This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This article is currently listed for translation-cleanup at WP:PNT, but comments there and on the talk page suggest that VfD is a better place for it. I vote delete as unencyclopedic advertising. Physchim62 00:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vandalism. Not relavant HF 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
T/ C 01:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Andrew pmk 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. (The second one will be recreated as a redirect to Traveler's diarrhea.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisment for diarrhea medicine Nelgallan 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was tagged as speedy as advertising, but there's no CSD. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (does not include irrelevant sockpuppet support). Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity page of a mostly non-notable person. Schnee ( cheeks clone) 01:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please pay close attention the footer directly above, which explicitly reads "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it."
Comments from August 1, 2006 have been relocated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (2nd nomination). Yamaguchi先生 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Curps as an article with no content. android 79 02:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would have to work very hard to come up with a less useful list than this, I suspect. Delete. Ken talk| contribs 01:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic -- it is clearly vanity. The writer of the article has a first-hand knowledge of the comic creator's inner thoughts: "Max Hades is intended..." "the creator enjoys ..." etc. Alexa has no data on this comic. Dragonfiend 01:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. — Simon 01:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be nice enough of a lady, but is sadly non-notable. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 02:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
She is honoured in the museums there, has several books written about her, her diaries published, two documentaries made about her life in Canada and one by the BBC. Pretty notable I would say!<preceeding is an unsigned comment by User:80.229.218.245> Fernando Rizo T/ C 02:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. I will not be sending this off to BJAODN. Probably I am tough to humor, but I don't know what's so funny about "The Blinding is a not well known Christian rock band.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't fulfill any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. -- fvw * 02:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Individual fields and forests are not notable. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. -- fvw * 02:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete — just a nn website that sells DVDs. The name is no good for a Google, but the site's Alexa rank is about 13,000th. - Splash 02:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Not sure if its a consensus to keep or not, but that doesn't matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This program seems relatively obscure. Googling "picofirewall -wikipedia" generates about 80 hits. Compare to iptables (over 1 million hits) or shorewall (200,000). Joel7687 02:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 under CSD criterion A7 (admitted non-notability). - Mgm| (talk) 09:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity about a non-notable student. x42bn6 02:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete maybe. I bring this here for assistance, fully aware that VFD:NOT cleanup. This guy is evidently the author of a blog which is a good indicator of non-notableness. But the blog gets lots of Googles; again not too special. But is there something special about The Blogs of War? -
Splash
02:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Why would you delete an article about a major media figure, who happened to have won numerous press awards?
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vandalism; is this article even necessary? Amyrlin 03:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment I am not sure if the article itself is necessary. I assume that being listed here will resolve that question as anyone with something to contribute may happen by and fix it up. But editors should remove the vandalism found on a page on sight rather than simply slapping a VfD tag on them. I have removed the offending words and will await the opinions of others as to the article. -- Mddake 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 add a {{cleanup}}-tag. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A lot of claims, but no sources. Googling suggests they're not all that notable. -- fvw * 03:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic as patent nonsense. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax, joke...nonsense really Rx StrangeLove 03:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Shanes as nn/vanity. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable, possibly vanity it seems. Brings up no relevant hits on google. Jobe6 03:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It appears that someone put a good deal of effort into this article, but the band (or, the one individual) apparently has only been in existence for a few years and has appeared only on indie labels. It seems like a vanity article and the notability doesn't seem to be on a level with the WP:MUSIC guidelines. DavidConrad 03:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
No evidence of notability. No allmusic.com entry, no relevant google hits, no albums for sale on any online stores I could find. Gamaliel 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Not notable. -- fvw * 04:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable, probably vanity. Coffee 04:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. -- fvw * 04:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted -- cesarb 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Does this constitute a claim-to-faim and therefor exempt it from WP:CSD? I don't know, you lot decide. -- fvw * 04:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Alexa ranking of 3,778,243. Wikipedia isn't a web directory. Coffee 04:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Brownman40 04:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep -- Allen3 talk 02:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Due to the massive size of this VFD, I have decided to link it instead of transclude it. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Place your vote here reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non notable students' joke CanadianCaesar 05:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Bot vanity. -- fvw * 05:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Independent election candidate in Cambridge, UK who got 60 votes. Delete. Punkmorten 05:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Likely hoax. "Stephen Whelan Prize" gets zero Google hits. -- Curps 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
