Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 26

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Redwolf24 (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 5 September 2005 (relisting something). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

August 26

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

Untribium and others

NN hypothetical element. 9 googles. Didn't we go through a bunch of these before? ~~ N (t/c) 23:59, 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. Woohookitty 10:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS Household

The article doesn't strike me as being worthy of an encyclopedia entry.--Hooperbloob 20:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the article was tagged by hooperbloob on August 13, and never added to the main list. Adding now, Joyous (talk) 00:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted - creator blanked it. FreplySpang (talk) 01:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Advanced Placement English Language and Composition

Appears to be a chunk of someone's term paper. While it might be the basis for an article on pathos (or maybe not), it is certainly irrelevant to the stated topic. Denni☯ 00:38, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Heavyweight

Too bad it's a hoax - one of these bouts might be quite entertaining to watch. Denni☯ 00:44, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Britannia Fair

This is an unverified 'article' with a wholly inappropriate tone. Googling the term produces 3 hits - all to this article! Eddie.willers 00:55, 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 keep. Do feel free to edit. --Tony SidawayTalk :25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

David Osborne Hagger

Not quite sure what to do with this. It is clearly not an article on the person stated in the title, and appears more a collection of statements from various public agencies on the topic of bovine-sourced materials designed for use in health care. While there may be some basis for an article on BSE and bovine insulin, this is clearly not it. Denni☯ 00:57, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most developed country in central america

Non-encyclopedic GinaDana 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-verifiable, and if it can be, the article needs a whole rewrite. I doubt it can be salvaged from this condition. --Titoxd 01:27, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best city in centralamerica

Non-encyclopedic GinaDana 00:57, 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. (after being BJAODN'd) Paul August ☎ 20:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Band manager

A wholly inappropriate tone for a Wiki article - a thorough cleanup would mean a rewrite so why not delete & start again? Eddie.willers 01:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep +9/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»=

Ajitha

Doesn't require encyclopediac entry rail 01:10, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Florida State Road 300

I'm unsure if this should be deleted or expanded. What is the Wiki policy on roads? Is this particular road notable in any way? (I'm new to Wiki, please excuse me.) Fang Aili 01:15, 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 keep rewritten version. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Fonte

I would have speedied this as vanity, but the article appears to place her on the razor's edge of notability. What say you, brethren? DS 01:16, 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 BJAODN. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suavecito

Thought this was about the song of the same name. Not sure exactly what this is. - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 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 keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bozulich

The subject of this article appears to be notable, but according to the author, has requested that this article be deleted. My vote is to keep based on his work with go, but there may be some validity to granting his request. I dunno. Denni☯ 01:24, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax skate

Advertising, POV, unsuitable for Wiki, balh-blah... Gnarly, dude! Eddie.willers 01:25, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here and there

A fine band, I'm sure, but only locally notable. With no album yet recorded and no extensive tours yet conducted, I must vote to delete. Denni☯ 02:05, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gross, Minsky & Mogul

vanity, advertisement nominated by Quuxplusone 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This firm was added to the "Law Firms" article. It is a well known law firm in Maine and New England. I will delete it if that's what people want, but it's not an advertisement, no more than the article for any of the other law firms. There's not solid reason to delete this page. I will continue to expand it and improve its quality, if allowed. I've started other articlessuch as the University of Maine School of Law and greatly expanded Searsport, Maine. If given the chance, I'll make this just as good as those. Please let me know when this is resolved so I can remove the tag and continue my work. Thank you. AFethke 02:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see any indication that this firm is in any way notable. We don't have, and IMO shouldn't have, an article on every small law firm in the world. Delete unless edited to indicte the encyclopedic significance of this firm. DES (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like,I can cite the hundreds of times the firm and its members have been mentioned in various media outlets, the countless appellate cases they have argued and the case citations, (meaning the firm has been instrumental in shaping the course of Miane and federal law) the fact that their members are (were) the Presidents of the State Bar Association, County Bar Association, Maine Trial Lawyers Associaiton....balh blah blah. It may be small, but all firms in Maine are considered small. In fact, Gross Minsky is condered a medium sized firm in Maine. If firms have to be over 50 peoples to be notable that knocks out every firm in Miane, NH and almost allof Vermont. That's not right. How else could I prove it its notability?AFethke 02:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will probably be the only person voting for the article, given the small legal communbity here in Maine, so delete it if you will and I won't argue anymore. I just think it would be a mistake. Just mentioning in the list of law firms on the law firms page would be fine I guess. Just think about it and don't be so quick to judge.AFethke 02:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment -- Ideally, find some notable case the firm dealt with that appeared in nationwide or better yet, global media. Being medium-sized or large compared to other firms in a state doesn't necessarily make it notable (due to the limited geographical scope of one state) --Mysidia (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Woah, I would have waited more than 10 minutes to put a VfD tag on. If the author can come up with something more compelling that "involved in malpractice suits", then maybe we should keep. Sdedeo 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most Vfd nominations come from people doing new pages or recent changes patrol, so they are usually made soon after the article is created. An advantage is that it keeps the contributor from investing more time on it if it's going to get deleted. Niteowlneils 03:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After sleeping on it, let's just delete it. I'm tired fo fighting. I do believe it should stay listed on the "Lw Firms" article, as it is one of the best known firms in Maine and is well known throughout New England,but that's it. Thanks.AFethke 10:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why are we still going through this? I am in favor of deleting this, I was the one who created in the first place and no one else has said to keep it.....what's the hold up? There is a clear consensus (unanimous actually) would an administrator please do what was done 2 or 3 times already, just delete this. ThanksAFethke 23:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kingler's kingdom

Vanity/advertising of non-notable website. Delete. - choster 02:20, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Too Many "Mustangs" on Western Ranges

An unformatted rant on the Bureau of Land Management's efforts to save wild horses. There's an article in here somewhere for one brave enough to rescue it from this morass, but it needs a new title and a complete rewrite - best to start from scratch. Denni☯ 02:25, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comparison between Star Trek and Doctor Who

Delete because it is original research. Also, many of the comparisons could apply to any two series, and there is some wrong information anyway. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Ya could always put it back into VfD if you wanted to. --Apostrophe 02:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to assume the people who voted Keep the last time have seen the light. Trouble is that that comparison debate is at least borderline sourceable, though nobody really cares enough to do it. This one definitely isn't, though. JRM · Talk 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
High hopes, I suppose. --Apostrophe 03:07, 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. Paul August ☎ 02:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hannah Hubbard

Non-notable and/or unverifiable--zero hits for "Hannah Hubbard" miami or Kook Klutzes Klant-Do-Anything-Right and nothing relevant for "Hannah Hubbard" miami. Contributed by an anon that keeps vandalizing Saturday Night Live. Niteowlneils 02:40, 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. Paul August ☎ 02:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Dammsworth

Non-notable and/or unverifiable--zero hits. Contributed by an anon that keeps vandalizing Saturday Night Live. Niteowlneils 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no one by that name writes for the Toronto Sun. Adam Bishop 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sparrow

Vanity bio Samw 02:46, 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 MOOT. Article was speedy-deleted. --MarkSweep 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange proverbs

POV to declare a proverb strange in a title, the article borders on nonsense, are these even well-known proverbs? --Mysidia (talk) 02:55, 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 no consensus. The article was merged and redirected during the discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOSP

Scientists estimate that there are enough IPv6 addresses to uniquely identify every atom in the universe. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said for unreleased now-defunct open-source software projects. This just isn't notable. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:59:59, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

The game was released obviously, just not the source code, that has nothing to do with deleting the page or not. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean many people didn't enjoy playing it.. Keep Yonir

I would generally interpret Alpha as unreleased in any meaningful form. For that matter, Google doesn't see any relevant reference in the top 100 apart from the developer's personal page and the project host. I did see the League of Ordinary Shuffleboard Players, though. If notability can be established, I'll be happy to recant. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:09:43, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Well, The name "Alpha" doesn't represent it well, if you want to find more relevant google results search "losp liero open source project". Can I remove the VfD status now.. ? Yonir

That string you suggest gives 27 hits before Google lapses into similar pages. Seeing correct results for the full version of the acronym does suggest that, if it survives, the article should be renamed. Regardless, the VfD needs to run its course. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 04:02:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

I realized that I'm not supposed to delete VfD status now reading in the "Guide to Votes for Deletion".. So you're saying that a page must be named after the search line that will make google give the most relevant results.. ? If the League of Ordinary Shuffleboard Players want a wikipedia page they can make a "ambigouty" (sp) page.. (well, they don't "deserve" a wikipedia page I guess though :p) Anyway, I don't think that "LOSP Liero Open Source Project" is the best string for results, as it is usually reffered to as LOSP, this just gives only relevant results. Yonir

btw how do you add the "personal info" line (such as "— Lomn | Talk / RfC 04:02:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)")

Since LOSP is pretty much a thing of the past, cant it just be moved in under Liero just like Joosa was? Wikipedia is suppose to have everything right? But now it doesnt if things get deleted. So at least put it somewhere else. Either with Liero or with Gusanos. Ulvbot 06:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


Anyhow i copied all the stuff here to Liero Wiki so nothing will be lost. Ulvbot 06:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

hmm, sounds like a good idea. Yonir 11:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

though both Liero and gusanos refer to "LOSP", that's what made me create the article on the first place.. Yonir 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gusanos deserves his own page on Wikipedia, since it's actively being developed. LOSP however, can be moved under Liero or (even better) Gusanos. -- Sander 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (yes, still alive ;) but not on GU recently)[reply]

ok, I merged LOSP into Gusanos (I think it's better there, since the games are merging too, makes sence to merge the articles ;o) and changed the links for LOSP to the gusanos section on LOSP (gusanos#LOSP). I guess this article can be deleted now :<. Yonir 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

btw LOSP should still redirect to gusanos I guess. Yonir 00:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the help page on merging.. already changed the page to redirect, I hope it's ok to change it even though it was in VfD status. :S Yonir 00:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Traks

ad for Trek parody web site. WCFrancis 03:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fanfic, sorta. Promo for site, certainly.-WCFrancis 03:20, 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 Keep. There was small support for delete, some for redirect, but no overall consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Corridan

Apparently a contestant on Survivor 11 (although the article states nothing of this), judging by a quick googling this may also be a copyvio (unless other sites mirrored this article already), not really notable IMO, you decide ShadowStaller 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, do you have any examples for copyvio? I did a quick copy/paste search and didn't come up with anything. Second, he is a contestant on a popular reality TV show. Regardless of whether he's notable in the smallest way, or the largest way, he is notable for that at least. I think there will be some people looking for the information when the show starts. --Wolf530 05:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chirp_software

Advertising, just barely, what do you think? inks 03:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments by page creator, batsonjay)
Keep - I intend to make it less an advertising page, and point out more *pedia concepts. lnks just reviewed the page after I'd made my first editing/creation pass but hadn't finished the process.

