Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rl (talk | contribs) at 17:41, 21 August 2005 (Enda Marren). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

August 21

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Gender

Delete, a recently-started webcomic. FreplySpang (talk) 00:07, August 21, 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. JYolkowski // talk 16:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Masse

Also, Bruce Morgenholt

This is a hoax. (Article has now been rewritten) Phillip Masse is a fictional character from the Splinter Cell video game, as is the "Georgian Information Crisis" [1]. The Bruce Morgenholt article by the same anon author also mentions this fictional Georgian Information Crisis and is also a fictional character [2]. We have articles on fictional characters, but they can't be written as if they were real, and these ones likely aren't notable enough. -- Curps 00:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D69ers

Non-notable, poss. vanity. Minor Mugglenet-based "message board club". Less than 100 Google hits. Kwekubo 00:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This group is special because of the "strange" way they were created. How big they are: they may not have a lot of members but that doesn't mean that people don't know about them! They are like my second family! they've supoprted me when times got rough, and even, for instance, when one of our members developed cancer and the d69ers (I was new when it was going on) sent her a book with "get well soon" handwritten and drawn cards via snail mail! I think that makes them special! Saphira_the_Dragon (D69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.30.69 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 August 2005

I vote with Saphira. Why does this particular forum deserve it's own page? Because of the history of resiliency and the level of Maturity and kindness displayed; unique in the wealth of Harry Potter fansites. So great is the reputation of the group that Mugglenet (who, as it happens, recieved the very first Fan Site Award from JK Rowling, author of the books) not only put The D69ers on the page of links, but put them at the top. -WarnerRaider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.121.107 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 21 August 2005

Yes, Cool enough to look at it and vote delete, and hide the username from non-users. Proud of your vote then, I can see... Oh, and I'd prefer you don't put my IP on this, especially since I did put my username right on this. Ah, I can't say that I'm glad you picked up on that, however shocked I am that you did, Corey.Spring . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warnerraider (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 August 2005

Delete Optichan 21:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep An excellent example of how an online community can be brought together by a common topic (Harry Potter), and can grow into a supportive group. First-rate Harry Potter discussions, very open community. Hopefully other online communities can learn from their example. KiwiChi6 9:22, August 24, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon 96

Appears to be advertising a work in progress, almost certain vanity. Rje 00:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Chokozilla We should delete the article for not being clear enough. However, I have a message for the person who posted it: When you have worked some more on Epsilon 96, you are welcome to try making the article once again. All you need to go on is to show some professionalism. For the time being, delete.
  • Delete. According to the page this article links to, this is the creation of a 16-year-old. Latest entry (14 August) confesses that he has "not really worked on anything e96 related for awile [sic] now, But I just can't motivate myself that easily." If the creator can't interest himself about this, then why should we feel it's notable? (Yeah, I wrote a bad word, but to call this "vanity" implies the author actually cares -- & he admits that he doesn't.) -- llywrch 01:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per llywrch. Flowerparty talk 01:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 01:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruuuuuuuft. Karmafist 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

--1 black hand 22:02, 21 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 concensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usb8x

Why is this notable? We agreed to delete "ticalc.org" from WP, why not this? Frenchman113 00:49, August 21, 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. Acetic Acid 10:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since Acetic Acid isn't an admin, and the vote was not unanimous, he asked me to look over this and confirm his closure or change the result. I'm confirming the result as Keep. -- Essjay · Talk

Places in Afghanistan

This article is way too long and just takes up space. 98% if the links are red and most of the towns are not notable. List of cities in Afghanistan exists in its place anyway. Banana04131 00:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Don't clutter up List of cities in Afghanistan, making it hard to find major places (for those of us with serious foreign place name confusion). But, the secondary list is *easily* justified compared to the endless mass of lists for North American communities. Don't split the list up into sub-lists yet though, because then you'll just spawn a bunch of unnoticed orphans lists. With just two Afghan lists, we can put "back-links" to the list from the place articles, which will encourage "filling out" the info". --rob 09:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is practically useless, the vast, vast majourity of the links are red, therefore, without a LOT of work, thee page will stay useless! Tekana 15:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. --Celestianpower hab 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vote count so far: merge/redirect-2 Delete-5 keep-17

  • Comment : I had a thought regarding the use of categories. We could use categories and do something very similar to what this page is doing. What are your thoughts ? For example, create stubs for each of the cities mentioned in the page and categorize them as "Cities in Afghanistan". Would that not be more intuitive ? We could get rid of many lists .... Manik Raina 13:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using a catagory would be good, but it means that someone would have to make a lot of new stubs. It might be best to do a catagory and keep the list as well. --Apyule 00:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to keep this article, but I agree that the signal to noise ratio is far too high for it to be useful as is. So I think we should revert it to this version, which is right before it jumps to about 1500 entries. Then we can reasonably build from there (or, more realisically, we can then talk about merging with List of cities in Afghanistan). Bubamara 07:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mast

Delete Seems of dubious value to me. PhilipO 01:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Page has been protected from recreation. Dunc|☺ 17:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamem8ker

This page has been deleted several times and has reappeared again, it's pretty obvious it should be deleted Corey.spring 01:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep this page it is part of something important that the X-Box community is working on.

(unsigned comment by 69.225.203.153. This person also blanked corey spring's comment)

(UTC)

  • DONT DELETE, if you don't like it, stay off it. This is needed. stay out of things you don't understand.

