campaign. I urge you all to do the same!TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfy. Rje 14:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Cataldo

edit

nn vanity. Groeck 06:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 14:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Gede

edit

nn vanity Groeck 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Benny Lim

edit

nn vanity Groeck 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 (#A7). Baronet is a very minor inherited title, and being an officer is very doubtful - he could have been a sergeant for all we know. Looks like it's genealogy, WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 19:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

John Hans Makeléer

edit

Article doesn't explain what makes this person notable. Zoe 07:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep (reluctantly) due to his nobility and naval officership. He's very, very obscure, but squeaks by. His significance needs to be established, if, for any reason, to make the article interesting. I ask the author to answer this question: Are you his descendant?
  • Delete This smacks suspiciously of someone's genealogy project; criteria above are too low, I think. His significance needs to be established to keep this. Dottore So 14:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 15:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Camo dudes

edit

Arcane slang not in general use; poorly written article. Paul Klenk 07:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration: Camo dudes
  • Google search of "camo dude" + "area 51" yields less than ten unique sites, mostly talk forums, and none of note. This indicates a use of this term that is truly arcane – hardly wide enough to merit an article. It's singularly uncommon slang, nothing more.
  • The only other link to the page is at (Area 51), added by the creator of the article himself.
  • Article is short due to granularity of its subject.
  • Poorly written: incorrect capitalization ("Perimeter" as a proper noun), improperly titled (plural rather than singular); and with misspellings (including the term "cammo" itself). It appears the writer doesn't even know how to spell his own word.
  • Statements range from the unsubstantiated ("Some observers have been detained on public land for pointing camera equipment at the base.") to the trifling ("some of these vehicles have been seen equipped with red and blue pursuit lighting").
  • The photo is captioned: "In the full version of this picture (q.v.), a "Camo Dudes" vehicle can be seen on the top of the hill", but it reveals only an unexceptional car, without pursuit lights – and no camo dudes.
  • The sign in the photo reads "Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range", which is adjacent to, but not part of, Area 51.
In summary, it smacks of Area 51 chat room ephemera, and, in my opinion, is a first-rate candidate for deletion. Take a good, hard look at it. Anyone care to disagree?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Ellis of New Brunswick

edit

Article does not explain what makes this person notable. That she's buried in a parking lot? That she may have inspired a song (though there is no substantiation for that allegation, and even that is hardly notable)? Zoe 07:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jarvis Andrew Lattin

edit

Article does not explain what makes this person notable. But it sure uses a lot of words to do it. Zoe 07:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


  • The content is in my namespace to protect data in case it is deleted after a vote. That is not a valid reason for deletion in itself. By that logic anyone who trys to protect information at their namespace will have their entries deleted. A careful reading of the external links used will show that I am the author there also, my name is clearly listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Chainsaw Scene (Scarface)

edit

Creating the VfD page for an article which had the header added but the rest of the nomination not completed. It would be an extremely bad precedent to start creating articles about individual scenes from movies, especially non-notable scenes. This is another stub created by User:Wiki brah. Zoe 07:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 14:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Twenty miles to africa

edit

Ad for a rather new band that fails google and allmusic tests. Punkmorten 08:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by SWAdair. Rje 14:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of ethnic stereotypes

edit

Last VfD had 60% delete - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes. Hopelessly POV, among many other issues. At best, these should be merged with their appropriate countries/ethnicities.