I intend to:

  • Use Chirp to point out that most Project Management Software applications address the wrong problems for most people who try to use them. (e.g. most people why try a project management package really just want to manage a flow of tasks, not "manage a discreet project" where timelines, resource allocations, etc. are studied.) Project Management is a particularly well-developed skill and art, but beyond the needs -- and skills -- of most people. Yet most Project Management Software packages studiously focus on implementing this art, and leave users in the dark about alternate ways of managing an ongoing flow of work. I can and will make this point on the Project Management Software page, but I can't do it all there. It is more appropriate to draw the full contrast on a page for Chirp to point to for more complete discussion of the issue raised on the former page;
  • Point at this page from SyncML. Chirp incorporates a novel application of SyncML. (SyncML is normally thought of as useful only to syncrhonize contact information between a phone/PDA and a computer. Chirp uses SyncML for application-level data synchronization.)

Finally, I know Microsoft Project is a well-known application, but if Chirp software gets deleted for "Advertising" reasons, then so should the Microsoft Project page out of fairness. Batsonjay 04:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Horak

Delete: Not verifiable. I ran across this article doing RC patrol, and attempted to verify it via Google to no avail. I left a message on the talk page with no response on August 10. Given that, I'm bringing it here. Wikibofh 03:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete for inappropriate use of namespace. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project management software/Chirp

This page should be deleted because it was created inartfully. I tried to create it hierarchically under the "Project management software" page for two reasons: 1) The product name (Chirp) is the same as an existing page for the word Chirp which deals with a completely different subject. In order ot create a disambiguation link, I first created the Chirp page "under" Project management. 2) I then decided to create a page called Chirp software that was NOT under Project management software, and point the disambiguation link there. I think this is a better placement. Therefore, this first page ("under" Project management software) should be deleted. Batsonjay 03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellsatan

Not a notable individual; apparently a vanity page. 24.34.190.187 04:32, 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.
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 Deleted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Sex in Brasil

Not quite nonsense, but close; I don't see how this can become a worthwhile article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am just pointing out (no-one else has) that anal sex is pretty much considered totally normal and done a lot in Brasil much more so than in places like Argentina and the U.S. You should try it sometime. We even say in Brasil that if you dont do anal on the first date you are doing something wrong thank you Obrigado!Wiki brah 04:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge; with Anal sex. - and we appreciate the effort but it's a bit too specific to really be practical in an encyclopedia of this proporion. I would also like some documentation of some sort as the article seems to be based on the authors subjective opinion. | Celcius 05:11, 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine use in Brasil

Unexpandable stub consisting of one datum and a bunch of unsourced speculation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources on the talk page did you check themWiki brah 04:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Specifying topics like this is not practical and would on a larger scale make searches in the database difficult. Merge with Cocaine or Brazil - or make an article about the drug use in various countries - not just Brazil. | Celcius 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - May account for the rampant anal sex there. Note to self: Visit Brazil. -PlainSight 05:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, opens the door to too many subarticles on the use of every drug in every country in the world. Zoe 05:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to Keep. I'm not worried about these articles on every drug in the world if there is something factual and verifiable to say about it, there might well be, but this article doesn't contain it as it stands. Trollderella 06:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like i said before i have two sources on the article talk page one is from the O.A.S. and one is from the Washington Post what more do you want thank you Wiki_brah (talk · contribs)
Actually, this may well develop into an interesting article - cocaine use in Brazil is obviously rampant. I would suggest renaming it to Cocaine in Brazil, or perhaps something broader on illicit drug trade and use in Brazil, but with a bit more referencing, and some cleanup, this could be a good article. Trollderella 07:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had a crack at it anyway, since I think it's a legitimate topic. Let me know what you think. Trollderella 15:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyons & Lyons, Solicitors

Advertisement for non-notable law firm Cnwb 04:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article still doesn't establish notability for this law firm. Its founder, John Lyon, might just scrape in, but the article isn't about him, it's about Lyons & Lyons. Cnwb 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very vocabulary and VeryVocabulary.com

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sacre Bleu!

Vanity and advertising Scott Davis Talk 05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Cabbage

vanity and advertising Scott Davis Talk 05:01, 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.
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. Freestylefrappe has taken up the subject of the splitting of the article on Talk:Judiciary Act. There is also a discussion there about renaming the article and restoring the previous equal-weight disambiguation. Neither the nominator nor anyone else wants an administrator to delete this article. (The only help from administrators that may be required will involve moving an article over an edited redirect and a history-only undeletion, for which Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Deletion review are the places, not here.) Uncle G 01:03:42, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Judiciary Act

This page says nothing about what a Judiciary Act is. Each individual act should be split into individual pages. Please Delete and Split. freestylefrappe 05:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep for the moment. Important legislation in the US. Any discussion about whether it should be a disambiguation page should be conducted on its talk page. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep This nomination is nothing but patent nonsense. How precisely does one delete and split? If you delete, there's nothing to split; if you split, then delete, you're destroying the edit histories and blatantly ignoring the GFDL. CanadianCaesar 05:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously and rename to Judiciary Acts (United States) or something like that. -EDM 06:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As capital. Trollderella 06:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but a little comment I'm fed up finding articles (and particularly legal ones) that assume, but don't state, that they are refering to the US. No problem with lots of US articles - lots of problems with the assumption that the US is the default subject matter arround here. If it is a nation specific article, it should always say so in the title, or failing that in the first line. --Doc (?) 09:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I substantially revised this article back on January 6–8. Back then it was named "Judiciary Acts (US)", and there was a disambiguation page at Judiciary Act. On January 26, User:Neutrality deleted the disambiguation page, moved "Judiciary Acts (US)" to "Judiciary Act", and put a disambiguation link to the Australian Judiciary Act at the top of the page. I would be perfectly happy if the original situation were restored. — DLJessup (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have no problem with the disambiguation situation as it is now. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:07, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
  • rename to something better. Roodog2k 16:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. fwiw, I think the disambiguation works as is. Dottore So 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct template for this is {{split}}, not {{subst:vfd}}. Nobody wants an article deleted here. Indeed, what is desired by some editors is for content to be undeleted. Wikipedia:Pages for deletion is not the place for this. DLJessup, EDM, and Doc glasgow: Please discuss renaming back to Judiciary Acts (US) and then undeleting the original disambiguation on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Freestylefrappe: Please discuss your proposed split on Talk:Judiciary Act. Uncle G 19:04:26, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
    • There's no need to wag fingers at particular participants in this discussion and direct them to take comments elsewhere. Those who care about this subject are here and reading it; it's useful to have the discussion in context, here provided by the unbroken string of keep votes. Hall-monitoring is unhelpful. -EDM 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was unaware of the Split tag. Uncle G is correct; I dont have a desire to get rid of the info, I just see no point for this to be grouped together on one page. freestylefrappe 20:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, showing people where the forums are for what they actually desire to be done and what the actual various tools are that are available is helpful, as you can see. ☺ Nominating an article for deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. But sometimes editors don't know about the other tools. Uncle G 01:03:42, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crushi

Not notable. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (one probable troll vote and one anon vote discounted) Rossami (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Harp