luddy 17:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC) -- Duplicate vote by 67.82.186.242 ( talk · contribs), who is the original author of Ted Lacey
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Classic example of semi-literate band vanity that garners an impressive zero Google hits. - Lucky 6.9 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete - This appears to be a constructed language created by a 13 years old. Only two ghits, both to the language's homepage. All internal links there are dead, so that there is no proof whatsoever that the language actually exists. Whichever criteria we choose to decide whether a conlang warrants an entry or not, this one is certainly not going to make it. IJzeren Jan 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fan-made crossover webcomic. Doesn't meet any inclusion criteria in particular. Nifboy 07:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already redirected which is what the nominator wanted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia doesn't need a separate article for this particular Dartmouth fraternity, especially since we have Dartmouth College Greek organizations. I merged the text of this one into that article, so this should no longer be necessary. Seanadams 07:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
There is no salvagable content on this page that is not already elsewhere. The intro paragraph is "A nymphet is an adolescent young girl", and list of actors in this category is POV. Delete. brenneman (t) (c) 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep We should stop arguing about whether or not to keep this, and start working together to make the article better. Its one of the key words of one of the most important works of literature from the 20th Century.(Sarah) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.249.56 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 August 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was something between a redirect and merge to All Grown Up!. I don't know which sentences we want merged, but I will make a redirect, leave the history in tact, and if anyone wants to merge parts of this article with the main All Grown Up! article, go ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fandom, vanity. I could see make two or three sentences of this being merged into the All Grown Up article, but not much more. Zoe 08:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Apparently some sort of Star Wars character, but both Google and Yahoo! only come up with three hits. Zoe 09:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Self-admitted vanity. Written by an anon IP so can't be userfied. (Speedy) Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Found this whilst cleaning out 'dead-ends'. It is certainly vanity (created by User:AlexMorganis), I don't think he is notable enough - so sending here -- Doc (?) 09:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 10:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. It is indeed band vanity, and has in no way fulfilled any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, so delete, but such things are not speedy deletion candidates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Still no clear consensus on this. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 23:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as "not notable", but not a candidate. The article has in fact been on VFD before. It was ages ago, so long ago that the debate is on the article's talkpage, when it was kept due to no consensus. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Tagged for a speedy, and I was quite tempted to grant that wish. However, there are some fantastic claims in the article which clearly assert notability, but, to put it mildly, all of them are very dubious. Eight google hits for "Stanislav Spasov", claims are most likely a hoax, delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted and recreated as a redirect. FCYTravis 19:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal essay -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Not notable. Yields 726 Google hits, only has two groups, never mentioned in news media and home page has Alexa at 2.8 million. Delete. - brenneman (t) (c) 11:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Unencyclopedic. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Joke, I can't find a single return for this city, except the page itself. No references at all that I can find. Rx StrangeLove 12:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Two deletes and a forest of keeps. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 01:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Just don't see how this is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC). reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Is being married to a celebrity an indication of importance or significance? Speedy delete. --
DrTorstenHenning
12:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non- Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