I have protected the page, because a large number of anons and new users have repeatedly vandalized the page, including repeatedly removing the VfD header. Zoe 07:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete, this is an interesting site, and that's an interesting puzzle, sry I don't know howto comment so I'm editing this page --RoCKy
  • Speedy Delete as per TheMidnighters' suggestion. --Lomedae 12:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The talk page says it's part of a marketing campaign, so not only is it rubbish and not encyclopaedic, it's an ad. Cursive 14:09, 21 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 dealt with as copyvio. No consensus otherwise. JYolkowski // talk 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Sigma Upsilon

Just a copyvio, no other info, no activity for nearly a month Wiffle0rz 01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up for grabs

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Any moving should be handled outside this VfD's scope. JYolkowski // talk 16:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hen which lays Golden Eggs

Not complete nonsense, but not far off. The title is the author's own invention, is not at all notable, and all the material in it is covered elsewhere.
Also see Hen that lays golden eggs, a redirect included in this nomination. 80.255 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if the story can be 100% attributed to Aesop, maybe a redirect to that article? Hamster Sandwich 07:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs. Alf 08:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Golden Goose exists. Pilatus 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article is based on an actual cryptid that can be found in the See also references. It bears importance in the occult and cryptozoology. Note that it is not the same thing as the Golden Goose or The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg. Perhaps they can be combined. Piecraft 13:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this user has made a total of 21 edits, only 4 of which have been in article spaces, and the earliest of which was from earlier today (21st August). Given this, this user's vote may be invalid. 80.255 18:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find the above comment to be invalid in itself. I do not see how it is wrong to vote for an article whether I am a registered member or not, regardless as to which articles I have edited either anonymously or as a registered person throughout my time here. And I think the rules speak for themselves: Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users. A direct quote from the Guide to Votes for deletion. Piecraft 02:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say your vote was invalid; I said it may be invalid; the decision is not mine. It's usually granted that the author, even if anonymous, has the right to a vote on an article he created. However, in your case, you do not appear to be the author and some might consider you a sock puppet. 80.255 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you mean now, however I was merely pointing out in my initial comment that the author's article is valid because I myself know for a fact that it is based on actual literature regarding a Hen that lays golden eggs - which has been considered a phenomenon in medieval folklore across Europe as well as a running theme in many fairy tales and stories. Also the Hen or Black Pullet is of considerable importance in the occult as a powerful image. Anyway, I still move to keep this article but perhaps rename it or even combine it with the The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg. which could therefore be expanded as well with this article included. Piecraft 03:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting theme across several important stories, and a common phrase in the culture ("killing the goose with the golden eggs"). Move to a better title, at least in line wine naming conventions. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:27, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Move as per everyone else. ~~ N (t/c) 21:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move agreed with the above stated. Vipersp51 1:54, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Goose? I'm pretty sure the fairy tale is about a hen. Radiant_>|< 10:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is most definitely a goose. Move as per etc etc. Proto t c 09:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It is a goose - so who's going to search for a hen? What use is a redirect? Should we also have unsystematicly-named articles on Partriges that lay golden eggs, Ptarmigan which lay golden eggs, the Albatross that did lay an egg that was golden?
      • Comment: So let's see according to your statement above we count the number of times that the Gooose appears in folklore (Aesop's The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs which has been sometimes considered a Hen as you can see by Googling it, and The Brothers Grimm's The Golden Goose). Now how many times does the Hen feature in folklore and other affiliated themes? (The Black Pullet, the Russian fairy tale Kurochka Ryaba as stated below and Jack and the Beanstalk, and that's not even mentioning the fact that it is also used as an Alchemical term.) So I guess it's 3-2 for the Hen so far. Also this Hen comes up in other fairy tales as well. However as stated before I feel it should perhaps be placed, moved into a category where the Goose, Hen and other fowls that lay golden eggs can be located etc.. Piecraft 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Goose" is more common in English, which is what matters. ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you figure that? I think I've provided more than enough evidence to prove against your belief that "Goose" is more common than "Hen". What you are forgetting is I'm not contesting against the fact of it being a Goose or not, but the fact remains there is still a considerable difference between both creatures, one is a Goose the other is a Hen - and in both respects we have seen that they are described as such in their respective folklore. I'll leave it at that. Piecraft 23:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there exist a notable Russian fairy tale as stated below on this subject, it should be dealt with at Kurochka Ryaba, and not in this article. This article contains nothing about any Russian folk tale, and my vote remains to delete it - if you or anyone else should decide to create a better article about this story in the future, there will be nothing to stop you. 80.255 23:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Russian fairy tale Kurochka Ryaba is just about that kind of hen.  Grue  18:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Derktar 01:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC).
  • I've checked it; there is a Dutch fairy tale about a hen with golden eggs. This may well be the same as the Russian tale, or it may be the same as the English one about the goose with a centuries-old mistranslation either way. So this should redirect some place, I'll let the experts figure out where. Radiant_>|< 09:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPYG

Just a non-notable local youth group--14 displayed hits for "Saint Paul Youth Group". Niteowlneils 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America's Shock Past

Yikes. An attack page on a whole people. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine (Author wrote "This article highlights the true reasons behind the USA's constant threat to the global world. Oil."). Even the title is POV. Much of this stuff is unrelated (compare rape rates to bombings). As for the bombings, we already have a List of U.S. military history events. Any redirect of this, to anything, would be POV and arbitrary. CanadianCaesar 03:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's shock delete! Sdedeo 03:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide and merge the information into separate articles in which the data would properly belong. Sources for the data would have to be provided as well. I think this article needs to be cleaned up a lot, but not deleted. Some things in America's past may be shameful, but it shouldn't just be ignored. --TheKoG 03:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shocking. Nobody is saying America's past is being ignored, but it doesn't belong in an article like this. It can go into various History of the United States articles in a more NPOV manner. Zoe 04:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. for the reasons already listed, plus I'm pretty sure that it is a copyvio as well. --Apyule 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source for the article text, and have marked the article as a copyvio. --Apyule 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I find most unwikified, long articles with anon authors are almost always copyvios, I think that website is a Wikipedia mirror. Either that, or it's a source for a few other copyvios here. CanadianCaesar 06:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite possibly right about the mirror, it was just the first site that I found on Google. Anyway, there have been emails with pretty much the same content floating about on the net for a few years now. --Apyule 07:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queenzone

"Objective information" such as Registration with the site allows access to message boards and lots of interactivity and the ability to contribute Queen concerts, demos, pictures, Freddie Tribute posts and so much more. ??? Sounds exactly like advertisement spam to me!--Firsfron 00:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is great to have knowledge about these certain communities as Gamefaqs also has one and I feel that this can provide info to new fans and can be mention because of the numbers of members.
  • Keep People deserve a much better Queen fan website than the heavily moderated official Queen website, QueenOnline, which allows no freedom of criticism or speech Inu-liger 04:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This vote is this user's first contribution. —Charles O'Rourke 04:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Not true. I've contributed a lot to Queenzone before, you ignoramus. So shut your mouth up about what you don't know. Inu-liger 05:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete A1. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Orchard

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canning how-to

This was recently vfd'd, with comments evenly split between transwiki and delete, and so was closed as keep. I've transwikied the article to Wikibooks, so deletion should now be non-controversial. —Cryptic (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

383.Infanterie-Division

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phwcomics

Gets a lot of google hits, but it seems very NN. Thunderbrand 04:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Geogre. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Welch

Vanity page. Delete Blings 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Blings[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete with a copy to BJAODN.

