Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 10

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caerwine (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 10 September 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge server cache

September 10

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Morrison Doom Patrol

Just a bad article overall; there's noting of value here, and it seems to be simply a batch of red links. --Apostrophe 00:20, 10 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 -- Joolz 02:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Park Mall

Non notable mall Dismas 01:04, 10 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.  Grue  13:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the Venom

This article is simple pasted from a My Chemical Romance site and is not only useless, but could be construed as offensive. Makenji-san 01:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as resume and self-promotion of a non notable individual. -- Mgm|(talk) 20:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Davies

Self promotion/vanity... seems to be just his resume'. Dismas 01:16, 10 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 -- Joolz 23:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bootdryer

Not really notable. 148.78.243.50 01:36, 10 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.  Grue  13:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Khan

NN Dismas 01:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how notable you feel "Well-Known Spice Girls Video Background Dancers", "Great Vocoder Users" and "Professionally Thin People" are... ;) Vizjim 14:12, 12 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 -- Joolz 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MC (mainland China)

A gaming clan, and borderline nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 02:55, 10 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 Deleted as copyvio then title redirected to Order of the Stick Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Rich Burlew

non-notable person Peyna 02:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

or merge ; but just because his comic is notable, doesn't mean he necessarily is. Peyna 04:15, 10 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 21:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the Beast

Tagged as {{nonsense}}, but doesn't meet the WP definition of such. Doesn't seem to meet any other of the CSD either, so AfD gets to deal with it. No vote from me. -Splash 03:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and will do whatever necessary to clean this up or make it conform to Wikipedia standards. This is not original research. It is mentioned in Revelation 13. The Mark of the Beast is also mentioned there and you have allowed that entry. The Image of the Beast is different topic than the Mark of the Beast and the Number of the Beast and is a valid topic in Christian eschatology This is not covered in any other entry in Wikipedia. I would like the opportunity to finish this article. Thank you.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Joolz 23:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Klein

Tagged as nn-bio (CSD A7). Whilst being a prof isn't an assertion of notability, being Head of a Laboratory possibly is. Needs massive work, but that doesn't make it a speedy. No vote from me, but I found this. -Splash 03:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is a notable researcher who deserves a longer article. --Apyule 06:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there any criteria for determining the notability of college professors? I've come across quite a few that are merely average, if that (no comment on this one). Is being a college professor inherently notable? Given the number of college professors in the world, I don't think it would be possible to maintain that many articles. -- Kjkolb 11:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being the head of a research department at Oxford University makes one notable. If cleanup is needed, I recommend a request being send to the cleanup taskforce or a suitable wikiproject. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep stub and request expansion. He wouldn't have been where he is if he weren't notable in his field. Uppland 16:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Done some improvements. Alf melmac 20:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: someone who knows better than me should check "What links here" on the article. Alf melmac 20:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These links obviously refer to one or two other persons of the same name. This article should probably be moved to Jacob Klein (chemist) eventually. Uppland 20:22, 10 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Macvaerk

There is no evidence that this company is notable. Bcrowell 03:36, 10 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 -- Joolz 12:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Velocity

Look... simple mistake. It was my first Wikipedia page and I didn't know self-promotion was illegal. Sombody else named DJ Velocity then dubbed over my name and page with their own information. Please delete this page all together, it is bad publicity to see this page when searching my name in google. It is the first page that comes up. I hope you understand

Self-published musician does not appear to meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Page created by anon IP; same anon IP recently restored the page's original POV, ad-oriented copy. Bunchofgrapes 03:54, 10 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Kaosu buntai chibi game

Tagged for speedy as "advertising", but unless it's pure spam it doesn't qualify. (Plus, this doesn't read like an ad to me.) AfD gets to decide if it should stay or not. Abstain. -Splash 04:04, 10 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lionel Hall

Here is another non notable Harvard Dorm Delete --Aranda56 04:11, 10 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Leiber's Induction

Tagged as patent nonsense but it isn't, especially as it's an excerpt from a book-thing (e.g. [1]). This might make it a copyvio, but that excerpt seems to be posted at least several times online, so I didn't copyvio it. If someone wants to, that's fine. Otherwise, no vote from me. -Splash 04:13, 10 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 -- Joolz 23:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dheerasankarabharanam

Tagged as patent nonsense but I can just about extract meaning so it isn't. I can't work out for myself if this should stay or go, so it comes here instead. -Splash 04:18, 10 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 -- Joolz 23:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire

Just a collection of links to pages on Wiltshire's larger towns. Not an article, and all of these are linked (logically) from the Wiltshire article anyway. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 10 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 Transwiki Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Link's Awakening bosses