  • Delete Ryan Norton T | font color="#0033FF">@ | C 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a mess. Coffee 09:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but develop it further. By its nature, it depends on POV, which makes it a quirky sociological anomaly at WP. Paul Klenk 09:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutrality in question. 09:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC) (unsigned vote from 202.156.2.123)
  • Delete. "I can't believe they kept it!", he says, shaking his head in dismay. 900% of all edits (yes, that many) have simply been anonymous users popping in and adding their favourite idiotic stereotype as their only ever edit; page is inherently POV; finally, I have a philosophical objection to pages where the vandalism and the legitimate edits cannot be told apart. --fuddlemark 10:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This has no references for anything and violates the no original bullshit policy. Uppland 10:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. "Hair smells like wet dog" heh... Roodog2k 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete fuddlemark's last reason and Uppland's reasons are compelling. Plus I'm pretty sure the U.S. isn't the only place where ethnic stereotypes, which means if this list could be formulated in a way that didn't have the aforementioned problems, it would have to cover stereotypes world-wide, at which point I believe it would run afoul of WP:NOT Sec. 1.7.2: No Lists of Loosely Associated Topics, as the only thing every ethnic stereotype in the world has in common is that it's an ethnic stereotype, and when you're talking on a global scale, I think that qualifies as a loose association. The Literate Engineer 14:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heck, I may be just a grumpy mean Scotsman, but this seems inherently POV, unsourced, unverifiable, and an editwar waiting to happen. (PS, another grump, I don't like these organised votes - this should be a discussion aimed at concensus, not a partisan poll!) --Doc (?) 14:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly, pointless, waste of time, BS topic. Doc: grumpy, mean and Scotsman, aren't they redundant?  ;) Dottore So 15:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . POV, unverifiable, unscientific, below average IQ, smelly article. Manik Raina 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some of the stereotypes listed here are encyclopedic, but can really only be fairly covered in the context of a proper, well-rounded article about the ethnic group in question - and I'm willing to bet that all of the encyclopedic content here already is in those articles. Breaking it out into a context-free list form like this just isn't a useful, neutral way to present this information. CDC (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Delete. Cannot ever be NPOV and the subject isn't encyclopedic at all. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (but not strongest possible) Keep. "Inherently POV" doesn't mean it must be deleted. Should I vfd Abortion just because it's never likely to be completely NPOV? No; doing so would be WP:POINT. Whether or not people like the subject matter of this article, it's still encyclopedic because it is an interesting sociological anomaly, and it also gives further clues about why racists hate certain kinds of people. (Save your Strongest possible delete for articles that can kill people.) --Idont Havaname (Sorry, I realized my vote was sort of violating WP:POINT in itself, so I have struck part of it. I essentially meant "Strong keep per Paul Klenk". --Idont Havaname 18:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep- one of the best things about Wikipedia is its ability to cover topics that wouldn't appear in a regular scholarly encyclopedia (pop culture, etc.) Like it or not, this page does represent an aspect of society that people may want to look up. Furthermore, on the issue of its inherent POV-ness, it's sort of an equal-opportunity offender, so it's not slanted against any one group in particular. --PatadyBag 18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with this list is not that it covers POVs, but that it is entirely POV. An article reporting on ethnic stereotypes, putting them in some kind of context and giving references, would not be a problem. As a worst-case solution, if the current garbage ends up getting kept, I suggest cleansing this page of every stereotype which does not have a citation to support its existence. Uppland 19:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly agree with you that the article could and should be a lot better. A lot of it is poorly organized and poorly typed almost to the point of patent nonsense; at any rate, it's far from being up to our usual standards. With your suggestion, I'm just somewhat concerned that we might run into the article becoming a collection of external links. --Idont Havaname 20:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Totally unsourced. Furthermore, potentially infinitely long, given the bar for inclusion. Fillipinos "get excited at meeting other Fillipinos"? Huh? Sdedeo 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, many are just abject silliness if not patent nonsense. Can never pass WP:NPOV. ESkog 20:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and work on cleanup into a more useful article. It need not be completely POV; it's certainly possible to determine whether or not a meme is widely held, otherwise we wouldn't be able to determine which urban legends are notable and which aren't. And the article is quite useful for the reasons Idont havaname mentioned above. Penelope D 23:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Total claptrap
  • Strong Delete This is inaccurate, biased, useless.
  • Delete - unverified info, may make people mad. However, although we do have a list of ethnic slurs, but this one is POV and unverified. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As much as I hate to say it, most of these are widely pervasive and well-known stereotypes. Much of it was offensive, but it would be a very bland world if anything offensive was censored. There was enough truth (or at minimum common misconception) to merit a keep. Also agree with PatadyBag regarding Wiki as a repository for things that wouldn never make it in a traditional encyclopedia. -PlainSight 21:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, and it manages to offend everyone. Seriously, how far can one go? Can I just go to an ethnicity and add things about it (like one said "have sexual attraction toward goats")?Amren (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, recreation of deleted content. Nominator points out the first vfd, but not the second, which resulted in the article's deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pick and choose the goofiest entries (so, wait...I'm genetically predisposed to liking grape juice?), add them to BJAODN, and delete the page. --FuriousFreddy 15:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ral315 17:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily Deleted as a recreation of VfD'd article. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes 2. SWAdair | Talk 19:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge with A Clockwork Orange. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yarbls

edit

Not a dictionary Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlShaya Group International

edit

Seems like Advertizing or Vanity. — Kjammer ⌂ 09:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 14:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tay Ninh Accord

edit

unverifiable secret society. --TimPope 09:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 14:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Division day

edit

Vanity page of non notable band JoanneB 09:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

HRG's cat

edit

Interesting, but not notable - the article's claim to notability is that it's widely popular in internet forum discuission - but Google says 'not really' - a 100 odd hits, but just two forum [10]. --Doc (?) 10:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reference to a philosophy book, I might change my mind --Doc (?) 12:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show it has been mentioned other than in a couple of internet-fora? If you can, you might still save it. --Doc (?) 07:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've seen references to HRG's cat on CARM [11], AARM [12], ARN [13], and Theologyweb [14]. So, four Internet fora in all. The argument is also referenced on Paltalk discussions. I'm certainly not going to take the stance that it's the most notable atheist argument ever - certainly not up there with the "problem of evil" - and I wouldn't object to it being merged into some larger "atheist arguments" kind of page... but I consider it at least minimally notable, and growing. --Hyperbole 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, the arguement may be notable if it explains what kind of an attack is it, and how it is used. Here are some sources I found. [15], this site(a wikipedia mirror with some additions) odly enough considers HRG's cat related to Worship? [16]. Another site, [17] "Why is your supernatural explanation better than HRG's cat, who created the universe last Thursday?". Three references here, [18] but since carm changed its links the articles are lost as far as I can tell, or are in the depths of the old topics. Finally at CARM, [19], [20]. There are others but that is enough. As far as it being mentioned elswhere that doesn't make notability in my opinion which is why this sic, and strange article still exists.God kills a kitten Another example is the Tourist guy and the Trammie article which I have no idea why it is notable. . Finally theres Eternal newbie which is internet slang I've never heard.(I've heard Newbie, Noob, etc but never Eternal noob. Falphin 00:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't tell if this is really notable or not, but perhaps it should be mentioned (there is too little content for me to call it a merge) in Last Thursdayism.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, but in my future defence, I observe the author's vote! -Splash 01:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WCOOP