In evaluating this discussion, I merged the three related discussions. Given the topic, it seems to me that an inconsistent result would be the worst possible choice.

By strict vote-counting, I get the following:

  Delete BJAODN Keep Merge could not call
"against..." 8 11 7 2 1
"for..." 9 8 13 2 1
"don't care..." 13 6 8 1 0
summed 15 2/3 12 5/6 12 1/2 2 2

The last line represents the opinions if you took all three discussions and merged them, then eliminated duplication. The fractions come from 2 people who voted differently in the different discussions.

I should also note that 5 of the "keep" voters did so with comments that make it very difficult to tell if they were being serious. Their stated reasons appear to have no connection to the discussion. My hypothesis is that the discussion is about a joke and they consider surreal comments to be humorous and therefore appropriate. Not every culture shares that view, however. I was within a hair's-breadth of putting those comments in the "could not call" column.

Noting that a synopsis is already in the BJAODN archive, I am going to take the last step to delete the pages and the related redirects. Rossami (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard

Bad joke. BJAODN. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was article has changed significantly, so not deleted. JYolkowski // talk 19:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Manga Corps

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 05:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 19:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sugarmann

Vanity/advertising. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing Internet censorship

See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a link repository or a HOWTO. --Mysidia (talk) 05:51, 21 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 was Delete Naconkantari 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur

WikiFur was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-21. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiFur.

WP:NN Many fan wikis have been deleted for much less. Only one of the references is not from wikia.com. --Fandyllic 4:46 PM PST 1 Nov 2006