Non-notable "model and actress" known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly. 190 unique Google hits, her website gets an alexa ranking of 1,139,850. Zoe 05:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's factual, and verifiable. Trollderella 07:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So are a lot of things that aren't notable and aren't encyclopedic. --Charles O'Rourke 07:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
That may be so, but 'notable' and 'encyclopedic' are not deletion criteria. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming that that is somehow a keep criterion, when it is not. Where does the deletion policy say that everything that ever existed in the world which is factual and verifiable is a candidate for keeping?
I am not, there is no 'keep criteria' as far as I can see. If it does not meet the criteria for deletion, I do not see the issue with my voting to keep it. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trollderella, as I said yesterday on a different VfD, notability as an inclusion critereon is clearly inferred from the following section to the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.". If I own a cat, and take a picture of that cat, then I could make a factual and verifiable article entitled I have a cat, and you would vote keep for it because it is both factual (one can look at the picture in the article) and verifiable (if you don't believe the picture, you can come to my house and the cat will be there). Your inclusion criteria makes does not take into account whether a subject is encyclopedic or not. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Fernando, WP:NOT is not deletion policy, and I am choosing to try dilligently to assess articles against deletion policy. It may well be possible to find things in all kinds of bits of policy that depreciate one thing or another, that does not make them deletion policy. As Kappa points out, with your cat, you are doing original research, there is nothing to reference except your photo of your cat. Trollderella 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC) PS. I'm sure it's a wonderful cat - we could probably benefit from a picture of it on your userpage! ;)[reply]
It may not be deletion policy. But it is very basic Wikipedia policy like WP:NPA. It supersedes the Deletion criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 07:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
You'll forgive me for attempting to make a joke; apparently it failed. (Note to self: Kappa and Trollederella do not dig cat jokes). Outside of the specific cat example, I do believe my point still stands. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I can't see how, you're constructing a strawman about a silly article that can't be verified without conducting original research, and trying to make the argument that articles that are referenced and do not need original research to verify are not valid because you might write one about your cat. Am I missing something? Trollderella 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're missing a joke. Relax. I was trying to point out what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning by means of a light-hearted example. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry! I am sure it's a great cat! Trollderella 17:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entirely hypothetical cat. :p Now back to your regularly scheduled VfD. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crushi.com

Not notable, and probably spam. See also Crushi. Finbarr Saunders 05:31, 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. Radiant_>|< 08:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

FilePile

First attempt at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile closed as hopeless. Abstain brenneman(t)(c) 05:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - for these reasons:
    • it has over 8000 members. WP:WEB mentions a lower limit of 5000 for notability. "Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members"
    • 7000 sites contain the site's URL.
    • Point of Rocks, Wyoming has an article (population: 3), so an 8000 strong website surely should.
    • The site has even inspired a parody.
    • the fact that dozens of FilePile members have defaced the article makes it more notable, in the same way that the Sollog article was made more notable by it's repeated vandalism by Sollogites.
    • it has even been mentioned in the same breath by Jason Kottke with Wikipedia and Firefox [8]
    • It is currently active [9], despite what the FilePile defacers would say. FilePile gets websites to remove their links to FilePile (see the current version of that page here)
    • The site appears to be the source of many internet memes and discussion on other sites, therefore it conforms to WP:WEB in the sense that "the website has had some impact on people beyond its core user base"
    • Nearly all of the website's peers (see here) have articles.

- Xed 08:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The site is so secretive that very little about them is verifiable. Even at best they do not appear notable. If they want to remain a secret then I say, "let them". Also, I note that the admin who closed the last VfD defaulted to 'keep' simply because of the "circus" that resulted. He suggested that "this discussion may be reopened later" and I see no reason to wait longer. This information does not enrich humanity in any way. -Willmcw 09:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, too secret. If they don't want an article about their site, so be it. Plus they'll end up getting shut down when the RIAA or MPAA or whoever catches up with them, anyway. Then we could recreate the article and detail how they all got fined, *giggle*. Proto t c 10:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Appears to meet WP:WEB, but is a private site. --GraemeL (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after more research. --GraemeL (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable, private, reportedly offline website. Difficult to verify information (e.g., there has been much controversy over whether the screenshot is even legitimate, or whether it has been edited, and there is no way to verify this). Jason 11:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
And to look at the some of reasons given by Xed to keep: first, we have no idea how many members the site has, it being private. Re: Points of Rock, the criteria for maintenance of geographical location stubs has no bearing on the criteria for maintenance of pages about non-notable subjects (i.e., my house has seven residents in it, should I put a page up on Wikipedia?). Parodies don't make a site notable in an of themselves. And mention by Jason Kottke doesn't make a site notable (or if it does, we have a lot of work to do cataloging all the sites, memes, people, places, and other subjects he's covered and adding those citations and references to those articles). Jason 11:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The last VfD saw an overwhelming number of Delete votes, but the process itself was a train wreck that ended with an admin decision of no consensus. After further discussion and a RfC on the page, there developed a near consensus that the subject was non-notable and unverifiable, and the article was re-nominated. --tranquileye 16:21:38, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
I tend to agree. This VfD seems to have happened because of pressure from sockpuppets and filepile users for another vote. Wikipedia should resist such pressure. - Xed 17:10, 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 Speedied as a recreation of previously-deleted content by Zoe. android79 15:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Kelly Penguin Girl"

Kelly Penguin Girl was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-31. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kelly Penguin Girl.

Seems not to qualify for notability, unless her podcast is heard by 5000 people. Can we quantify the number of listeners of podcasts? Zoe 05:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and merge into the Linux show. Trollderella 06:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Trollderella. Nateji77 07:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't vote to merge to a nonexistant article. And a podcast is also nn. Again, the criteria is 5000 listeners. Zoe 07:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Zoe, is it really necessary to have a running commentary of what you think of every vote I make? I think we should create the article, kicking the subject up a level, and keeping the factual and accurate material, as per the deletion policy. You disagree, that's great, you voted. Let's leave it at that. Trollderella 07:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's necessary to comment on every incorrect vote, when the vote is in opposition to deletion policy. But then, you think every road in the world should have an article, so why am I surprised that you think that every podcast in the world should have its own article? And I have to ask again, what article do you want to merge this into? Zoe 07:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd like to merge it into Linux User Show, as per deletion policy. I don't think I want to spend any more time discussing this with you, I don't think it's very productive. Why don't we both go and spend some time writing articles? Trollderella 07:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How can you "merge" into a nonexistant article? And I have to ask again, how many people hear that podcast? If it's less than 5000, then it fails WP:CSD. Zoe 07:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
            • By creating the article, and moving this information into it, along with more, if possible. If it were not likely to lead to more dogged pursuit by you, I would do it myself. I have no idea how many people hear the podcast. Leave it alone - we've both voted, please let others with different opinions to yours be. Trollderella 07:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Despite the name, VfD is a discussion, not a simple vote-tallying. Zoe is doing what's natural – attempting to further discussion and figure out your point of view. Also, I feel compelled to remind you, again, that moving or copy-pasting content from a VfD'd article is not wise. android79 18:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kelly is the quick-witted, funny, counterpoint to Jon's geek-oriented presentation of the Linux operating system for new users. is a complete POV statement and without that all that's left is the fact she's a co-host and the external link. I've got nothing against reviving it and merging if the article on the show is ever created, but right now, I'd have to vote delete based on CSD A1. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established Sliggy 18:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as recreation of previously-deleted article. Not notable. Merging to a non-existant article is a nonsensical vote; I think you mean "move" or "rename". android79 12:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, could you tell us if the previously-deleted article had substantially similar content to this one? android79 18:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • For you to decide for yourselves:
        • Kelly Penguin Girl: Kelly Penguin Girl makes regular appearances on the Linux User Show, a fantabulous podcast. Popularized the term ...
        • "Kelly Penguin Girl": Kelly Penguin Girl is Jon Watson's co-host on The Linux User Show podcast. Kelly is the ...
      • Both articles are 2 sentences long with the same external link. Uncle G 19:31:43, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • Create Linux User Show, Merge, and then Delete "Kelly Penguin Girl". CAPS LOCK 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not possible. That would require a redirect from "Kelly Penguin Girl" to Linux User Show. android79 18:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification: you can only merge and redirect. Merge and delete is incompatible with the GFDL (see Guide to Votes for deletion). - Mgm|(talk) 07:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per android. Dottore So 18:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the notice at the top of this page indicates that this is a recreation of a previously-VfD'd article, I am going to be bold and speedy delete. Zoe 19:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • That CSD criterion only applies to substantially similar re-created articles, which is why I asked Uncle G to check the old page's history. If you would be so kind as to do that, we can avoid having this article end up at VfU. android79 19:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Based on Uncle G's response above, I believe this was an appropriate speedy deletion. android79 19:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy on jeff

Classic band vanity. No Googles. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oft

Move to Wiktionary and delete. Zoe 05:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa baryan

For a famous child prodigy, she sure doesn't have any Google whatsoever. Neither does her father. Aussies/Kiwis, is this for real? - Lucky 6.9 06:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Get rid of it. The same user has made Amber Baryan, which smacks of nonsense also. Dysprosia 06:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if true, nn. I speedy deleted the article on her mother because it failed to allege notability (note that her mother's article didn't even mention these supposed books). Let's not fill in all of those red links, please? Zoe 06:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete That information would be better on their userpage.--inks 06:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Tara Undercliff and Dance under the pretty trees. Zoe 06:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete non-verifiable, and, probably, non-factual. Trollderella 07:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable/vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also delete all related articles, Tara Undercliff is a pseudonym and should be included in the soon to be deleted page on the author in the first place. And Dance under the pretty trees is a self-published book no one knows about. Last statement in article is pure advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and the related stuff, per Mgm. --GraemeL (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm an Australian and I've never heard of her or her Dad. A Google search on her came up empty handed. I can assure you that if a four year old child prodigy daughter of a TV celebrity had written her first book, there would be rather more interest than shown in this search [10].