edit

Should be deleted Planetpjs 11:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see pokerstars.com 2004 WCOOP ref and pokerstars.com 2005 WCOOP ref. Alf 21:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 14:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

BORX

edit

Not notable (no related Google hits), article links to nonsense page also up for speedy deletion Halo 11:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 14:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Perreault

edit

Not notable. Delete brenneman(t)(c) 11:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 14:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It Does

edit

Seems to be nonsense, no notability, mentions a metalcore band with no Google hits and is just generally stupid. Halo 11:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluescope steel

edit

get rid of this or fix it up Planetpjs 11:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

ISAKC

edit

Internet club with only 321 registered forum members. Not notable enough. Phil H. E. O. 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Édouard Glissant. --Canderson7 16:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

EdouardGlissant

edit

Dupicate article of Édouard Glissant--Don't think that it should redirect there because it's mispelled. Kewp 12:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it's common practice to simply redirect misspellings--it lessens the load on Vfd, and makes it more likely for ill-informed readers to find what they're looking for. Meelar (talk) 14:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 23:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The King Street Run

edit

A pub crawl in Cambridge. Drunk students are tedious, but they are not notable. Pilatus 12:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The Cambridge Arms. If the consensus on that vote is to delete, please remove the information about The Cambridge Arms from the King Street Run article, as it would be a violation of GFDL to keep that information. Zoe 21:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Already been done — I will apply the redirect. -Splash 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"lady mary montagu"

edit

It looks like this is the same person as Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. I suspect it was created in error by a new contributor.

Also, I think there's some clever process by which you can do a redirect and delete simultaneously but I can't find it now. I do recall it looked rather complicated anyway. If someone knows, let me know. Cheers. Finbarr Saunders 13:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You misunderstand the purpose of a redirect, Finbarr - if X redirects to Y, then we don't need to delete X. Anyway, I've already merged the article into Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (there was some info in the badly-named version that wasn't in the already-existing version), so I think we can just leave it as a redirect.DS 13:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Apparently a new editor unfamiliar with wiki formatting, that did include source info. --WCFrancis 21:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Geek shopping

edit

Inherently POV, and impossible to maintain. Might benefit from being userfied, but I doubt it.DS 13:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with above, plus it's nonsense. Geek shopping is an anagram of Pigpen kegs, ho! Paul Klenk
  • Delete hopelessly POV, nonsense Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. very interesting and useful. I might add a few things. Voyager640 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the anagram is proof that this is not an encyclopedia article. CDC (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not remotely encyclopedic, and doesn't even mention Fry's. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get a blog. --tranquileye 00:47:42, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
  • Keep. These comments are proof that it is far easier to destroy than create, especially the anagram nonsense. If good reasons for deletion are presented then I am all for it (and a few mentioned above are), but how about making changes to the article to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that every article must start somewhere and that 'somewhere' will not be the final polished solution guaranteed an A in your English lit. class. I propose that if you have a legitimate good reason to delete the article, then spill it out, better yet make changes to it to make it more acceptable. If you just want to say something critical for the heck of it, then 'you' get a blog.
  • Keep This page can develope, and is recently created. I think it should be given more time before this decision. vidarlo.
  • Delete POV Rant, sorry newcomer. Karmafist 16:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the other "keepers": This page is a beginning and should be allowed to develop. In addition, the page represents a significant by-product of the internet age and though I can't help but smirk at such "techy geeks," I'd still let them make a point! Finally, one of the things I like about Wikipedia is that it's a one-stop destination for almost all serious information you'd ever want to find on the internet so I'm all for comprehensive inclusion and disagree with the enclopaedia-thumpers. --Lapin rossignol 10:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate wasalready redirected --SPUI (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Morrisey Delete - Paul Morrissey Keep