  • Keep. What statements in the article cannot be verified? We've tried to keep it to the facts wherever possible. The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is. Only two of them are to WikiFur itself, though, and one of those is an announcement that could also have been referenced to the Wikipedia edit, or to a LiveJournal post. I thought it best to make a page for it on WikiFur where it could be given in context with later posts. Wikis aren't always great secondary references, but I don't see a problem with it being a primary one for itself. This article was deleted once, and rightly so, because it was badly written and the site was one month old. I think things have improved now. GreenReaper 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is." This statement makes judging this site's notability easier. Andrew Levine 02:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true of most wikis. The documents concerning their foundation and policy are hosted on their websites and related websites. The best place to go for information about Wikipedia is Wikipedia - an article which happens to have large numbers of references to meta-wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation, and even to itself. It also happens to be the most comprehensive coverage of its topic. It's the same for WikiFur. I could link directly to LiveJournals where significant members of the subject area have said what they thought about WikiFur, but why not just point to the wiki page where they are already referenecd and tied together into an article? GreenReaper 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia has been covered in almost every major media source in the world. That establishes its notability well. A notable subject needs more than just a single short mention in a free weekly in Pittsburgh. Andrew Levine 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Comparing Wikifur to Wikipedia in terms of media coverage is unfair. Wikipedia is a large, general purpose encyclopedia aimed at the general public, wikifur is not. A by-the-word interpretation of WP:WEB does not refer at all to size or distribution of the third-party source, only that it be well-known. The fact that this non-furry third-party source chose to directly quote from wikifur and redistribute its content is an example of wikifur's notability and a demonstration of it's usefulness outside the fandom. -- DeVandalizer 10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't the one who originated the Wikipedia comparison. And if we allowed every fan website that was mentioned once in a local paper, we'd have to expand our definition of notable to allow thousands of fansites more. Andrew Levine 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GreenReaper. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's no worse than Divehi Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, Lostpedia, WOWWiki in the great scheme of things. Some differences, none important enough to matter for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems WoWiki got deleted already. Seems a bit hasty to me, but whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 03:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Many articles were deleted for less" is not a valid reason to delete a page. Resolute 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but I still don't see how it is notable, I prod'ed it but in fact I had suggestions from some other administrators to speedy delete it under WP:CSD#A7 and redirect to Wikia, and I don't think this would be far off. I see no need to include every Wikia wiki here, even if it started off as an alternative to publishing Furry pages on Wikipedia itself. (And of course it does not satisfy WP:WEB).--Konst.ableTalk 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The section that mentions furry topics on Wikipedia is just intended as a explanation, not a claim to notability. (Though perhaps it's notable for being most vandalized as a direct result of its content? It was bad enough that eventually a special extension was made. :-) GreenReaper 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And in reply to your statement: My belief is that material that is verifiable and does not contain any NPOV violations should have a place on Wikipedia. Using other people's reports (notability) is a way to try to achieve some assurance of that, but it seems like it's just a shortcut for Wikipedians doing the fact-checking themselves, and that when it is easy to do then they should do it. I can understand that when it's a complicated question of law or science which is hard for laymen to understand (which is why there is NOR, to avoid that uncertainty), but I don't really see the application to this particular article, which makes reasonable, referenced assertions about the mission and history of a wiki that has existed and operated for over a year, and which is well-known within its sphere. GreenReaper 06:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage by reliable published sources per WP:WEB. Sandstein 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB or WP:V. No non-trivial coverage. Wickethewok 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination). Havok (T/C/c) 09:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One mention in a local paper is not sufficient mainstream press coverage to establish notability. Also, it is annoying when they do not define in the article what the hell they are talking about. The article has a click link to a dictionary definition article Furry fandom which is unencyclopedic as well. Edison 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't find a lot of the reasons cited for deletion here to be that compelling. Just because the wiki isn't covered in Time magazine doesn't make it non-notable; I realize major media coverage makes a handy shortcut to deciding what deserves space, but it shouldn't be used as a crutch either. The article should be improved, rather than deleted before it has the chance to get better, as I can't think of any serious reason it can't be made better or more referenced. --ToyDragon
  • Delete per WP:WEB or WP:V. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Levine, Sandstein, Wickethewok, WP:WEB, WP:V, etc. --WillyWonty 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why it fails WP:WEB. It's sources are Wikipedia, Wikia, Wikimania wiki, a something awful forum post, and the only media reference here is not about Wikifur, but about furries and only mentions Wikifur as a reference. It is basically no more a source than this reference to a different wiki and that wiki article got deleted. I've seen articles full of sources and even gotten on television by MSNBC and they've been deleted. Basically one vague mention in a newspaper article doesn't cut it for most articles and I see hundreds deleted each month with similar sources and they all just aren't notable enough. DyslexicEditor 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Hate the topic, but that doesn't change that this is a decent article on the subject. Unfocused 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not entirely convinced it's notable, but having an article in a printed newspaper acknowledging it as a "Wikipedia-like" source for its particular niche is a step up from many articles as far as WP:RS goes, and the article itself is well cited. Shimeru 07:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to a full keep... seems like a noteworthy wiki, especially for one devoted to a niche topic. Also am beginning to suspect that some of the delete voting is driven either by that topic, or by previous AfDs for other "fan wikis." Shimeru 00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eh... it's one of the most notable wikis in Wikia, and appears to have had media/wiki community exposure that's not entirely trivial. There's no major problems in the article that would warrant much controversy. While it's not exactly a household word it probably barely passes WP:WEB in my opinion. At very least this is xlink-worthy material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails all points of WP:WEB and there is no significant coverage meeting WP:INDY to think that we should override the WP:WEB guideline. There is no evidencce that the content of WikiFur has multiple independent coverage. The UrsaMajor award is not well known, and it is an award from the fans of furrys so it may not even be independent as the WikiFur editors are also fans of furries. There is no evidence that the content is redistributed by an independent site. As all criteria of WP:WEB are not met, an article on it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. GRBerry 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever I wanted to say, has honestly been said, so. I don't see why it should be deleted. Disinclination 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep ... but needs a complete rewrite; present article talks about irrelevant aspects of the site (non-notability on wiki, edit wars). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to the second paragraph, starting "Like Wookieepedia,"? The objective there was to give some context for its foundation, to answer the question "why does this website exist?" I think this is something that needs to be answered, and those are the reasons I had in mind, but there's probably a better way to put it - I'd welcome any edits, or suggestions on how to improve that section. GreenReaper 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable; doesn't really pass WP:WEB. Voretustalk 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no way this is notable. WIth reference to article number: I've seen articles where the info is taken from a new user's userpage, so it's no wonder the articles are as numerous as they are. Take out all the Category:People articles and you have far fewer than other wikis that were deleted for notability reasons. Also a depressingly low number of google hits. Apparently it's a favorite at Wikia:Wikia, but that doesn't make it notable. Seems very self-referencing of the "wiki universe" section of the internets, someone with no knowledge of Wikia and Wikipedia would not care. By the way, I only have like 20 edits, lol. Miltopia 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are around 2100 articles in Category:People. I do not know how many of these articles would be included in the conservative count - some are, of course, stubs, while others are highly trafficked, linked and/or featured - but I'd say around 4/5 of them, or ~1700. This is not surprising given that the chief part of a community is its people. But why would anyone want to take them out? WikiFur is not Wikipedia - it is intended (in part) as a public directory of members of the furry fandom, and it is used as such by many, who find it convenient to get a summary of facts, accomplishments, and links to further information. We do encourage users to develop public articles about themselves if they are in the fandom, because in this case much of the information that would normally go on user pages is relevant to the topic of the wiki. It is often the topic that new users have the most knowledge about to hand, so they can make a quick contribution, plus it gets them used to having their writing edited. GreenReaper 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm just saying as far as measuring WikiFur's notability by article number isn't accurate because most of those articles are written about people who, frankly, don't matter in a global encyclopedic sense any more than I do. So, number of articles probably shouldn't be used to offset the low google results, since the articles are not at all about significant people. Like, it's not like these are essential articles to be knowledgeable about the furry fandom, and many are autobiographical. This is compared to ED (might as well get that out of the way), which, while not a good article candidate in itself in my opinion, has information about famous internet people that you just can't find anywhere else, thus making it a more notable source of its purpose in comparison to WikiFur. I think the very low traffic kind of speaks for itself. I'm sorry, I'm trying really hard not to like insult your wiki and am not expressing myself well and probably insulting it anyway, but I'm doing my best here. Miltopia 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine, but the only person who's brought up measuring notability by article number (twice) is you. We all know anyone can make a wiki with lots of articles, usually by importing them. The link I pasted above was in reference to editors, as I see community involvement as a big factor in wiki notability. In that sense, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "very low traffic". WikiFur certainly don't get a billion hits a week - more like 120,000 - but then the furry fandom does not have a billion people in it. We're happy with our figures, as they make for a high-traffic site within its domain (especially considering we're not giving out porn :-). I would argue that this, plus the ability to verify the facts in the article from the given references (which I don't think anyone has disputed), is sufficient reason to keep it.
      ED is a discussion apart from this AfD. While I agree with Wikipedia's link policy, I think it should probably have an article. GreenReaper 20:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability beyond the fur fandom/internet -- wispywolfox 70.36.88.64 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AcIS

Not notable --Hooperbloob 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Peter ramsaroop

I'll change my vote to keep as well, based on below. —Charles O'Rourke 17:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'll change my vote to keep based on below.Dottore So 15:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does seem to be an active political figure in Guyana, but the article needs a lot of work. --Apyule 07:20, 21 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) 03:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolution (band)

Non-notable band vanity. Tysto 06:17, 2005 August 21 (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) 03:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burn(band)

Non-notable band vanity; had cleanup request since June. Tysto 06:19, 2005 August 21 (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) 03:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Owens

Vanity --Ryan Delaney talk 06:20, 21 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) 03:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck69.com

Unnotable website. Unranked by alexa [5]Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Retain Chuck is a candid and on target observer of Michigan media, especially radio User:anon02:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain The web site is significant on a micro level in discussions of Michigan radio, especially stations on the west side of the state. User:anon 19:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain This site has actually effcted change in Broadcasting in West Michigan. It has valuable content for radio listeners. User:Peter Strong 19:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Save- DONT DELETE

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete or Merge. I'll probably merge. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sestren

a single character form a video game, and there is little or no useful info included in the article. Delete or merge into Panzer Dragoon. DES (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origenxbox360

Nonsense? Gibberish? At best, something in the future. Though there is no link to whatever page the article is talking about. Neither Google nor Yahoo searches get any hits for this word. Zoe 06:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