DarthSidious 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A rumored character? Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Al 13:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was just VfD:ed under the title chiangchun and voted to be moved to this page, though without voters actually paying any attention what the VfD was actually about, which is why I'm resubmitting this again in the hope that people will try to focus on the relevant this time. The previous state of the article made a bogus claim of the word having a meaning separate from the Western concept of general and that there existed a specific knight-like warrior caste in ancient China akin to the Western knights or perhaps samurai, all of it utterly unverifiable. In the previous VfD, there were some very questionable claims that since this word can be used to designate one of the pieces in Xiangqi, Chinese chess, and since it can be used in Chinese similar to a verb meaning "checkmate", it would be enough to grant it a separate article. Verb usage or not, this is a pure dictionary definition and should be deleted. Peter Isotalo 13:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. original research, website spam -- IByte 13:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor company, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. Google shows no impact beyond catalogs and support forums. This isn't an Intel or even a Xylinx. Possibly subtle ad placement, as only infobox info is name and URL. I think the VfD should include SUZAKU FPGA Boards, as it's cross-linked with this page (and no others) and appears similarly non-noteable. Not sure how to actually link that in, however -- do I just start a new VfD and reference it back to here? Anyway, delete. -- Lomn | Talk 14:39:22, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This doesn't appear to be widely used as a distinct type of finance, rather than simply art + finance. Kappa 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable IT professional PubLife 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete: Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball and there's no content anyway. Karmafist 15:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Since I added the stub notice in February, this page wasn't significantly expanded. In a Google search for "True metal" all the pages were either about music or clones of this page. I can therefore reasonably assume that someone made up the term true metal without a serious reason. If we can't make head nor tail of this page, it'd better be deleted (and True metal (music) could then be moved here). Army1987 15:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Marbles. – NSR ( talk) 06:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I merged this into Marbles so this page is now superfluous. -- Howcheng 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. original research, POV. Also take note of the See also section -- IByte 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Articles are not position papers with the intent to persuade. Your entry (and entries) go beyond informing and definitely break the POV rule.-- Daul21 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a disputed speedy. The article asserts notability, is verifiable, and is encyclopedic. The only question is whether the person in question is notable enough for an article. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete.
original research,
POV, website spam. Also take note of the Links section --
IByte
16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Died as baby. Did nothing prominent, represented nothing prominent. All details can be put into his mother's article. 217.140.193.123 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. Or possibly, if the history may have altered significantly, had the baby lived. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This doesn't seem to be a real Mortal Kombat character and I can no mention of him on Google. According to the edit history on Black Dragon (Mortal Kombat), the organization to which the character supposedly belongs, the same user who created these two pages added him onto this page (IP address 67.136.142.x), and it sounds as if this character comes from the comic book but does not appear in any actual games. Not having played Mortal Kombat myself, I wouldn't know, but I can't find him in any Mortal Kombat official sites, either. I say delete for not being a real character, unless someone wants to start add a section of "characters not appearing in games" to the list of Mortal Kombat characters. -- Howcheng 16:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. There is a duplicate copy of this article at Socio-economic environment which will also go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. POV original research part of a POV series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. -- IByte 17:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A page created solely due to an internal dispute concerning the usage of either Slovenian or Slovene (the former is more common) with Eleassar and BT2 being the main protagonists. Non-encyclopedic wiki-internal conflict page. This info can either be covered in about two sentences in just about any article about Slovenians or the Slovenian language. Delete or redirect to Slovenian. Peter Isotalo 17:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete.
POV
original research (+website spam) part of a POV series of articles uploaded by
User:Roger Hicks. Author has reverted others' attempts to dePOV. --
IByte
17:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete Vanity PhilipO 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Died as baby. Did nothing prominent, represented nothing prominent. All details can be put into his mother's article. 217.140.193.123 08:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable. Al 17:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE Meelar 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Suspect vanity. User made two contributions on 3 August and hasn't been back. Article claims person has won several international titles. I can not find evidence of any international titles. I have found evidence of at least one age-under-16 Australian state title, and possibly a similar national title (hard to decipher). Does this make this person of interest sufficient for an encyclopedia entry? Frankly, I'm uncertain. Normally, this would be placed for speedy under the new vanity rule, but I'm putting it up for VfD because of the titles this person has received, rather than speedy. Your thoughts? -- Durin 17:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
I'm sure she's gorgeous, but when you can't find a well-conected supermodel on Google, you begin to think 'somethings's wrong' -- Doc (?) 18:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable website advertising. Doesn't even have a dedicated URL - the site is hosted on geocities and redirected with a .tk service. Delete -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 18:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. dicdef part of a POV original research series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. Roger, please note our policy which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- IByte 18:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear notable.
Al
18:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable game. Reads like advertising. Al 18:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.