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 07:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ilene Chaiken

edit

Abstain. This was a speedy I thought others might consider notable. Marskell 13:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Meunier

edit

nn vanity Groeck 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hussful

edit

dicdef, likely vanity neologism Wyss 03:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting August 27 for more discussion. Please wait for a few days before closing this, there's no tearing hurry. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Dean

edit

NN. I Googled "Matthew Dean", and came up with hits for a comedian, BMX free-stylist, Actor, and a Whistle, Flute and Bodhran player, but none for this vocalist. Perhaps the most notable thing about Mr. Dean according to the article is that he co-founded a Russian Folk group, but this group does not have a WP entry. I found such a beast on Google at: Golosa Choir, but under the "History" section on this site, Mr. Dean is not attributed as a co-founder (before you ask, the two listed founders don't have pages in WP). David Henderson 03:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion. Relisted on August 27. Take your time, no hurry. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony SidawayTalk 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuskie

edit
Relisting August 27 for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

IDoTheWondering.blogspot.com

edit

not notable blog. For some reason, though, lots of user pages appear to be linking to it, and if I understand it correctly, that was the reason it was created in the first place. How does that work? JoanneB 14:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Berbie

edit

nn Vanity; appears to be a nickname of one specific child. 64.173.27.127 14:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 16:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Eldest (Prior speculation)

edit

In the first place, Wikipedia is not a place for "speculation". This article seems to want to serve as an sort of archive of how the Eldest article looked a few days ago, before the book was released. Wikipedia already has a place for archived articles, and it's called "history". Coffee 14:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted A7. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard J. Lunzer

edit

nn vanity Groeck 14:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Delete--Aranda56 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Besfort Kosova.

edit

pure nn vanity Groeck 14:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bilgin Ali

edit

nn vanity Groeck 15:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel King

edit

Not notable, no notability given and no significant mention on IMDB Halo 15:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzer

edit

Googling indicates non-notability, and I really doubt the claims here are true. Ingoolemo talk 23:42, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ikecer

edit

On the talk page, the author admits that this is a story ?he is writing and also appears to be claiming copyright. Anyway, it's not an encyclopedia article.-Aranel ("Sarah") 15:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Hill Collins

edit

Nominated for speedy, but not a candidate. Former head of a university department. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 15:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep; I amend my vote as the article's quality has improved and shown the value of the subject. -Howardjp 00:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've done a bit more research, and I now believe that she is more notable than the average professor. 824 (unique) google hits, many publications (available from amazon), two awards. Black Feminist Thought has an amazon rank of 18,112, which is very, very high for an academic work. Pburka 16:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pburka, you can ask that the nomination be withdrawn since you were the instigator. Sdedeo 20:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really consider myself the instigator. Another editor nominated the article for speedy -- I simply moved it from WP:CSD to WP:PFD. Pburka 23:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, reluctantly, because she published. If her books are drivel, we'll never know. Paul Klenk 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pburka. -- DS1953 00:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Published books + awards = notability. Denni☯ 01:28, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
  • STRONG keep. Extremely EXTREMELY well-known in sociological circles, often mentioned in the same breath as Cornel West and bell hooks. Black Feminist Thought is required reading in many race and gender classes. I cannot emphasize ENOUGH how strongly this should be kept. I am seriously surprised to see this even up on VfD. -HX 04:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have expanded this article further. Highly notable African American feminist academic and author of several highly regarded books within her field. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

353 Fusiliers

edit

Non-notable, possibly vanity, quite likely MIT alumni cruft. Anville 15:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtyn Evans

edit

A technical writer with several unpublished books doesn't appear very notable to me. The article is also very POV. Al 15:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • The author's web site is slated for publication. I am editing my position as the writer of this article and the head of this Author's fan club. I am saying that it isn't socks. Sorry but I only posted once. The other posters anonymous are not me. I feel that, while new to wikipedia, I am being bitten (bite the newbie) for trying to inform about this up and coming author. -- User:Ashtynfanclub
  • Many entries on the Wiki are Point of View based. I don't see any reason to delete a biographical reference to an up and coming author. The wiki is for such, is it not?
(Kizanth (talk · contribs)
    • One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that the Wikipedia"Neutral point of view criterion is paramount. If there are "many" entries that are point of view based, they are in vioaltion of this precept. Please point to a couple so they can be dealth with. Having said that, please note that new users' votes on Pages for deletion are generally discounted because they have no prior Wikipedia presence. And no, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to publicize up and coming anything, but to document people, places and things which can be considered to be encyclopedia-worthy. This is not a PR firm.Zoe 22:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Gee. I guess it's alright to just slam on someone for a user of Wikipedia with a "prior Wikipedia presence" to break the rules presented by the site, which was reportedly a "newbie-friendly" site. So much for "don't bite the newbie". Whereas previously I'd intended to become a contributor of information to wikipedia, I believe I'll stick to writing paid guides to subjects from this point on. I'd hope that the administration of the site pays mind to this Zoe's reaction to my commentry. Pardon the ignorant newbie who was glad to find a good writer's biography set up on wiki already. User: Kizanth (Registered less than four hours ago, and already belittled by "prior Wikipedia presence)
        • See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Coug it, where a new user is complaining that he wasn't told that votes by newbies are discounted. Like I said in a discussion on the subject, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Zoe 23:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote the article remains on the site. Just because someone is undiscovered does not make them un-notable. The point is to have a directory focused on the thoughts and points of others as long as the facts are honest then nothing should be wrong.
  • Delete, crystal ballish, vanity, socks. Sdedeo 19:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn author. Ten books in a series? More power to her, I doubt any publisher will commit to a ten book series by an unknown author. Zoe 22:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Paul Klenk 22:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=The author wishes to be deleted. She didn't asked to be placed on wikipedia nor did she ask for any type of publicity. Her fans took it amongst themselves. So I recommend removing it due to the author, Ms. Evans wishes. That was my faux pas.