They are discussing about http://www.origenxbox360.com/ The site is owned by Microsoft and is a promotion to xbox360... http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=433989

I have protected the article because it was being vandalized by a variety of children. Zoe 22:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I generally frown upon articles about current events, much less for ones about obviously furture events. If it turns out to be an ARG, then it might cut the mustard for an article... after it settles down. --Bob 12:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It IS an ARG. It is only just now beginning, which is why it seems like nothing.
    • Just being an ARG doesn't guarantee anything an encyclopedia article, it would have to be a notable ARG, and not getting any Google hits means it isn't notable. Zoe 04:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, This is a known ARG. This should most definitely be protected though, since it's Microsoft it is a ripe target for vandals.
    • If you would have taken the time to read the rules, you'd know that there are requirements for notability. Moreover, repeatedly stating anonomously that something is definately notable does not make it so outside of the fourth grade. Thirdly, you are looking for the term "keep" instead of "don't delete", not dat anonymous votes are counted. --Lomedae 12:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment; Protection is the last thing that should be applied to this article since in it's current state it is useless to anyone who does not follow the subject and complete gibberish to those who aren't familiar with the company's previous viral marketing campaigns. The only reason I see to keep it is that the Xbox ARGs have been successful and notable in the past, and it's likely that this will receive a similar following. —FlooK 13:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you would bother to check the article's edit history, you would see that several anonymous vandals have been making gibberish edits to the page and repeatedly deleting the vfd header. Would you rather have it in this shape, or as "I like pooping"? Zoe21:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • I can’t see anyone learning anything from either so maybe the pooping thing, more chance of some idiot finding it funny :) —FlooK
  • Don't Delete - It's a major event in the history of Microsoft/XBOX, and like all widespread riddle-based ARGs, the idea is that they start off with as little information as possible, and end up revealing more than you could have hoped for. Given the huge amount of interest in this page, I see no reason why it should not have an article on wikipedia. --CherryMay 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you get your information that there is "huge amount of interest in this page"? Zoe 21:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • As ManoaChild commented, it is gaining attention rather rapidly. Most game-related sites have posted news articles speculating on its meaning, and given the short time that it has been online, there have been thousands of people trying to solve its mystery (many of which can be seen in internet forums/news discussion articles). Whilst there is only speculation at this point in time, I feel that any solid news, evidence, or factual information should be listed as a current ongoing event. If the website timer expires and the entire site turns out to be a 'generic advertising ploy' after all, with no other site occurrences or 'trails', then by all means the wikipedia entry should be deleted. Until that time, it does seem appropriate to have a wikipedia entry on the subject for its current factual state.
        • As I said in my nomination, there were zero Google hits for this word, how can it be so notable? Zoe 05:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up If the information it contains is organised properly, with external links for more information and theories (putting all the theories in one Wiki article would be silly), I see no reason for this to be deleted... it's an ARG that's only just beginning, so granted there is only a small amount of information for now... but within the next 30 days, something else is bound to come up about it. --CosmicFalcon 13:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply because this is explained briefly in the Xbox 360 article.  Thorpe talk 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up This article needs to be cleaned. I could do it, but it's protected --RoCKy 13:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogfolio

Neologism. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:44, 21 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) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ikool

Neologism --Ryan Delaney talk 07:07, 21 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) 03:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dyou

Slang dictdef. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sirajul Islam

Notabilty not established, other than being a professor. Note that the name is common, so Google may return links/results to many other persons of the same name.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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

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 Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Hayes

NN + Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: yes delete now, but I wish to see the child grows to become a part of wikipedia one day. --Bhadani 07:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)--Bhadani 13:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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

Mark MacDonald Brown

NN, Fails to establish notability because he has no NASA experience. Vanity. :P - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 21 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) 03:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meet The Sess

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Line and Ryan Moore

Non-notable student film and its 13-year-old creator. Zoe 08:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, as the writer of thsi film I can say this movie is relevant and it is being backed by a group of investors. You have no idea wat is going on plz dont delete this cause this is going to be a movie which will be released. It is just as relevant as any other movie. From Ryan Moore

  • Delete Blood Line -- per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the undertaking does not seem to yet be notable or published in news sources as to merit the article. The last sentence of the article pretty much sums it up: The film is not being backed by a or studio and does not yet have a distributor. --Mysidia (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also see [Kitty Goddard] -- Corey.spring 08:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both Feel bad if this is a newbie but deletable per Mysidia. Hope he checks his messages. Marskell 08:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My parents are putting $350,00 towards the production of thsi film. It does exist and it will be made so plz stop it.

OK then I understand if u wanna wait 'till it comes out but calling it vanity is rude and I would apperciate an apology

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cook Effect

Non-notable original research. The Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a mirror for dubious sites like www.americanantigravity.com, www.electrogravity.com, or jlnlabs.online.fr. Not primarily relevant to VfD, but of course it's totally at odds with physics.

  • Delete --Pjacobi 08:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn pseudoscience. ManoaChild 08:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this drivel because it's pseudoscience would be wrong IMHO. The article does have a POV problem, but this is noted and tagged accordingly. I don't particularily want this to be in Wikipedia but I feel it needs to be. --Lomedae 13:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment sounds like a "Searle Effect" rip off to me (1940s anti grav experiments). Alf 15:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it's pseudoscience, but because it is completely non-notable pseudoscience. Sdedeo 16:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable hoax Salsb 12:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio, tagged and bagged. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breakscore

Non-notable game, advertising, probably copied from a pamphlet somewhere. Zoe 08:31, August 21, 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) 03:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Goddard

This is one of several pages being created by 13 yr old Ryan Moore of IP 220.240.152.145 to promote a film he wants to make. Delete Corey.spring 08:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

All the stuff I written is real and relevant. It does exsist and you have you information wrong.