Tagged for speedy as "Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide. Non-strategic information already exists in the article on The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening.", only that isn't a speedy criterion. Since it was tagged, I brought it here. No notvote from me. -Splash 04:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm the one who wanted it speedy deleted. Seems like a waste of time to AfD it, but very well. Hopefully this is one of the things to be addressed in the deletion reform discussion I heard about, but for now the existing policy prevails. I repeat: Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide. I realize that's not part of the official Wikipedia is not policy, but I'm not the first person to say it, and I doubt I'll be the last. In fact, I think I'll go and suggest the addition of that right now. Non-strategic information on these bosses already exists in the article on The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, so there's no need to merge it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Last time I checked, Wikipedia gives out information about different areas of things. It seems to me that Link's Awakening bosses is a thing, and I have given information about it. Please don't delete this article. 24.21.191.65 06:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC) [Note from WikidSmaht: This is DiddyKong1234, I think he forgot to log in.][reply]
    • Wikipedia is meant to be informative, yes. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tutorials, guides, and other forms of instruction should be collected into Wikibooks. Most of the information in the article is about how to fight and defeat the bosses, written in the imperative tense. The rest can be, and essentially is, covered in the Link's Awakening article, in a section you inspired me to create with an older article of yours. Look at the edit history to see my example of what the article would be like without the strategy part. Also, some of the few other things in the article as it is are incorrect. For example, none of the dungeons in this game are referred to as temples. And all the bosses are Nightmares, according to the story. I do admire the images you collected or created for the article, though. If you hang on to those, I might have a use for them later. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with something, seems to have extra information. Needs a bit of a rewrite. Kappa 07:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, the information was virtually all covered in the main article for Link's Awakening, and everything important( other than strategy, is there, so I don't think there's any need to merge... WikidSmaht (talk) 07:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • The table at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_video_game_strategy_guide may help this discussion. In particular, note the existence of the The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker wikibook and its relationship to the The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 10:44:19, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
    • Thank you, that's exactly what I was getting at. The content of the article is good( well, not all of it), but not suitable for Wikipedia.
  • Transwiki the strategy guide to Wikibooks. The use of "you" in an article is never a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 14:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Mgm. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:56, 2005 September 11 (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 -- Joolz 02:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lankansoc

An expat community with nearly 200 members. Home page leads to what looks like a discussion board which requires login. Article text is not very consistent. Greenleaf 04:32, 10 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 -- Joolz 02:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slf

Tagged for speedy as "totally nn" but regrettably that doesn't apply to websites. Personally, I'd say delete nn website - it has 30 members. -Splash 04:39, 10 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 -- Joolz 02:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Dialect

nn slang lexicon. Zoe 04:43, September 10, 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 due to no consensus Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Colombo Dreams

A College Society drama; money went for a good purpose, but the drama itself doesn't seem to be notable. Participants do not either. Performed only two days. 370 Google hits. Greenleaf 04:52, 10 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 (nomination withdrawn). - Mike Rosoft 12:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kontroll

Article itself provides reason: Low budget, unclassifiable Hungarian film. Inherently nn. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Whoop. Sorry. Nomination withdrawn.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 06:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Check imdb and the official web site. It's won one or two awards, and appeared in different festivals, in various countries. It's a theatrical release, not a direct-to-video deal (although it's now out on video). By Hollywood standards, its low-budget, but I'm not sure it is actually low-budget by Hungarian standards (I honestly don't know though, as I'm not Hungarian). Anyways, at a minimum, I want to give this article some time, to improve. --rob 05:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very well-known independent film on this year's international festival circuit, plus theatrical release in English-speaking countries (including the U.S.). And hey, I just got it on DVD from Netflix. MCB 06:37, 10 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 -- Joolz 02:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Alters

Yeah - probably, but I erred on the side of a vote this time. Cheers. --PhilipO 05:06, September 10, 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 -- Joolz 02:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle

Even if individual songs merit their own articles, "X is a song by Y" isn't appropriate. —Cryptic (talk) 05:14, 10 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 -- Joolz 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Bom-om

Somebody's madeup game. Can't find anything to verify that this game exists. Zoe 05:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete As above (I originally put the speedy tag on it ;-))--PhilipO 05:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hot Bom-om. The author has indicated it's something played at their high school that hasn't made it to the spotlight. Zoe 05:33, September 10, 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Boyfriend (song)

Wikipedia is not Billboard. Zoe 05:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

So what are the criteria? Any single by any artist? Any single by any artist which has had x number of sales? This song has just been released. Why not wait to see if it's going to go anywhere on the charts? Zoe 19:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A single is a bit like an episode of a TV show. We don't need articles on every one. Friday (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap". meta:Wiki_is_not_paper. Kappa 19:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there's no reason to delete it. Right? Kahlen 06:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not every song by a notable musician needs its own article, rather some should be redirected to the album in question (or maybe a list of songs by XXX in some cases, especially prior to the album era). But if this one were folded into the album article, it would overbalance it. So, keep. Tuf-Kat 08:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not delete it. Instead, Make the article disputed. It is not released yet and the chart performances and variety of reviews have not yet being released. It is already on disputed so leave it there. It deserves to be there. Zoe needs to shut up. From Anonymous.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Roster of The 155th Regiment, O.V.I.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Cryptic (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Maybe Wikisource? Zoe 05:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete ne --TimPope 10:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, but it needs some info on what year these people served. - Mgm|(talk) 14:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I'm not mistaken, the only time in US history that there's been regiments with name schemes such as this one's was the American Civil War. Even still, that's not a specific enough timeframe to be useful for Wikisource. Will absolutely change my vote if a reference can be cited and if a time period can be established. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:52, 10 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. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Boulevard

nn road Delete --Aranda56 05:43, 10 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 that it should be handled via the copyvio proccess -- Joolz 02:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otterdale

nn summer camp Delete --Aranda56 05:59, 10 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 -- Joolz 21:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Train the trainer

Train the Trainer was nominated for deletion on 2005-03-08. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Train the Trainer/2005-03-08.

This has been on cleanup since March, and still only contains an "X=X" type definition. I suggest transwiki'ing to Wiktionary. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 10 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 -- Joolz 21:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Money mike

Admits to not meeting WP:MUSIC right in the article. Only claim to fame is founding Town Records, which was just deleted for non-notability and barely existing. (I've taken the liberty of <nowiki>ing the linkspam.) —Cryptic (talk) 07:29, 10 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 -- Joolz 12:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Tent

'Delete NN & Vanity. I already removed two external links to a unbuilt website and a non-public Yahoo! Group with all of 11 members. Caerwine 08:42, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_10&oldid=22964020"