Please delete this entry, and please for the love of God find some way to stop certain users from lingering on the deletion section, as it seems a CERTAIN user likes to bash on any "up for deletion" topics. Perhaps it would be advisable that the wikipedia administration find a better way to stop the newbie bashing and belittling. Damned if you visit wiki, it seems.

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED to Boss (video games). -Splash 01:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Video game boss

edit

I think this should be deleted because there is already a page about video game bosses here, Boss (video games) Videogameplayer 15:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've boldly gone with the redirect now --- "no need for an admin for this" and so on. Redirects don't seem to work when there's something else on the page, but I was iffy about removing the VfD template, so I moved it to talk (updating it so it still pointed here). I, uh, I guess this can be closed now, huh? --fuddlemark 14:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ainashe

edit

weak delete; nn vanity. 51 hits on Google (not 139 as first reported) seem to be a bit low for a political commentator Groeck 15:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Top universities in Central Europe

edit

American-influenced rankingcruft, and an inherently subjective list and title. These are all good universities, as far as I know, but so are several others which could be included, depending on exactly how Central Europe is to be defined. We could include the University of Vienna and several other Austrian universities, if Austria is included, and a couple of dozen German and Swiss universities, if we chose to include those countries. Uppland 15:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Billquick

edit

vanity, product advertising Groeck 15:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move to hazardous powders testing kit (the best I could thing of in accordance with the below suggestions). --Canderson7 23:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Biocheck powder screening test kit

edit

Product advertising Groeck 15:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 16:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archisman

edit

Barely makes any sense, if it's a person then nn but doesn't quite fit speedy deletion Halo 16:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Birdie Africa

edit

nn vanity Groeck 16:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Bixchange

edit

nn vanity, product advertising (advertising for pd product is still advertising) Groeck 16:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied (instantly challengable) as an obvious clone of a copyvio. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Labial furrow

edit

This page is cut-and-pasted from Robert Dietz, about a geologist who had nothing to do with labial furrows, as far as I know JanSöderback 16:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Causality. --Canderson7 17:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cause and effect theory

edit

A fictional theory, I assume, and not one used by physicists or philosophers. See Causality Austrian 16:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony SidawayTalk 21:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They Call Me Snail

edit

Fails to meet notability requirements at WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 19:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting August 27 for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

BraveBot

edit

Not notable, only a few Google hits (~30) and article doesn't attempt notability. Probable vanity of author Halo 16:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Newgrounds. --Canderson7 17:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blamming

edit

This article only has meaning to Newgrounds and is only linked to from Newgrounds and Blam. The Newgrounds article already explains what blamming is, so this piece is pointless. Billpg 16:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Bunbury

edit

Neutral -- The nominator placed the vfd tag on a page without creating a discussion. Therefore I have created the discussion. --Mysidia (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Marlon Warner

edit

This seems to be about some smalltown lad with a camcorder avec 0 hits by Google. Craigy   (talk) 17:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

352 Plaza

edit

This was tagged for speedy deletion, probably for being non-notable, but it's not a candidate. Coffee 17:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Originator has been posting lots of junk. Paul Klenk 19:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can't be much more obscure when your fine dining experience is a K-Mart restaurant and the big event was the closing of a theatre. (BTW, Coffee is right. This article is not a candidate for speedy delete. Though it should be.) Denni☯ 02:04, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
  • Delete usually I like articles about large establishments like malls, no matter how local, however this article is very poorly written and provides no context or verifiable history Drdisque 07:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Nothing written on here is untrue.
    Edit by User:69.139.85.183. --Coffee 16:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete It may not be written in encyclopaedic style but it is certainly true. Can someone re-write this so it sounds better?
    Edit by User:Jacob9. This is his only edit. --Coffee 16:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I second the above notion. I think that as long as it is rewritten to meet Wiki standards, it should remain. I have lived in Brookhaven for 30 years; there are no inaccuracies in his article.
    Edit by User:147.31.4.44. --Coffee 16:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Originator has vandalized numerous articles. 2005 08:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dancing farmers

edit

This was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense", but it doesn't seem like nonsense so I'm listing it here. Coffee 17:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Googling for Harrogathshire, the region where this team are said to play, returns nothing. "Old Catton", the town where this team are said to play, does exist but is part of Norwich, in Norfolk, England [22] [23]. A search for "Itsagoal League" turns up "an online football manager game" [24] [25]. I find it improbable that any team playing in "Division 27" would be able to pay "2.2 million" for a player, even if it's 2.2 million Zimbabwean Dollars. In any event, this article is non-notable and possibly simply vanity on the part of "Alex James", who is said to be this team's current manager. Sliggy 18:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Paul Klenk 21:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, apparent hoax, thanks for the research Sliggy. Kappa 22:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - John Bowndre - Ive seen them play, no idea about the harrogathshire part nor the 2.2 million, they're a sunday league team 4D in Norfolk. They do have an Irish striker, 1/8 th apparently , met him in the local pub when our team played them at Old Catton Sports Ground. Don't delete, we need some humour in our lives (albeit in the form of a Sundayleague team)