OK then I understand if u wanna wait 'till it comes out but calling it vanity is rude and I would apperciate an apology BTW it is not several pages it is 3 relevant pages

Comment. You might want to check our definition of a vanity page, and reconsider your demand for an apology. --DrTorstenHenning 06:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to demand an apology

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ChromePixels

Non notable website with no Alexa rank and a dismal 14 unique Google hits. Article makes no other claim to notability, and was created by someone who claims to run ChromePixels itself (incidentally, he's now been blocked for suspected sockpuppetry and an offensive user name). Vanity, advertising. CanadianCaesar 08:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Eugene Hendricks

Article does not establish notability, in my opinion. Sietse 09:16, 21 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) 04:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Sith

No, it's not Star Wars fancruft as the name would imply (or Trekkie-cruft, if Doc Glasgow were doing the nomination). It's a non-notable forum clan. I thought you had to be doing something competitive to form a clan. Regardless, non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California Institute of Technology trustees

This text is of dubious encyclopedic nature, and shouldn't exist by itself. Long lists of people who donate lots of money to institutions don't really belong in university/college articles, as it is somewhat arbitrary and often information on the trustees themselves already exists separately on WP and on official instution websites. Delete Bumm13 10:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to me like it would be useful documentation. I would delete only if the information is duplicated somewhere else on WP -- Corey.spring 10:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not understand the reasoning behing this nomination. The list of trustees of an institution is very well defined. This nomination seems to equate the trustees to major donors, when, in fact, the board of trustees of an university is like the board of directors of a corporation. ManoaChild 10:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article can demonstrate a reason for maintaining this list (which will change from year to year and will always be public record.) Notable trustees can have their own articles. Sdedeo 16:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Too long to merge into California Institute of Technology. -- BD2412 talk 18:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Corey.spring --Apyule 02:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article is kept, it think it would be preferable if it was not just a list of current trustees, as that will soon be dated unless maintained, but a historical list, including all trustees in chronological order from the foundation of the school with years for their election and resignation. There seem to be enough people around here interested in Caltechcruft to make such a list. BTW, noting that the list was uncategorized, I just added a new Caltech category to contain this and other Caltech-related articles. Please categorize any articles I missed. Uppland 04:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Changed "weak keep" to just a neutral "comment", not convinced either way. Uppland 07:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete My feeling is that the encyclopedic nature isn't dubious, it's non-existent. The Literate Engineer 06:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a list of people copied from the Caltech website. Since the Caltech webpage will always be the more authoritative source, that page should be an external link in the Caltech article, and this page should be deleted. Iff the article is changed from just a list of names, to an explanation of the duties and responsibilities of the trustees of Caltech, and the list is pared down to only the most notable names (plus notable trustees from the past), then my vote would change from delete to weak keep. BlankVerse ∅ 10:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem known as latency in software engineering; duplicating a list maintained elsewhere risks getting out of date. I vote for deletion. Pdn 15:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (PhD Caltech 1960)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phelestia

To the original author: I'm afraid this article, though interesting, isn't encyclopedic. Encyclopedias are supposed to contain information, not whole stories.

I'm voting delete as per Wikipedia:No original research. Kel-nage 10:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Mile

A band which is "relatively unknown and have not released any albums" according to the author. There were pages created for each member: Tom duffy, Nick campbell, Dave beadle, Neil Curran. Delete all TheMidnighters 11:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The milton experiance

Delete, nn teen band Punkmorten 11:22, 21 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 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amarna Letters EA 19(Tushratta) plus ...

Amarna Letters Dictionary Global, No. 1, Amarna Letters EA 205(Mayor of Tubu), Amarna Letters EA 245(Biridiya,No.4), Amarna Letters EA 296(Yahtiru), Amarna Letters EA 299(Yapahu), Amarna Letters EA 330, Sumerograms, No.1, in EA Letters and Category:Transliterations.

This clearly has something to do with the translation of ancient Egyptian documents - or at least one ancient Egyptian document - so I'm loathe to speedy it as nonsense. However, it's way too incoherent to be salvaged as an article. At best, it would contain the translation of an ancient Egyptian document, and notes on how it was translated; if anyone's interested, it could go on Wikisource instead. DS 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The background is explained in Amarna letters. -- RHaworth
  • Keep. Just needs cleanup. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:02
  • Transwiki. (By this I mean move to another Wikipedia project, & delete.) I appreciate the work the original contributor is doing, but it's unfortunately not appropriate for Wikipedia -- but these contributions would be very welcome at Wikisource, Wikibooks or split between them. -- llywrch 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one do a gentle delete? Certainly we must wait until the author, Michael McAnnis has copied his work off and notified us here. I have put a note on this talk page encouraging Michael to go independant with this stuff. It has very much an original research feel which would make it unwelcome on Wikibooks/source. Sadly the quality, although it is improving, is still not very high - all the articles look and read as rather chaotic. It should not make any difference, but Michael's reluctance to create an account also weighs against him in my view. -- RHaworth 11:25:42, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
Notes. I have only today put VfD tags on six of the items, so I am moving this debate forward a week. Also we need to see a few more votes. Strictly the Category should go through CfD but since no-one else has used it, I think we can list it here. -- RHaworth 11:25:42, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Comment - if transwiki is not an option (and it seems that it isn't), then why not userfy for now - on the understanding that this cannot be a long-term solution. It gets it out of the article space without immediately destroying well intentioned work --Doc (?) 16:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC) OK, just delete then --Doc (?) 00:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is disconcerting lack of context, making it hard to know what to make of this. I will vote Delete if the original author is unwilling to provide explicative justification for this entry. Dottore So 19:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is original research without citation to any authoritative source in the field. I'd like ot assume good faith here, but that does not change the fact that the editor has been unable to communicate clearly with RHaworth after several very clear and helpful exchanges. -Harmil 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Harmil, and delete. Expand the main article instead. Radiant_>|< 10:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now (for people a little into the thing, it's notable enough). I too would opt for userfy and left the {{anon}} template on the userpage, and I especially don't agree with the OR mentioned above; he's just trying to make (literal)translations. The problem is that the author picked some of the less important letters/treaties (the hittite/egyptian peace treaty after the battle of Kadesh would have been a better start). It reads just so awkward because it's difficult to translate cuneiform and hieroglyhs into modern languages. E.g., the name Hattusili (thats hittite), if written in cuneiform and literally translated would become somthing like gispasidingirlim (so you write gispasidingirlim and read Hattusili) Lectonar 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantic, OT question for Lectonar. A long time ago, I took a class on Hittite, & from what I remember your example about "Hattusili" actually being "gispasidingirlim" doesn't make sense. Are those the original Sumeric values of the cuneiform characters? If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to represent "gispasidingirlim" as (guessing here) "GIŠ-PAS-IDIN-GIR-LIM", or something similar? But I do agree with your point, that the spelling in these ancient documents can be problematic; it is fascinating to compare how the names of well-known Egyptian pharaohs are transliterated into cuneiform with their spelling in the native Egyptian texts, e.g. "Wasmuaria satepnareya" (cuneiform) with "Usermaatra Setepenra Rameses" (Egyptian), suggesting that the scribes fossilized Egyptian spelling much as has been done in modern English or French. -- llywrch 19:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At a second thought, as he has created no account so far, could we just move it into temp articles to let him work it out a little. I'm very reluctant to have this deleted, as it's so very difficult to come across someone who likes to devote energy to the these topics Lectonar 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in trying to use anon user pages - he is using AOL and will come in with a different IP address every session. He has commented on Talk:Amarna Letters Dictionary Global, No. 1 in the past. Let us hope he does so now. -- RHaworth 09:33:33, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
  • You're obviously right here, I used the wrong approach. BTW, how do you know he's using AOL?If push comes to shove, I would be willing to take them in on user-subpage(s) to be created (that leaves the problem: How does he know I've done this? Plus, it's not really my area of expertise (or I would have done something already). And I know about at least 50 books in german translation which incorporate the Amarna letters, so he's got way to go. If all else fails, I would rescind my keep vote, but for the moment let's just give him a little more time....Lectonar 09:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do I know? I use NetInfo which you need to download. But the whois article has links to online services. -- RHaworth 17:07:37, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not delete for now, the info will still be available to you admins - so nothing is irretrievably lost. If the user returns and wants his work, it can be e-mailed to him. If he is willing to supply context, then we can VfU. Delete, without prejudice to a later revival. --Doc (?) 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might belong in some other wiki, if author or authors want to start it there. Gene Nygaard 20:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus to delete this one. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Nozuka