Capitalistroadster 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. HappyCamper 06:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rigmare

Neologism. Zero relevant Google hits. Bovlb 06:13:02, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. The m/r votes are clearly towards the news network, but they are significantly outnumbered by simple keepage. -Splash 00:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Linder

Non-notable hatemonger. I would say userfy to User:Amalekite, but he already has a user page. Zoe 06:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep the fact that we may find him personally offensive is not a good reason to try to remove a factual and verifiable article. Let's try to get over our own POVs. Having said that, I notice that the information on the page is not verified. We should probably remove it until it can be, and, if it ends up being a stub in the meantime, redirect to Vanguard News Network. Trollderella 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get over yourself, troll. His nomination is for his lack of notability and the fact that he's a Wikipedia user and shouldn't be writing an autobiography of himself, not because of his disgustinginess. Zoe 07:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Zoe, I, for one, would appreciate it if you could try to remain civil. I don't think it costs anything to refrain from personal abuse, and it certainly improves the likelihood of reaching agreement. Yours, Trollderella 21:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, troll, I, for one, would appreciate it if you could try not to ascribe motives to me which are not correct. Zoe 04:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Zoe, I think the only motive that I ascribed to you was that you were trying to reach agreement. Sorry if that is not true. Trollderella 21:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.*DaBomb I think it provides notable information on a man that advocates the murder of billions. Linder is a slightly different topic than VNN, but a merge could work.
  • Merge and redirect as per Radiant. Andre (talk) 18:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Inconclusive. No VfD tag or any other notice was displayed on the article at any time during the discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cayden Boyd

Well, it is in her right to vote for the article (or have the rules changed so new users can't vote?) Dysprosia 06:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbable

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carey y Cía. Ltda.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SFTPPlus

Advertising. I suggest to remove the article. Prikryl 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also would-be comparison at List of SFTP clients.

Moreover there was considerable number of ad-like insertions into various pages from the same IP (82.153.185.73) refering to the SFTPPlus. Most of which were removed as vandalism.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linux blogs

A chatty definition of Linux, and a list of three blogs "of repute". Not encyclopedic it its current form, and I'm not sure it has the potential. Bovlb 07:18:29, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turla

Long-winded advert for a Yahoo group for people who share a specific surname. Bovlb 07:21:27, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squodge mcdodge

When I cheked this out I originally listed it as a speedy delete as I was unable to find any reference to Squodge mcdodge anywhere. This was removed later. Later after I asked for references the blog link was created. The blog was created in August. There was also three email contacts. One was not valid and eventually I got replies from Steve Harris <stevharris@gmail.com> "If this is about the wiki thing, then Squodge wasn't really a major thing, surprised it was put on wikipedia. Suppose i could get pics and stuff if you relly wanted" and Chris Sawyer <sawychris@gmail.com> "i can provide images. blogs arnt good enough apparently". Even if this stuff is true then it's non-notable as it's only available in Northern Ireland. CambridgeBayWeather 07:58, 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: KEEP. 2 deletes (including nom) vs 7 keeps. Adding {{cleanup}} per several recommendations by keep voters to do so. Tomer TALK 07:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas

It's a minimally-informative essay on the use of electrical equipment in areas where hazardous vapors may be present. I'm sure we've already got a better-written article or two on this. --Carnildo 07:59, 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 title+moved =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Air-India passenger airliner hijack by Taliban from Kathmandu to Kandahar

I object to the title of this redirect. Where is the evidence that the Taliban was responsible for the hijack ? It is true that the Taliban seemed to be a far warmer host than many countries for the hijackers but that is not sufficient to imply the Taliban did it. Manik Raina 08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assmonkey

While it boasts a whomping 5000+ results on Google, I wonder if Wikipedia really needs this. Acetic Acid 08:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical musicology

This article has nothing to do with the academic discipline of historical musicology

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 DIAMETER. -Splash 01:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DCCA

DCCA has now become RFC 4006, the draft doesn't exist anymore. But it contains so little text, and I don't think it can be expanded anymore. It should be folded back into DIAMETER.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter use in Brasil

  • Delete This user is also posting articles such as, Cocaine use in Brazil, Anal Sex in Brazil. Paul Klenk 08:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this one is rather interesting. I have no opinion on the other articles. Should be renamed to 'Helicopter Use in Sao Paulo', and I was about to do so, but will leave the existing title until this VfD is finished.-gadfium 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to Delete. Paul Klenk can put any relevant information he wants into the Sao Paulo article, but there's no need to keep this.-gadfium 04:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Oh Klenk, why the raw feelings about a lifestyle you obviously dont understand i doubt if anyone would care what you say about me as I have always been friendly and willing to learn while a quick check of your comments about me and your past dealings and blocks for personal attacks speak for themselves.Wiki brah 08:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article. Needs sources. Needs more sources Kappa 10:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unsure. Neither the São Paulo, São Paulo nor the helicopter articles seem to mention this interesting phenomenon at all. We'd be a lot better served if the information were in one of these two places and linked from the other, IMO. The information here is scanty, the article doesn't actually say what the ratio of helicopters to people is, even approximately, it just baldly declares that it's the highest in the world, and offers no figures or references to back this claim, which is therefore unverifiable and arguably therefore unencyclopedic. So the article if accurate may have potential, but as is it would be no great loss if deleted, and it's not obvious to me how to fix it. Andrewa 11:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, reference doesn't seem to back up the claim the helicopter/inhabitant rate is the highest there. Should be merged in city article and mentioned in Sao Paolo article once it is. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unexpected gem - who would guess Sao Paolo has the highest helicopter per capita? maybe a rename of article as others have suggested as seems specific to Sao Paolo. --KURANDO 13:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to São Paulo. Would be worth mentioning as trivia in the helicopter article as well. Though I would like to see a citation for the "highest per capita" claim.Roodog2k 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim that makes this a noteworthy subject is unsourced, and apparently original research/commentary. Monicasdude 16:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but spell Brazil correctly. Trollderella 16:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely dependent upon one source; its essentially a summary of the Wash Post article with a couple of other unreferenced claims. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single source quoted as supporting this article is itself entirely unreferenced and full of anecdotal evidence, in part speculative, and is achingly POV. Just because it's got numbers in it doesn't mean it's true. Delete. Sliggy 18:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Summary of newspaper article. Suggest information appear in Sao Paolo article instead. Sdedeo 19:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only relevant content is about Sao Paolo, so that's where this peculiarity should be noted. Agree with Sdedeo, Sliggy, Fernando Rizo.

Dottore So 19:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This has just undergone an extensive rewrite and is no longer an article but a factoid (see its talk page). I stand by my delete comment above and vote to Merge copy and paste the contents to another page, but only if the facts can be verified. Paul Klenk 17:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC) + Do not hang on to the redirect page -- get rid of it. Paul Klenk 01:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A good try, but why? The still unverified claim that São Paulo, São Paulo has the highest per capita helicopter ownership in the world can be merged to the other articles without leaving a redirect, so long as you rephrase it into your own words as you have done. There is no merit in keeping this as a redirect, nor its history (nor IMO this claim, based apparently on an inaccurate reading of a sensationalized newspaper report, but that should be discussed in the talk pages of the articles concerned). No change of vote. Andrewa 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Exactly right, and possibly added partly in response to my first post (unsure, above). However note another has subsequently commented This is not unverified, the article has a reference (also above). The point several of us have made is that this reference does not actually support the claim. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Note: The opinions of many anon and sockpuppet votes were steeply discounted during my decision. However, the facts presented by the new users were considered.

Rossami (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 139 club

Not sufficiently notable This is just one student club at Glasgow University, there are a few dozen such clubs at GU alone. Some of the more important student bodies e.g. Glasgow University Union are encyclopedic this is not. I suspect an attempt at POV-pushing in relation to the historic mixing isse, this is reasonably dealt with in the GUU article, anything legitimate should be added there. PatGallacher 10:10, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

  • This is legitimate and official. Ask the GUU Board of Management for authorisation
    • This last comment is from an anon user. PatGallacher 14:46, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The 139 Club has no official links with the GUU and is completely independent. I think the GUU management would prefer this page to be seperate as not to confuse the issue. It would be best to contact their president. Thank you Robert Marrs

  • DO NOT MERGE This club is an entirely separate entity from the GUU and as other 'affiliates' such as the GU Dialectic Society have their own section so to should the 139.
    • I would regard Glasgow University Dialectic Society as borderline notable, but looking at its article it does go back to about 1861, may go back further, it has played a significant role since then, so I'll let it pass. Wikipedia is not paper, but that does not mean every student club at every university should have an entry. PatGallacher 19:33, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. A small club founded in 2002? Not-notable. Sdedeo 19:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Roodog2k. I'll change my vote to Delete since a redirect would imply a relationship that, per above, does not exist. Dottore So 19:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, as the anon keeps insisting, a redirect to Glasgow University Union would not be appropriate. Zoe 20:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Vanity. POV. 62.252.128.18 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do apologise if this is causing consternation. I was under the impression that the whole point of a "live" environment like Wikipedia's was that so quirks like this might have a place.

1) The Dialectic has history from before 1861. The earliest paper records show somewhere before 1770.. although it could be older still, and no doubt is (i.e. it is unlikely that the first ever record would be kept etc).

2) On the Dialectic page, it should be 'Reftable Debate' not 'Refutable'.

3) I think student societies should be separate from unions they may or may not be affiliated to. They are, after all, separate organisations.

4) If someone created a page for the Hawks Club (i.e. the sporting blues assoc. at Cambridge) there wouldn't be such an outcry. I am surprised there isn't a page for this historical society.

5) I would also point to the TCD Phil and TCD Hist societies - why do these have separate pages, when they ostensibly do the same thing - why not merge the pages? I don't think mere 'age' is a good enough reason to keep some things, and remove others - it is somewhat arbitrary.

6) The 139 plays a very distinct role, one clearly different from the student union it might happen to use for it's dinners.