Ronnie Piles; just a team by the looks of it. Seems a good idea to put teams up on Wilki, so locals wanting to play for an SL can find one. I found this looking for Sunday League divisions. If more teams did this the better. Disagree with deletion.

- Alex James - Thankyou for your concerns about this being a hoax, you've shown how speedy you can detect jokes and fakes. However this is no fraud. I do manage a 4D sunday league team called Dancing Farmers FC. We are an amateur club in the Old Catton part of Norwich. 4C next season for sure. Don't delete this page because it could be useful to people such as above, and also it is a lot better than some of the other articles on your website. Perhaps this will start a lot of average joes using your site rather than the usual: obsessed, "geeky", hobbyists and boffins that mostly do at the moment. - Disagree.

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Swimcap fetishism

edit

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but it's not a candidate. Reason given was: Obviously nonsense; has all of 24 google hits, so I tend to doubt that it is "very common." Coffee 17:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Perkis

edit

A vfd notice was added to the article stating it was a vanity page: although the discusion was not created, it appears to be correct: under 10,000 google hits. --Mysidia (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 486 unique google hits. Album available on Amazon. Pburka 17:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Allmusic has an excellent article on him which verifies the info here. Denni☯ 02:09, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, although raw vote-count a touch low for an outright declaration, but there's evident satisfaction in the discussion at meeting part of WP:MUSIC. -Splash 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure 4-5

edit

one full album, does not seen to filfull the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete DES (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Groeck 17:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An album (on one of the big labels), an EP, and video play on MTV are sufficient notability. Pburka 17:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The album was on a major label, the band was featured on MTV, they were on Ozzfest, and "Beat The World" was in a Top 100 singles chart. It meets a number of the requirements, it hardly does not meet the criteria. Enfestid 19:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Just to show how "notable" they are: "Beat The World" reaching top-50 status on two Billboard music charts: [[26]]. Enfestid 23:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loxie & Zoot

edit

Non-notable webcomic (844 Google hits). Though I concede a webcomic about nudists is a brilliant idea. tregoweth 17:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Björn Agren

edit

nn vanity Groeck 18:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted and BJAODN. HappyCamper 05:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Reasons why Doing Cocaine in Brasil is fun

edit

Get real. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blake Brysha and The Skeleton Keys

edit

nn vanity; close to speedy Groeck 18:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Street

edit

I can understand why villages, towns, cities and countries have pages... but streets? I just don't think it's notable enough to need its own page. Halo 18:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean street articles such as those in Category:Streets in New York City, Category:Streets in Boston, Category:Chicago streets, Category:Atlanta roads, &c, &c. ? :) — RJH 18:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I have voted against all other roads but I can sort of understand this one. The other roads put up for deletion have been either minor roads that could be summarized in a more appropriate article (ie. the town's article) or just plain old not-notable/not-expandable road articles. Granville, though, has a long history behind it and has been very important to Vancouver's growth. This article can be significantly expanded, as such it is worthy of its own article. --maclean25 18:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on above comments, change vote to Weak Keep. I think it's silly that Wikipedia has articles on streets, but if the street itself is notable and there are other similar articles, I'm happy for it to stay -Halo 18:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Think, people. We have articles on people like Churchill, but not his next door neighbor, Sam Doe, also a person. Paul Klenk 19:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Granville Street is not only a major thoroughfare in Vancouver and a pedestrian street in its northern end, but was notable for being the Haight-Ashbury of Canada in the seventies.Luigizanasi 19:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per luigizanas -- road of cultural notability. Sdedeo 20:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know the road in question so can't form an opinion on this specific case, but if it's as significant to Vancouver as, say, Regent Street is to London, then it should be kept, but expanded as soon as possible to make its significance clear. If it's just "the busiest road in Vancouver" or something, then there's no need to keep it. Loganberry (Talk) 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If Luigizanasi is correct that Granville St was "the Haight-Ashbury of Canada in the seventies", shouldn't there be some mention of this in the article? Currently the article merely describes where this road is in Vancouver & makes no attempt to explain why it is important. (Even to explain why it was named "Granville Street" would be a positive step.) -- llywrch 21:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless its significance is explained. Zoe 22:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a notable and famous downtown thoroughfare in a major city. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:50, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
  • Needs expansion, but it is a notable street with cultural significance that extends far beyond Vancouver's city limits. (The significance, I mean.) I know so little about Vancouver that if you asked me to name just five streets in the city, I'd be stuck after three. But one of the three I could name is Granville. Expand, but keep. Bearcat 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the two other ones Hastings and Main? :) Pburka 03:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as notable street in notable city given that a Google search for "Granville Street" Vancouver obtained 111,000 English returns see [28]
  • Keep Granville was indeed Vancouver's Haight-Ashbury, and the one place where you could always score a dime bag. Too bad it's become just another snotty collection of upscale boutiques and pseudotrendy restaurants. Denni☯ 02:18, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand this article about one of the most important streets in Canada's second largest city. Pburka 03:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Note: Cambie Street, Robson Street, and Burrard Street. If this article is deleted, some of thoes should go too. Zhatt 19:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely right. Zhatt 00:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 17:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Political humour.tk