Degrassi-cruft, non-notable actor with 14 Google hits. The reason I am bringing it here is to draw attention to User:Jenngonemad who has made several similar articles. Punkmorten 11:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pa-shaw. Get the ants out of your pants. He's going to be more of a major cast member in the new season. I don't like him. I think his Eskimo character is a major dick, but when he is a regualar cast member an imdb page won't be too far off. --Boycottthecaf 19:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character is recent to the Degrassi show as the resident token Eskimo, and will be more prominant in the upcoming season, starting next month in Canada. There will be more content to add before the year ends. Besides, when he does become as prominant as any of those other Degrassi actors, this article will probably be created again if it gets deleted now. --Boycottthecaf 03:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference to confirm that he's a regular cast member in the fall? I'm willing to withdraw my vote, but only if it's independently confirmed by a reputable source. Bearcat 16:25, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Ross

Nn, possibly definitely vanity. Ngb 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete me, I am a young artist who just wants to be known by more people. (Sorry If I put this in the wrong place) -- (prevoius unsigned contribution by AKLR, 12:12, 21 August 2005)
  • In Wikipedia, we don't delete people, we delete pages about people. Wikipedia is about people who are known, not for people who want to be known. There must be some place in the Internet where Mr Ross can turn - but not here. Delete nn/vanity. --DrTorstenHenning 12:22, 21 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. HappyCamper 13:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Berman

Non-notable, maybe vanity.Zander 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest-selling female musician

The article Biggest-selling female musician has been nominated for deletion. A record of a previous vote on the matter can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biggest-selling female musician.

  • Delete. This article is superfluous, proves nothing, and leads only to inflated fan figures as partisans of one singer (not "musician") or the other "compete" with each other for highest sales figures. The article violates all three of Wikipedia's basic policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is nothing on this page that could not be, or is not, better said on the individual artist pages. ProhibitOnions 13:49:10, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The reason this article exists is to keep this "debate" from wrecking the individual artist pages, which it was doing before. In a better world, no one would care about this "title" and the article would not need to exist. Wasted Time R 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Useless. This article can not even tell for certain who is the best selling female singer. Some of the singers on this list could not possibly be the best selling female artist. For example Whitney Houston and Alla Pugacheva, whoever she is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.117.175 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 August 2005
The article used to have a conclusion, but an admin took it out on the grounds it violated the no-original-research rule. Wasted Time R 13:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The constant edit wars between fans of each musician are troublesome, yes (today I caught two anons, most likely overzealous Mariah Carey fans, removing content from other artists' sections), but I'm worried that the disagreements will spill over to the articles of the artists mentioned if this article is deleted. As a regular contributor to Mariah Carey's article, I'd prefer if that didn't happen. Extraordinary Machine 15:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be an interesting and well referenced article on a much disputed issue. - SimonP 14:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable fluff. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Madchester 14:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful and plenty of references. A notable topic. Cleanup maybe? Christopher Parham (talk) 16:34, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an interesting article. Capitalistroadster 17:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has valid references, plus it helps to keep the debate off the main article of these singers. Journalist (talk · contribs)
Comment. WP is not a discussion forum. This page and List of best-selling music artists is just a battleground for fans to duke it out with unverifiable sources. There's no universal counting technique for records sold, let alone a universal body for giving global sales certifications. --Madchester 18:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The numbers may be "unverifiable fluff", but the debate itself is notable. -- BD2412 talk 18:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Leave fans to bicker on messageboards, not on Wikipedia. You can't verify the numbers, since there is no universal body to tabulate these figures. Fans will obviously use estimates to suit their own POV.For example: "According to Dion's Wikipedia article, she has sold 184 million albums and 28 million singles, making her total worldwide sales 212 million. Her record company is not as certain about the sales of her singles. They state that she has sold 28 million singles, but they are not sure about the sales in other French-speaking parts of the world." That's cringeworthy for a suppoesdly encyclopedic article. --Madchester 18:43, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The reasons why I nominated this are: a) List of best-selling music artists has been nominated for deletion for essentially similar reasons; and b) the significant problems with this article have not been resolved in the six weeks since it was last nominated. Note that the majority last time supported deletion. ProhibitOnions 20:18:24, 2005-08-25 (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 13:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5knuckle studio

Non-notable, little content Cheese Sandwich 13:58, 21 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 HappyCamper 13:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koment