R Marrs

R Marrs is running several issues together, some of his comments about other pages should be dealt with on their own merits, not dealt with here. There is not yet a page for the Hawks Club, I reserve judgement on whether to treat it as notable. I can't find the pages for the "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" societies, could he point us to them? The crucial point he is missing here is that if the 139 Club is notable, then every student club at every university in the world is notable. PatGallacher 23:26, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

  • Keep Why shouldn't every student club at every university in the world have a place? My understanding of Wikipedia was that these quirks and idiosyncracies made it unique. ("Trinity College Dublin" contains the links to TCD Phil & Hist)P.S. I am currently President of the Glasgow University Union and no sock puppet! --Niallrowantree 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This last comment is by an anon user, I suspect some sockpuppetry. I have had a look at the Trinity College, Dublin article, it says "Trinity College has a vibrant student life with 96 societies and 50 sports clubs", are we really going to have a Wikipedia article for all 144 clubs, and the same for all other universities? TCD Phil and TCD Hist are the only 2 student clubs at TCD who appear to have an article, they and GU Dialectic have a lengthy history and organise some sort of significant intellectual activity, not just a booze-up once a term, several student clubs at GU do more than that. PatGallacher 17:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hawks Club - from my understanding it is a club for all the Blues at Cambridge. This would include some sporting stars such as Rob Andrew, Gavin Hastings and some not so sporting stars such as Hugh Laurie. I presume this would be dealt with separately from say the Cambridge University Sports Association, although they are obviously linked together.

The crucial point PatGallacher is missing is that there is no reason as to why every student club at every university isn't notable. Will The 139 be allowed on here if one of their alumni becomes a Captain of Industry or a politician etc? I would argue such arbitrary distinctions are nonsense. If people are arguing for it's inclusion, surely that alone nearly makes it worthy of inclusion?

Would it not make Wikipedia a more vibrant encyclopedia to include quirks such as The 139? I don't think we have heard good enough arguments from PatGallacher - and surely, it is for the 'deleters' to prove their case.

Moreover, the real fact of the matter is that not all societies will fill up the pages of Wikipedia. For example, Eton College has it's own entry but is really only an educational establishment which happens to have had a few old boys go on to do a few things. Would you object to this because every school in the world might want an entry? No clearly not, because clearly not every school in the world wants a page on Wikipedia.

Sock Puppetry? I'm not exactly sure what that is being relatively new to the Wikipedia phenomenon. Niall Rowantree is the current president of the Union, and I think was the person behind the original 139 entry. I would get in contact with him, his details are readily available on the GUU website.

I think this comes down to simple snobbishness. 'GU Dialectic has a lengthy history and organise some sort of intellectual activity, not just a booze up once a term, several student clubs at GU do more than that'.

If The 139 held debates, political rallies or brainstorming sessions would a page be approved? If PatGallacher had any contact with either the Dialectic, or the Phil and the Hist, he/she would know that rather a lot of their activities are based around 'booze ups'. The fact that something is new should not preclude it from entry, and the fact that something is not 'intellectual', and I don't know where that allegation comes from whether it is true or not, should preclude entry either.

Robert Marrs

Robert Marrs (acting as an anon user) deleted the whole of the previous discussion to enter this, I had to retrieve the previous version and add his comments. This smacks of vandalism, but it may just have been a mistake by an newbie. PatGallacher 18:39, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry didn't mean to delete the entire thread of the debate - I was just trying to clear the screen so I could type. I didn't think it would actually delete the whole thing from wikipedia. I hope my incompetence doesn't count against me! Robert Marrs


Furthermore, I notice the Glasgow University Shinty Club has it's own page. Neither particularly historic, promotes drinking far more heavily than The 139 (which bizarrely seems to be a criteria) and probably not particularly noteworthy under most people's definitions. I'd keep it, but I think we have a precedent for University Clubs at Glasgow getting their own page.--86.130.145.220 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Robert Marrs's points are not persuasive. He gives reasons why a "Hawks Club" entry would be suitable: the prominence of members, the international name recognition it has. "The 139 Club" has neither of these attributes.

Equally his argumentation regarding "Eton" is self-defeating. Arguments against the inclusion of other schools would clearly be if they were "not sufficiently notable"; the very same charge being leveled against "the 139 Club" entry.

His points regarding "booze-ups" and linking "Glasgow University Dialectic Society", "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" are unconvincing. While drinking may occur in those other institutions that is not their primary activity nor constitutional function. Their role is a public one, which "the 139 Club"'s is not: to debate.

Despite Mr Marrs's comments: newness should preclude entry, unless the institutional is unusually notable.

There is no "right" to be included in "Wikipedia". Instead there are criteria which make inclusion worthwhile to a global community. A primary one being "sufficiently notable". Brown27 11:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've had rather a lot of experience of TCD Phil, TCD Hist and the Dialectic, I wonder very much whether you have? If not, your opinion is somewhat valueless. You are assuming things that might not actually be true. 2) I would say a decent definition of encyclopedia means 'A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically, usually dealing with the entire field of human knowledge'. Surely including The 139 would make Wikipedia more 'comprehensive' and such articles would meet the criteria of a 'wide range of subjects'. Limiting things on somewhat arbitray bases such as 'newness', 'fame' and the 'activity they do' is somewhat snobbish and prescriptivist. Why is boozing any less valuable than some students debating, if this is what The 139 actually do? Why is the relatively new (and non-historic, non-famous) GU Shinty club allowed a page? 3) The 139 isn't even particularly new, as it is based around a historical event - highlighting how important that event is to some people. However, as they are independent of the GUU they should not be lumped together here. --RobertMarrs 12:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it says somewhere. I would regard Glasgow University Shinty Club as only borderline notable, but it has been in existence since 1901, represents the university at a recognised sport, and has had some significant successes over the years. Merely commemorating a notable event does not make you notable, I suspect POV pushing. We already have the "average professor test" i.e. to be notable you have to have done more than the average professor, I suggest we add the "average student club test". PatGallacher 16:44, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

But if this test was to be brought in, you would have to delete GU Shinty as they aren't terribly notable - 103 years old, a few successes, hardly Kingussie Shinty Club. Surely POV pushing is what this is all about - you think it should be out, I think it should be in. POV pushing by using the page itself is nonsensical, there is no point of view pushing on the page it merely relates facts. Unless, you think that the club itself has an agenda - which would make nearly every club in the world not worthy of inclusion.--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On another point who actually makes the decision here?--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. GlasgowUni 22:24, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
  • SAVE This is very much a note worthy club because of its relationship to the critical shift in membership status for women at the last all male student club. If this event and the club it created is not note worthy what is? --ViaVeritasVita 11:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interest that this has ignited is reason enough for keeping it!--Niallrowantree 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- not notable The 139 club is certainly not worthy of note. It is only a few years old and amounts to drunken boyish tomfoolery. The original 139 (who voted not to accept women in 1981) have never been at or even associated with this club- if you can call it that. Infact they would be disgusted at the behaviour of some of the members at this dinner. All this amounts to is vanity. 62.49.29.190

Um, do we accept votes from people with no name? Because surely that is more likely to involve sock-puppetry? On the last post, it seems to me we have a classic example of POV pushing. 1) No name 2) Allegations that, let's face it, cannot be upheld. Debate the issue on it's merits (which on the whole have been widely sidestepped) not on whether you like the club or not. --RobertMarrs 07:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The 139 may be there, ostensibly, to commemorate a past event but the fact that the club is only a few years old speaks even more against it. That there was no previous club, from what I can tell, or even if there was the fact that it was discontinued (if it did exist at all a continuous existence since the vote has not been mentioned on this site), implies that this event, whilst of note in the history of the Glasgow University Union, seems not important enough even for a "society" to be formed in its honour, let alone to have a seperate entry dedicated to it (in the form of this nascent club). If those around at the time did not feel strongly enough about it then those, twenty years later, cannot claim to be maintaining any sort of grand tradition of note. It's a bit sad really

Furthermore, I can vouch for brown27's remarks as to these debating societies. Mr Marrs' argument, such that it is, that "I have considerable experience- do you!" is not only pathetically childish it is also exposes the duplicitous nature of his whole approach here. Perhaps to Mr. Marrs debating at Glasgow University is only about gettign drunk, but to the vast majority there is a higher purpose, as exhibited in the Constitution and in the long, long, honourable traditon and history of the Society. The fact he refuses to admit this- despite his great experience- is quite scandalous and undermines his case. The argument, at any rate, was not about whether there is drinking but if that was the primary purpose. It evidently is not in the case of the Dialectic Society but is in the case of the 139 Club.

The reasons to delete it are so numerous. The reason to keep it seems to be based on the merits of non-existent entries. Perhaps that tells us something. The 139 cannot claim anything to the public good, the public interest, the public knowledge- it is the definition of without note.

--Brian Roberts 12:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok good some actual arguments. Thanks Brian. Firstly, my points regarding my experience with the societies (GUD, TCD Hist and TCD Phil)were that I had direct first hand experience of those societies, I doubt very much whether 'Anon' does. If they don't have experience of these societies, how on earth can they claim to know what they do or how they operate? They cannot - surely? Moreover, my point for the Hist and the Phil was that there was a precedent for two linked societies having separate pages (i.e. they do the same thing at the same university), and I also pointed out the precedent of The GU Shinty club - which would also meet your criteria of being without note. I think my knowledge of the society in question is shown above, where I've tried to correct factual errors on the GUD page... On drinking - ah reductio ad absurdum, the old classic. My point about GUD drinking stands. 45 people speak in a GUU parliamentary, double that number (at least) go to the after debate drinks. Moreover, for many of GUD's members are there primarily for social reasons - only between 8 and 10 debate competitively outwith the GUU. So for many members, as these examples show the main point is the socialising. Nothing wrong at all with being a social member, I am happy to say while I was at university I enjoyed both the debating side and the social side.