edit

Only 10 google hits, seems to be vanity, advertisement and has no domain name - not notable Halo 18:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 18:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ignoracist

edit

This is a non-notable neologism (15 Google hits, + 56 for "ignoracism") created by a non-notable professor. It is an orphan article that nothing links to and that is uncategorized. Delete. -Willmcw 18:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 04:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LET’S DISCUSS THE ISSUES? Or A MESSAGE TO THE TERMITES

edit

Appears to be a personal essay. --Mysidia (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • so....? what presidential election is almost upon us??Bush is a lame duck, and isn't going anywhere for 3 years, assuming of course he decideds to acknowledge term limits at all, this is either very old, or takes place some time in the future--172.149.98.9 20:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Har, har. Thanks for the laugh, Sdedeo. --DavidConrad 00:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 18:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC

edit

advertising vanity Groeck 19:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 18:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Gorham

edit

nn vanity; some 20-30 Google hits doesn't sound like influential to me Groeck 19:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 18:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Moricz

edit

nn vanity Groeck 19:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 18:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cognac Wellerlane

edit

A classic vanity article. A bit part in an off-Broadway play (I can't help but ask how far off) and a show on a cable channel does not make one notable. Denni☯ 19:42, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 18:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The result was changed to no consensus; kept upon appeal by User:Pburka. --Canderson7 01:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Style

edit

nn vanity; only a few Google hits found Groeck 19:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 05:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bongywoofs

edit

I think this is a hoax and a candidate for speedy, but I am not entirely sure. No google hits. Groeck 19:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, and move to Brænne Mineralvatn. -Splash 01:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brænne brus

edit

nn vanity/advertising. Groeck 20:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it's proven to be the Coca-Cola of Norway. Paul Klenk 20:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So all companies except Coca-Cola are non-notable? I've rewritten the article so that it no longer is advertising or vanity. I have not seen any guidelines for breweries, but I'm sure this company does produce goods for more than 5,000 people. Punkmorten 21:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style" - see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine. A corner bakery is not notable but a licensed bottler of an international brand is, in my opinon. -- DS1953 00:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should have WP:Companies guidelines established. For mine, notable companies include:
  1. companies listed on a national stock exchange such as NYSE or significant exchange such as NASDAQ;
  2. companies with 1,000 or more employees say;
  3. companies who have goods or service notable either on a national or international level
  4. companies which no longer exist but had national or international significance in its day ie East India company. Anyway, I vote to keep this. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Brandi Marie

edit

Absolutely nn vanity Groeck 20:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if verifiable. I've restored an older version with more info. Pburka 20:26, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I stick with delete; I have a hard time finding any relevant google pages Groeck 20:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree. If the article were true, she would be notable, but at this point it's impossible to verify the content. Delete. Pburka 02:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No IMDb credits, Say Grace Please not listed; John Adams not due for release untile 2007. Wait until 2007 and see whether she survived the cutting room and is still using the same name. 15-year-olds, you know.... Paul Klenk 20:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of this information is verifiable through imdb or a search engine. None of the productions she was supposedly in is verifiable except John Adams and Passions, and her name does not appear in their cast lists. Zoe 22:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I get the same search results as Zoe. Denni☯ 02:32, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was merge to Belgrade. --Canderson7 18:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Branivoje Milinovic

edit

nn; sad but nevertheless vanity Groeck 20:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 18:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bearnst

edit

Neologism (or hoax). No google hits - except Wikipedia mirrors and proper names. Delete. Cje 20:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by User:Denni. --Canderson7 18:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Brennan Monaco

edit

nn vanity Groeck 20:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 20:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 19:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Home Ecclesia Association

edit

Lacks significance Steve Casburn 20:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 22:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Brenne Brus

edit

nn vanity/advertising (same as Brænne brus, also on vfd); or at least merge the two. Groeck 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aakarda

edit

Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 07:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising for a completely non-notable piece of software. CDC (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 22:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Megiddo Mission Church

edit

Lacks significance Steve Casburn 20:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 22:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Spirit and Truth Fellowship

edit

Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 20:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Brian Malone

edit

nn vanity Groeck 20:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 22:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Provinciano