Stub about a website which does not establish notability. About 40-50 Google hits for the name of the website, depending on syntax. No Alexa ranking. I see no reason to assume that it is notable. Sietse 14:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete HappyCamper 13:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

808Talk

Non-notable, looks like an advertisement. Cheese Sandwich 14:02, 21 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. HappyCamper 13:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunkmania

I wish commercial products such as this could be speedied.

lots of issues | leave me a message 14:13, 21 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 18:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Nordström

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 14:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While no editor's articles should automatically get a pass, this article was created by User:Angela, who must certainly understand the Wikipedia concept of notahility, so I would check closely before I decided Henrik Nordström was not notable. In addition, the term "Henrik Nordström" gets 133,000 Google hits. -- DS1953 19:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
--Cheese Sandwich 02:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, technically 133,000 google hits, but google actually only gives you 16 -- the rest are explained as duplicates, [6], presumably from duplicated documentation with his name on it? Sdedeo 22:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Strange indeed - there actually seem to be 133,000 indexed pages featuring his name in the mail archives of his Internet domain. Also, note that Henrik and Nordström are not uncommon Swedish names (the Swedish online phone directory lists 76 persons). This Swedish-American Henrik Nordström seems almost as notable as the developer. But both are borderline at best. I'll abstain for now. / Alarm 13:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Sleepyhead 20:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With all respect, I don't see notability here. He is the CTO of a company he founded himself in 2001, and is a contributor to open source projects. Do not zap me with the flames of the wiki ancients, Angela! Sdedeo 21:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is verifiable, and is worthy of a page IMO. --Apyule 04:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sdedeo, notability not established. The fact that Angela created the article should have no bearing on the vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't really mind. I can't remember why I wrote it; perhaps it was linked from somewhere at the time, but now it's orphaned, which makes it more deletable. It's always been in the back of my mind as the least notable person I created an article on though, so it's probably no bad thing to get rid of it. As far am I'm aware, this is my first VfD'd article ever. :) Angela. 11:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is orphaned. Fred-Chess 13:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Proto t c 09:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We all need at least one red-linked title on our "Stuff I wrote" list. Denni☯ 01:12, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
  • comment I would've voted 'keep' if a google search turned up any biographical info. As it is, I'm abstaining because I have no idea if 'MARA' is signifigant/notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep --Tony SidawayTalk 18:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U-Turn (song)

Musical singles are/should be unworthy for an encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 14:33, 21 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. HappyCamper 13:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4yourparty

Non-notable web site Rx StrangeLove 14:38, 21 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. HappyCamper 13:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Galaxy and GamingG

Appears to be a non-notable website, Alexa indicates ranking >100,000; Google test indicates 42 hits. If the site is non-notable, then neither is a pseudonym for its webmaster --Mysidia (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runetips

No good. Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MADCom

Delete posthaste. Erwin Walsh

Delete - non-notable internet troll --Mysidia (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America. Notable notorious troll. 82.165.235.161 15:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gren グレン 16:16, 21 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 HappyCamper 13:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B/w

Ambiguous, dictionary esque. Erwin Walsh

I started this article. It is mainly aiming on people who've asked this a dozen times in various internet forums, as they could not find what it means. - andy 80.129.122.72 12:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westlawn Cemetery

Doesn't deserve its' own article, possible merge candidate. Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steffan "Mr. Wiggles" Clemente

NN. Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Mora

How vain. Erwin Walsh

*Keep Over 130,000 results on Google. How can someone be too young to be notable? Lindsay Lohan is 19, and she got her own page. Jeremy Mora is five years her senior. Acetic Acid 17:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment. Hi Acetic Acid, you may want to regoogle and reconsider your vote. I find "Jeremy Mora" (in quotes) gets 47 google hits [7], very few of which actually refer to the man in question. Sdedeo 18:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the link you provided gives 72 hits on google...
  • Delete Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I never realized putting it in quotes keep the words together. Sorry for this. Acetic Acid 21:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Maybe Userfy to user:Qthinker if he wants to contribute to the project. Dunc|☺ 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from the Wikipedia Vanity page: "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion" and also, from 'Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies' - "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Qthinker
  • Delete Always use quotes on a google search. As above, I also get 73 results, making this a nn, possibly vanity page. Dottore So 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable. His portfolio looks reasonable, so he might make it, but it is interesting to contrast with Tom Friedman (artist) who was also edited by a related anon. Friedman is also unknown to me, but his article shows that he has exhibited internationally and the Bienale link gives external validation. -- Solipsist 20:28, 21 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 11:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netstalgia

Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Scott Tenorman Must Die. -Splash 03:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead (South Park)

Another stub like Phil collins (south park) and Mr. Garrison's Father (South Park). I'd say delete unless someone is interested in creating and article on the relevant episode. Soltak 16:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walter bruce

One of the more unusual biographies I've run across. A high-school musician, and later possibly arrested for getting too friendly with a dog. Probably skirting CSD. Joyous (talk) 16:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN and my attempts to verify it have been unsuccessful. Does skirt CSD (for patent nonsense and not claiming notability) but I think falls slightly short on both. David | Talk 16:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First part of the article is nonsense mentioning a time machine. The second part is a copyvio from the Miami Herald about his arrest for bestiality. All in all, should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 18:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like it could be viral marketing for the movie to me; even if it is not, it is still patent nonsense and no notable as far as i see -- Corey.spring 18:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment copyvio as well Corey.spring 18:50, August 21, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua reeves

vanity Elfguy 16:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Special Forces Groep/Groupe Special Forces

Delete copyright violation. Also, it's in Dutch, so if it's going to be rewritten instead of deleted, it needs to be translated or transwikied to the Dutch wikipedia. There is an english version of the site this was all copied from: [8] Bubamara 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep, translate and cleanup. It's a part of the Belgian Army. Government texts are not generally copyrighted; I'm not sure if this one is, but the article is certainly salvageable. Radiant_>|< 10:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Needs more discussion. Relisting 28 August. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

George Presura

Vanity page. --Ian Pitchford 17:33, 21 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 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Marren

Non-notable lawyer. Full text: "Martin Enda Marren, a highly respected Dublin barrister, is descended from one of the famous County Sligo Marren's. The Marren's are an Anglo-Irish Protestant family well known in both Ireland and Britain for their involvement in the arts, academia and the law." Rl 17:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_21&oldid=21509399"