On your point regarding the original 139. Many refused ever to set foot in the building after the mixing issue, so it would be a bit difficult to keep things going. Moreover, there are other societies that keep such traditions at Glasgow alive but aren't quite as public as the 139. I point to 'The Lion and Unicorn Club' amongst others, so the spirit has indeed lived on.

I think the encyclopedia definition that I gave is a more compelling argument than your definition of 'without note', but at least you have been good enough to give one.

TTFN--RobertMarrs 13:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Rob's post. There are numerous all-male societies around campus for undergraduates and graduates, and many of the original 139 attend these dinners. The Diners Club (I think now defunct) operated for a good few years; The Winers Club (still in operation); the LAMB Club (still in operation, standing for Last All Male Board); The Lion & Unicorn (still in operation although numbers are drastically down); The Jolly Rodgerers (now defunct, ran by a board member throughout the 1980's and 1990's); The 139 Club (as discussed above, relatively new although admittedly thriving); The 21 Club (rather unsavoury even by University drinking standards, I think now defunct)the Monkey Steakers (I think disbanded, but ran for many a year).

Also, of some importance, is the Girlie Dinner. This dinner is run by girls in and around the GUU, and has been running for over 10 years. However, it does seem to have taken a nosedive in recent years and does not have the 'fervour' of The 139.

A number of those clubs appear to be defunct. However, of course if students are offered a chance to get drunk for very little money people are going to come. The other clubs mentioned are old boy clubs- which are different entities. But none of this undermines my point- the purpose of these "societies" appears to be to drink. However many people who ATTEND debates go for drink, that is not the point of debating. And if it is then that is truly sad. I will also add that the number of people who can go outside the university to debate competitively is rather limited due to places available and funding. I would 10 was a very high number indeed.

Secondly, as to other pages like the Shinty club. No-one has claimed that this society is the definition of a club of note. We are not discussing the nerits of the Shinty club entry, rather the merits of this entry. The fact there are other illegitimate entries uncontested does not mean this illegitimate entry should be allowed.

--217.43.198.2 19:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Causes

Vanity band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC standardsZeimusu | Talk page 11:14, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Waters

Vanity. The assertion of notablity made, but seems weak. see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Natural CausesZeimusu | Talk page 11:13, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Rosi

Delete - Non notable musician. One relevant Google hit, which is his own Geocities site. PubLife 11:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thesubmachine

Secret society of 30 members, on the internet you say?!. Delete PubLife 11:50, 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. Rossami (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Russell

Suspected vanity or advertising page. The anon creator of this page first added link to website on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then created this page, then added a comment on the discussion page that the subject is notable because his website is listed on Wikipedia's H2G2 page. In any case I think the community should be asked for consensus on his notability. RobertG ♬ talk 12:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. At best, the website deserves an external link in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, without reference to its creator, which is already there. android79 12:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable dog breed... wait, sorry, that's Jack Russell. Delete webmaster and replace with hyperspace bypass. DS 13:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Roodog2k 13:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and feed to the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant vanity. Hall Monitor 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I think even the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal draws the line at webmasters. Dottore So 19:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 00:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I'm the original author) -- The entry has been accused of vanity, which may seem the case. (I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little vain.) In any event, each of the sites mentioned are, in fact, the "largest on the web in their particular genre". While other editors of this fine site may not personally be aware of these particular sites, this does not change the fact that when I say "the largest", I do so based on unbiased numbers. I did not claim that they were the best (etc.), as this would be mere opinion, but "largest" is a term used to define a measurable statistic, which in these cases, refer to sheer volume of information. At any rate, the Jake Russell article has been signifigantly modified to better "fit in" with the encyclopedic nature of this site. One other issue that I should mention, as it concerns editors involved with the original article re: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I don't mind that my entries are moved, as this is the very nature of Wikipedia, but the reasons given is that the link to HHGTTGOnline.com is "suspected vanity". This is not the case. I reordered the sites in a legitimately fair order. HHGTTGOnline.com is the largest fan site. DouglasAdams.se is the largest fan-forum. ZZ9 (while a worthwhile group) is a fan appreciation society, and not as relevant to the majority of surfers simply looking for information, pictures, merchandise, etc.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 17:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antimaniax

"Antimaniax is a four-piece skacore band from Austria." That's all the article says, no evidence of WP:MUSIC or anything. Radiant_>|< 12:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC) Keep as rewritten. Radiant_>|< 12:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Hossain

Non notable politician. Finished 5th out of 8 candidates in the only contest mentioned. Delete. 86.131.78.149 12:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry - I thought I was logged in! I am the nominator. --Cje 12:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabelle Gish

Unverifiable. Two Google hits, both of which also feature Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Given the shortness and overall quality of this article, Delete seems to be the least painful remedy. --DrTorstenHenning 12:36, 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. Sasquatch讲看 03:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Halfhide, Amsterdam Songwriters Guild, Reaganesk, Arthur ten Cate, Robin Block and Selma Peelen

No evidence of notability. The search term "Halfhide" gets 13,000 hits but few of them are him. His blog is titled "When will Halfhide be famous?" and says "Producer, musician, labelmanager... Eventually I'll turn these words into careers." I think he is jumping the gun here. -- DS1953 12:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Per the suggestions below, I am adding the other pages to this nomination.
Oh, likely to be Userfy. Alf 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And all the links from there, some stubs started in March. Alf 22:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A nod to DS1953. I formally extend my vote to delete all of these entries. Dottore So 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok, guys. I understand why you want to delete these pages. I just don't like the hidden presumption that I'm willfully spoiling the Wikipedia. I guess I don't understand the vibe here. It seems every entry has to be interesting. Wikipedia apparently has no ambition to reflect the real world, where there are also little known initiatives. Or is it the fact that I'm involved in the above mentioned entries? How else are you getting people motivated to write an article? It's either interest or involvement. I now learned involvement is not done. So be it. But I didn't mean to do harm. Good luck with the Wiki. -- Juiceboyy 19:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was: KEEP but REWRITE (including VFD nominator). Will add {{cleanup}} tag pending the invention of a pertinent {{rewrite}} tag (I don't think the current {{rewrite}} applies to the outcome of the below discussion)... Tomer TALK 07:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Asrat Woldeyes

Not-notable. Only notability assertion here is that his Father was killed during the Mussolini occupation of Ethipia. Tragically many Ethiopians have Fathers killed during the Mussoloni occupation. Delete. Cje 13:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astroknotics

Two students having a lot of fun does not establish notability. Only Google hits appear to be from band members. Non-notable band. Delete. Cje 13:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (done by Ambi, I'm closing this as s/he didn't). ~~ N (t/c) 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atixive

Does not establish notability. Yet another snippet of fan/game-cruft that means nothing to the non-initiate. Delete. Alright merge into the appropriate page for that game. Cje 13:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn ul alam Hunza

Hoax? Vanity? Googling for "alam Hunza", "alam Hunzai", "alam Sani", "alam Hun" gives nothing to support article's claim of notability. Also, claims of defence of "ethnic Pakistanis" seems suspicious, since "Pakistan" is an amalgam less than 60 years old. DS 13:41, 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 keep, no consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Arms

I think I've been there - nice place, as I recall - but I can't see why this is especially notable Finbarr Saunders 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I agree that this is testing the bounds of notability, but we seem to have over a hundred articles on British pubs, and this is one with a certain history and signifigance. The article could certainly do with expansion. How about a photo? Bovlb 14:18:39, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • Delete having been there many times, I can confirm that there is nothing of note about the place. Hvaing the odd refit doesn't give you much singificance. -Splash 16:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems factual and verifiable to me, no reason to delete given. Trollderella 16:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that he does, but notability is not part of the deletion criteria. Trollderella 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, however, when something is non-notable, it is often a good enough reason for many Wikipedians for the reasons given in WP:N. I'd also recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. It's worth noting that in music and in vanity articles, non-notability is a sufficient reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Blackcap | talk 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Eagle and Child has entry supported by it being the haunt of JRR Tolkien, have any of the said notable musicians smashed up the bar, or given and impromptu gig there? I might be biased on this one though. I think the third para about refits needs a severe pruning. Alf 16:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Just on the edge of notability. Given the admirable absence of promotional info, I say be generous. Sdedeo 18:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needs a clearer association with something/somebody of note per Alf. Dottore So 19:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Trollderella's repeated contention that notability is not a deletion criterion is false. Zoe 21:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
So you keep saying Zoe, but the word 'notability' does not occur in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I know, I know, you're going to claim that some kind of verbal tradtion handed down from father to son, or argument from inference from some other page that has nothing to do with deletion policy means that it really is. However, in making my votes, I have tried to assess the article against Wikipedia's actual deletion policy, and in making comments, have made them about what is actually deletion policy. Trollderella 21:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the word "notability" may not appear on the deletion policy page, its synonyms do in the criteria for speedy deletion, to which I wish articles like this were subject. If it is policy you want, let us consider WP:NOT, which states categorically that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something can verifiably be said to exist does not make it worthy of having an article here. The fire hydrant outside my home exists, and I'm sure I could find a great deal of documentation regarding it which would not constitute original research. However, its notability, except to the neighborhood dogs, is suspect. If you are really looking to participate in a project which collects knowledge like so much string and tinfoil, may I suggest Everything2, where inclusionists are welcomed (be aware, though, that even in that paradise, some articles are not accepted). Denni☯ 00:56, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
I somewhat resent the fact that, every time it is pointed out that nowhere in deletion policy is 'notability' mentioned, the discussion is taken immediately to 'oh, then you must be a lunatic who wants to keep absolutely everything, no matter how stupid it is'. That's simply not true, and not a fair characterisation of my position. If there is some synonym of notability that is, in fact, in the deletion policy, then why not use that? To demolish that extremely common and frustrating strawman, again, I really suspect that there is not enough documentation on the fire hydrant outside your house to write an article that would give information about that fire hydrant that was not true of any other one, except it's location. It would have no possibility to grow beyond a sub-stub, and would be better being merged into an article on fire hydrants in general. I am not advocating maintaining a list of all fire hydrants, this is clearly one of the things that wikipedia is not. A pub is a differnt class of creature, having unique attributes that we could write an article about. Trollderella 21:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's up for VfD, too. Pilatus 16:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I merged it anyway. See Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The King Street Run. Flowerparty talk 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. It says at the bottom of the VfD not to do that, and for good reason. If there were now a consensus here to delete the page, which there could be, you'd have invalidated that vote by merging it for us, The GFDL insists we keep authorship history. Being bold is all very well, but not when it cuts out half the voters in a discussion. -Splash 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, oh dear, you're quite right. Sorry about that. But since they're both up for deletion it seems sensible to point out the other discussion. Flowerparty talk 21:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Willy on Wheels (on wheels)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orxonox