edit

nn vanity/self advertising Groeck 20:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Solomon

edit

nn vanity / advertising Groeck 20:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to list this for A7. --Blackcap | talk 21:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's A7? Paul Klenk 21:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reference to this Brain Solomon on the first few result pages of Google appears to be his own (poor) website. Other references are to a Brian Solomon the author, who has written a couple of books on trains. He certainly exists, but is currently non notable as far as I can tell. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 22:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Volmer

edit

nn vanity Groeck 21:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Paul Klenk 21:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I rewrote the article but still vote to delete. It was not vanity but was essentially an attack. The facts against Volmer are in the public record but there were other individuals listed as "cohorts" with no facts cited. This does not appear to be a particularly notable SEC enforcement action. -- DS1953 00:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone wants to write a real article about Mr. Volmer and he's actually notable. A biography can't be just about SEC action. -- SCZenz 18:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was rename to 24th Congressional District of New York. --Canderson7 22:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Cortland, Herkimer, Oneida, Ontario, Otsego, Seneca, Tioga and Tompkins, New York

edit

Does not make sense as individual article Groeck 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broomhill, Greenock

edit

Text speaks for itself. Seems to be a not-notable bar in Greenock Groeck 21:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xaria

edit

An obscure, probably non-notable project. I can't find anything on Google about this outside of Wikipedia mirrors. CDC (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 23:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bud Theisen

edit

nn vanity Groeck 21:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BUsiness Partnerships and Charities

edit

nn vanity/advertising; little context between headline and text Groeck 21:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article. --Canderson7 23:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

King Street, Cambridge

edit

This is King Street, Cambridge, which branches off from Jesus Lane, named after Jesus College that it runs behind. It makes a turn and then runs parallel to Jesus Street for maybe 500 meters until it reaches a small roundabout. The only coffee house in Cambridge that doesn't close at 6 PM is on that road, as is the delightful St. Radegund's pub, which has a selection of well kept guest ales on offer. There are a few shops and pubs more. It it away from the main shopping area. As I say, it's not particularly long, not particularly wide, it's not particular in any way in fact. It's not even a B-road. That's why it isn't encyclopedia-worthy. 129.215.195.81 Pilatus 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot: it has nothing to do with King's College, King's is on King's Parade. Pilatus 22:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a grab-bag of data. Trivia such as these make people see the trees instead of the forest. Pilatus 00:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Radiant_>|< 22:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ben Henderson

edit

Non-notable music producer, probably vanity. --KFP 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

relisting for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be following WP:VFD: "You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed." Pilatus 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 was Keep/Merge. Radiant_>|< 22:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Haffkine

edit

duplicates and does a worse job than Waldemar Haffkine -- Mareklug 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

relisting for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be following WP:VFD: "You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed." Pilatus 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tony seems to be making a WP:POINT here by unilaterally attempting to insert a quorum policy. Radiant_>|< 22:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beerbonie

edit

Nonnotable neologism. IceKarmaॐ 22:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. --HappyCamper 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GrantM

edit

Speedy Delete Article serves no purpose except to flame another internet user. Not encyclopedic. Article originates from an internet forum Tykell 22:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

PLEASE DELETE MY PAGE, GURPREET_CHAGGAR ! Thanks

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Jewban. --Canderson7 23:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Juban (Cuban)

edit

Appears to be a neologism, Google tells me that Juban is a lot of things but I can't find any evidence that this term is widely used in the given context. Article does not (and I would argue, cannot) have any sources which verify such use. ESkog 22:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and block author Wiki brah with prejudice (unless you want more articles on Brazilian cocaine-addicted anal-sex-obsessed helicopter pilots. Paul Klenk 23:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cannot find word "Juban" used in this context. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Jewban. There was a controversy a few years ago where the Florida Department of Motor Vehicle withdrew somebody's JEWBAN license plate[29]. It's a fairly widely used term and, more importantly, it describes a unique and encyclopedic ethnic group. Pburka 03:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 23:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kerghan

edit

An Arcanum videogame NPC. Denni☯ 23:09, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Wood

edit

idosynchratic and unverified war hero story, per anonymous editor at 66.20.226.60. I am just completing process for review.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AusNS

edit

Vanity page or non notably. UnlimitedAccess 23:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep in new form, remove copyvio from history.

Tokpela

edit

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Scimitar parley 19:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Face Down

edit

More patent nonsense from the creator of Beerbonie. IceKarmaॐ 23:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was 'ALREADY SPEEDIED, apparently, but not by me. -Splash 01:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Advance

edit
Umm... it's still a redlink. --Titoxd 23:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Gems

edit

Non noteable item from a video game; should probably be merged with Spyro or one of the Spyro games articles. realwingus 23:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Ice

edit

Non-notable forum. Can't get an alexa ranking, and throwing out a lot of false hits in Google ('"Neptune Ice" -tea -"ice giant" -carpet -planet') still comes up with a lot of false positives but only shows 74 unique hits. Zoe 23:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_27&oldid=1234126757"