Still in development, not yet playable. Massive number of Google hits, mostly on their personal mailing list. Come back in a year, kids. DS 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by the author: I've no problem that you would like to delete this article since, I have to own up, that the contents of the article is yet weak. We will work on the topic some more years and return later. But what I do not appreciate, is that someone blames us for doing open-source software by calling us "kids" in a public domain as the wikipedia (DS 14:18, 26 August 2005). I think that judgeing over other people who write articles is nor in your responsablility nor is it the philosophy of wikipedia. It casts a negative light on the very good idea bases wikipedia. Anyway thanks for the feedback. thrawn at orxonox.ethz.ch, 00:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His Essence

Article about non-notable item; essentially an advertisement. —Preost talk contribs 14:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of hosts of the Oscars ceremony

The information for this page was obtained from (and sourced to) answers.com, which in turn got it from another Wikipedia page, since answers.com uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. So this is duplicate (and incestuous, sort of) information :) Readparse 15:24, 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. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of The Giant Golden Microphone

Microfaith, high school prank that got a little passing publicity. Few googles, most are dead-end, suggest few heard of it, and most are forgetting fast --Doc (?) 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed --Doc (?) 17:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of the Giant Golden Microphone should stay! It is this type of eccentricity and humor that keeps East Tennesseans laughing at themselves and their unique architecture.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. For a non-admin, this is a tough call, so I hope I don't get called for making it...but I'm calling this one "no consensus, therefore send it back to the drawing board". I feel fairly confident in doing so, since even the nominator noted that the version at the time of closing was significantly different from the version at the time of nomination. I'm going to close the VFD, because I don't see that the later discussion was even mildly contentious, but I'm also going to add a {{cleanup}} to the article, and let those editors working on the article itself decide when to remove it. Tomer TALK 07:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


English on the Internet

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . Wikiacc (talk) 16:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

(Note: This was the article in question at the time of its listing.) --Wikiacc (talk)


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 18:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mule (smuggling)

Just a dictionary definition and an unimportant reference to some film. - Centrx 16:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug mule redirects here. Trollderella 16:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, if drugs were the only things that mules smuggled. I don't think they are, so the best thing to do is have drug mule point to the more general mule (smuggling) article. Of course, if there are any places where mules are contraband, we can always start a mule smuggling page too! Trollderella 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're prob right there, I was thinking from a "I'd probably type.. to find it", so redirect the other way works anyhoo. Alf 18:09, 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.

In light of the poverty of some of the countries that sponsor this kind of smuggling; these drug-mules often have no idea that what they are doing is bad. I would suspect that many of them are stupid pimps or whores who are desperate for more drugs

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Note: one probable sockpuppet discounted. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rojo.com

NN, was originally on speedy claiming to have failed Google Test. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have greeted intial editor and asked for input as to either speedy or reason to keep other than advertising. Alf 17:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May fail Google test, but I find the result of the Alexa test, quite respectable: rank 18,415. - Mgm|(talk) 18:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't easily grok your deletion policy. Is Rojo.com being considered for deletion because it is a commercial enterprise or because it is presumed to an advertising ploy? It is certianly a commercial enterprise, not unlike Bloglines, Feedster, Technorati, and dozens of other companies referenced in Wikipedia. Rojo has been covered by many major publications such as Forbes, Fortune, Red Herring, etc. (see: http://rojo.jot.com/Press) and has many thousands of users. The service is available here: http://www.rojo.com, the associated blog is here: http://blog.rojo.com, and the corporate site is located here: www.rojonetworks.com (also rojo.jot.com). Any questions about our true existence of Rojo can be sent to feedback@rojo.com.
  • Original author here. Created article based on similarly intended services with wiki entries, Bloglines, RSSOwl, AmphetaDesk, Kinja, LiveJournal, Newster, RSS_Feed_Reader. After consideration, 'Rojo Networks' is likely a better page title. This is an important and emerging tool along the lines of Flickr, Technorati, Feedster, etc. Article should include history and additional academic information about the significance of the service. Alf was correct that I have not read advertising policy, which I will read shortly. However, this site was in no way intended as an advertisement. If that is the issue at hand, then I will gladly modify it to eliminate that concern. Here 20:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find no problems with the current article considering the comperable wiki entries for Flickr, Bloglines, RSSOwl, AmphetaDesk, Kinja, LiveJournal, Newster, RSS_Feed_Reader and other web services articles. Not only is its popularity on par with listed apps, but it also provides a unique approach to the service by including social networking. I am working on adding more information to flesh out the encyclopedic value of the article. Further considering no violation of the following advertising policy: (from Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine) (Not) Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. Here 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The aggregator is unique in its use of tags and a social network in one web app. Here 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria guidelines.
  1. Alexa Rank 10,000 or higher (18,762 -- fails, but close)
  2. National Press Coverage (definitely true)
  3. 5,000 aparently unique users (definitely thousands, not sure of user base)
Here 20:12, August 31, 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: +10/-1 =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Minnal

Old-time honest cop in India who has since retired and is a minor official in a religious charity. His nickname "Minnal", meaning "Lightning", is ungoogleable, and both the spellings I tried for his full name returned barely a dozen hits that seemed unrelated. Honest cops may be rare, but they're not inherently notable. DS 16:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jambo_Networks

Advertising Grayum 17:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go motorcycle

Notable? ' "go motorcyle" evel' Gets two Google hits, including the site itself.DJ Clayworth 17:16, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Toad

Delete. Probable hoax which has survived eight months. Intro states: "The identities of its members are unknown to this day. The trio identified themselves only as D, Patty and Kirby. Although the band was short-lived, few musical acts have had as much impact on the underground music scene." Google gives nothing. Marskell 17:16, 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 keep. No consensus to delete. Page was hacked down to remove advertising component. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plum_Canary

Advertising Grayum 17:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the article is about the material already covered on the Chirp software page, and is clearly advertising in nature. The article should be chopped back to a paragraph, if this company is at all notable. — RJH 17:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn software. Sdedeo 21:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --Carnildo 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up - I've deleted the advertising in an effort to turn it into a neutral corporate stub. This sofware is noteable because it is unique, and it appears to have a following. Jehochman 03:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (Just a vote by the page creator.) A case has been made that the material is covered in the Chirp software page, which itself is subject to a VfD process at the moment. It's possible a reasonable path is to delete the Chirp software page and simply let it have it's information in the Project Management Software product table, then leave this "corporate stub" page (we *do* have a user community, which can justify the entry) solely for the purpose of maintaining links from that table. Note that the Grayum's comment no longer applies after the edit by jehochman. Batsonjay
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close Quarter Battle K-9

advertisement Quicksandish 17:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andurna

I noticed this short stub on Special:Newpages, and was cleaning it up, when it was tagged for speedy for reason "unverifiable". As I believe WP:V is not a criterion for speedy deletion, I'm moving it here. Honestly, I don't know if it's verifiable or not, though a google search was unsuccessful. -Satori (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupor

No valuable content Groeck 18:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Cashin

Person does not really seem to exist; the alleged town of origin does not seem to exist either, and this article is the first hit on Google for both. --claviola (talk to me) 18:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tustena

No notability established. Was an add, remains mainly as linkspam. --S.K. 18:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nn personal essay Dlyons493 18:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neogeography

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication for Youth Institute

Lack of context; not notable Groeck 18:42, 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 deleted already. Woohookitty 10:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular Slinky

Vanity Robert Harrison Talk 18:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Luckabaugh

Not notable Groeck 18:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast in bed for 400,000

Not notable Groeck 18:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satco

Satco is not a commonly accepted term, found ~50000 Google hits, but couldn't find any that used this definition. johnpseudo 19:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentisoft

Delete - This is a non-notable company with only 104 google hits. Its description is identical to the company profile page. It looks like an AD. Marco ✉ 19:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Keep. Pretty easy call here. Tomer TALK 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Anna Chakvetadze

del nonnotable tennis player. "World #28" IMO is hardly a distinctive feature. mikka (t) 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: World #28 I think is particularly significant. She's been on the pro tour since 2003, and has won two ITF titles, one each in singles and doubles. See WTA profile here: [11]. ITF profile here: [12]. She's won more than US$234,000 playing tennis and she's just 18. If #28 in the world isn't enough to keep the article, what # would be? --Durin 19:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write an article, we could vote on it, my vote reffered to this article. I think that the article you are talking about would probably be deleted under vanity criteria, and more correctly belongs on your userpage. Trollderella 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sportsology

Delete: Fails WP:WEB in every respect. Alexa ranking is 614,817 [15] (WP:WEB suggests 10,000 or better). To check for mention in national/internaional media, I searched for sites that link to the site www.sportsology.net. Result; 210. Of the first 50, none were significant media outlets. On the third point of WP:WEB, I counted the number of forum participants. WP:Web suggests 5,000 or more. Sportsology has 320. --Durin 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following me around commenting on all my votes Zoe, I feel very loved. The reason I think it should stay as a redirect is that, although it is not a word, it is a term that someone might possibly search for when looking for sports science, and so there is no reason not to keep it as a redirect. Trollderella 21:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mille passus

This is the same information dumping of already deleted content on many previous vfds of Rktect entries, most of the article does not even deal with the Mille passus supposed measurement standard. Delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now Im voting speedy delete per criteria G4 in WP:CSD. [16] -- (drini|☕) 01:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no reason to delete this page. It was only recently created and is still being edited. User drini regularly removes content making the page appear very different than it actually is.

His last edit removed the most substantive part of the articleRktect 02:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • It was rather a different page until you removed half the article. If you are going to slap a vfd tag on a page at least have the intellectual honesty not to remove its content and then pretend it is something it isn't. That's just slimey and its not the only page you have done that to.
    • Comment Rktect, considering the article history clearly shows that the only thing Drini did was add a {{vfd}} to the page, I think we can judge relative honesty here with a fair amount of ease. Caerwine 05:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, so all the red lines that indicate content the article previously pointed to on other pages that have been deleted along with their images and references and content don't count? Take a look at his contributions and you may get a better idea of what I think he's done.Rktect 06:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • Even if true, and frankly I don't feel like spending the time to check on that right now, it doesn't affect this article in the least. If the information was vital to this subject, it should have been included in this article to begin with. What I see in the article is a bunch of messy writing that takes the POV that a particular theory about how certain length units originated is undisputed fact. (Couldn't you at least spell league correctly?) The article dealing with that theory, Pseudoscientific metrology, can use the portions that can't be moved into the appropriate articles on ancient measurements that present the bald facts of how units within a particular system relate to one another without speculations into their ultimate origins. Caerwine 14:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please list the articles which contain all the information this article has on the degree.
    • The mille passus and various referenced stadia are the most common divisions of a degree.
    • Which one, stadia, mille passus or degree was defined first?
    • When?
    • If this article is deleted tell me where else in wikipedia I can find answers to those questions.
    • You claim there are at least 20 places, quote an answer to those questions from any one.
    • If you can't do that then your claim is false and this article should not be deleted. Rktect 12:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

interesting and informative information and graphics.Rktect 21:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment While a single article about all this would be encyclopedic and desirable, it is abundantly clear that Mille passus is the wrong name for it and that Rktect is unable to write about it in a style that is comprehensible to others or to follow Wiki-standards of formatting and organization. Caerwine 17:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are hundreds of different ancient measures which each deserve their own article. Why don't you pick one, write an article in a style you feel is comprehensible to others and show me how you think it should be done? Rktect 18:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Why don't I? Two reasons. First, by and large, when considered in isolation, potential articles on the hundreds of ancient measures are little more that dictonary definitions that may be suitable for inclusion in the Wiktionary. It's only when considered as a system that they reach the level of being ecyclopedic instead of dictionaric. Second, I don't have access to reliable sources that would enable me to write an article on this topic. Caerwine 20:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus. Take copyright concerns to WP:CP if appropriate. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Linares

Delete as the article is not written in English. Please feel free to speedy keep if there is a more appropriate place for these types of submissions. Hall Monitor 19:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam connon and Adam J Connon

Delete as non-verifiable and possibly a hoax. Hall Monitor 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and request to author (editing anonymously) - provide references to support the article. Otherwise there is no choice because it is unverifiable. --WCFrancis 21:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David puga

non-notable person, after looking in Google, no such person of note at said university DeleteGrcampbell 20:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borka

Probable hoax, Google turns up no hits for Borka or Bacom except as last names. -- WCFrancis 20:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bacom

probable hoax, linked from Borka, also proable hoax. WCFrancis 20:40, 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 deleted (and replaced with {{deletedpage}}). Eugene van der Pijll 17:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hung_pork_50

It's been deleted several times already. This information is useless and unsuitable inks 20:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say the oppisite, how could it be unsuitable if something like this is really going on? People have a right to know what's happening. I find it informative and if it could be proven a true spot it should stay! Oh and USELESS? WRONG!!! If I find out where this sport activity is going on I will compete because I'm a contender!!!! - Mack Daddy

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

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. Scimitar parley 18:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Kevin's Bar

nn in itself. Anyone want to create a list of Irish bars and merge it? Dlyons493 20:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggrepedia

Non-notable web site. No traffic. No inbound links. Vanity: page was created by User:Cochrate; site was apparently created by a Thomas Cochran, who is responsible for all 5 Google mentions. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Macrakis 21:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6,000,000

Delete This would be better suited to being under Holocaust, World War II or similar Grcampbell 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote Speedy Keep if kept as a redirect --Grcampbell 23:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Technology Temple

nn BBS - 5 Googles Dlyons493 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 16:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluzey

(1) dicdef (2) apparently hoax (I couldn't find anything relevant on Google or OneLook) (3) almost-but-not-quite patent nonsense. Delete. Nowhither 21:30, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Esquivalience

Dictionary definition.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

"The New Oxford American Dictionary, in August 2005, gained media coverage when it was leaked that the second edition contained at least one fictional entry. This was later determined to be the word "esquivalience", defined as the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities, which had originally been added in the first, 2001, edition. It was intended as a copyright trap, as the text of the book was distributed electronically and thus very easy to copy."
I've checked using Google, and it seemed to come up with the same thing. I am now changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel. --Blackcap | talk 21:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't exist, but it does, if you see what I mean. It's been in the news recently, which is why (presumably) someone put the page here... I'd actually been going to add a mention of it to the Nihilartikel page earlier but forgot until I saw this VFD. Shimgray 21:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Esquivalience. Note the nominator is the same in both cases. Somebody PLEASE fix the templates. -Splash 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) I made this page 2 days ago and it had 2 delete votes on it, it appears to have been deleted itself. The rationale was dicdef, neologism. I see someone has substantially expanded the article since then but I still vote to delete. TheDeletator (talk · contribs)[reply]

This is a relevant entry and deserves to stay. Not only is it interesting trivia but I thin'k it is important information regarding proprietary encyclopedias and their practices. I think the article is worthy of staying at its present state, but certainly needs more expansion. Wesman83 03:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 16:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Dublin Crew

nn admits its own obscurity. Dlyons493 21:44, 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: KEEP but MOVE to Brett Buerck. Consider it done! Tomer TALK 07:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Brett buerck

Non-notable Congressional staffer. If we had an article on every Congressional staffer, there would be about 5000 of them, if not more. Zoe 22:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep important for his role in a scandal about redistricting, if nothing else. Trollderella 22:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that Trollderella has let us know that his boss was a state representative, he's even less notable. Zoe 22:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Zoe, had you read the article before listing it for deletion, you would have noticed that in its original form it did mention that he was aide to a state representative. I'm not sure why that makes him worthy of your contempt. His role in redistricting scandals, without doubt an important topic, makes this an important article to keep. Trollderella 22:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we should move it to Brett Buerck. ;) Trollderella 22:38, 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 (3-0). Scimitar parley 18:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acopa

Advertising. The website has an alexa ranking of 2,860,510, the search acopa shoes gets 173 unique hits. Zoe 22:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor

This page should be deleted because it is a poorly-written summary of a SpongeBob SquarePants episode. An episode summary like this does not require its own page, but rather should be listed with its parent article (the article for the show), if desired. Note that this request only refers to Hall Monitor with a capital M. There is a separate article entitled Hall monitor about school hall monitors that is fine for Wikipedia. Schuminweb 23:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am happy that Bob of Squarepants fame has an entry equivalent in depth to Sandro Botticelli. As you say, though, pov, all pov.  ;) Dottore So 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckily in the online wikipedia SpongeBob and Botticelli are not in competition with each other, so we don't need a POV on which is more valuable. The tricky part comes when they are in competition for space, such as for a limited-size downloadable version. I would gladly leave that judgement to others. Kappa 02:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only people who will see this are people who are looking for it. Oh, and about one in 100,000 of the people who are rash enough to press 'Random Article'... They will get a... shock horror... random article! Trollderella 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intermedia Studios

Delete as advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 23:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (4-0). Scimitar parley 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedtree

This article looks like "Advertising or other spam". It is not an encyclopedia article. Andargor 22:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Nomination fixed by feydey 23:37, 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. Paul August ☎ 03:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Windsor

No Google or Yahoo hits for '"Nathan Windsor" NASA' or "Nathan Windsor astronaut', and a search just for "Nathan Windsor" doesn't bring up anything that verifies this entry. Zoe 23:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_26&oldid=22595435"