~ Clie
USGovSim.com was mentioned on the September 1, 2004 edition of "Cafe Politics" on WKNT Knightcast, which is student radio for the University of Central Florida. UCF is one of the largest public universities in the nation with over 40,000 students. This discussion was not advertising based and discussed government simulators in relations to the study of politics during the 2004 US Elections. If necessary, I will attempt to attain a copy of that night's show for verification. -Roary Snider, Executive Producer, Cafe Politics on Knightcast WKNT 67.8.248.211 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. As this boy is going to have a cousin who is the heir presumptive, thus Nikolai is not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). He is the heir of his father, thus deserves article a bit better than his own younger brother, but IMO does not yet deserve it. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the child in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. Please realize that in addition, this boy is a younger son, thus not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). I know I voted here, but since it was a "delete" vote, I don't feel too guilty about closing this as a keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable person Johntex 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A minor joke in one single episode of SpongeBob. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Character that appears in only one episode, with no more than a guest appearance. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A one-time, plotless character with no personality or back story. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep for reasons I don't understand but that's the vote. Woohookitty 10:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This event was an isolated, planned media stunt in a single award show. The information should be dispersed among the articles for MTV Video Music Award, Madonna (entertainer), Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. If someone was looking for this information, they wouldn't randomly search for "Madonna Kiss", they would look on the article page for the event or one of the entertainers involved. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Move to Shia view of the Sahaba and Sunni view of the Sahaba. Redwolf24 ( talk) 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It should be noted that Sunni ranking of the Sahaba also exists and should be considered in this VfD. I am putting this up for deletion because the unsourced "ranking" seems inherently POV / original research to me. I originally placed {{move|Shia view of the Sahaba}} but Striver shot down that idea so I believe here will be a better place to determine communal view of this. For more reasons see my vote.
-- Ya Ali 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
A complete non-topic. It is supposed to be a Current events page, but nothing of any significance has been added to it since it was created. It does not justify its existence. brozen 19:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. – NSR ( talk) 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
--A dicdef, fits the
Deletion policy criterion. (and I personally am not a deletionist)
D. J. Bracey
(talk)
20:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Administrator of an online forum. Not notable. Could perhaps be renamed to Nano-reef.com and rewritten accordingly. Note we already have a nano reef page. -- Curps 20:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
--Delete as per the former Joder article. A foreign "dic-def" D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, non-notable, promotion Ben-w 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Un-encyclopedic PhilipO 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
this person has stood for public office a few times, but has been very unsuccessful, being a councillor for a year only. 81.97.114.168 20:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Nn Bio, "Premier Rhinos" returns nothing in Google - maybe this should be speedy? PubLife 20:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. the transwiki vote is more or less a joke vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Darrien 20:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Only claim to notability is being the brains behind Fooforums, which has no Alexa ranking. GraemeL 20:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. advertising. "leading" seems exaggerated, it's mostly constrained to Ireland. -- IByte 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism - searches of Google and Yahoo turned up several instances of this term, but none with the definition referred to here. Most cite the concept that "any problem has an ultimate solution". Outlander 21:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't assert sufficient notability KeithD (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable, vanity - nomination by User:Ben-w
boing bleep dribble dribble
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
For your perusal...yet another band vanity stub. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism used to support the article Di$h and ShiQuana. 74 unique Google hits. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Di$h and ShiQuana. android 79 22:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Unverifiable vanity - according to the bio she's a musician, (electronic, classical, clash and jaz), movie maker (director and screen writer), exhibiting photographer, visual artist, furniture maker, sculpture and professional comedian. Ho hum! -- Doc (?) 22:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Fails almost all of WP:WEB. Doesn't show up on alexa.com rankings. Might pass proposal #2 under web comics on WP:WEB. But, without having enough traffic to score at all on alexa.com, I think it fails in general. -- Durin 22:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's a band. Discuss. :) - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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/Redirect to Circumcision. Redwolf24 ( talk) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, no possibility of expansion. Should be redirect to circumcision Nohat 22:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Unable to verify, Google returns no hits for creator names + "Cookie Day" [19], likely not sufficiently notable. -- Alan Au 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 are probably some keep votes which should be discounted, but at any rate, there is only one delete vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
perilously close to speedy as patent nonsense Ben-w 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.- Mailer Diablo 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article for planned third album by Kanye West. Meanwhile, his second hasn't even been released yet, and it's stands to reason that not a single note has been recorded for this album, or the planned follow up Good Ass Job ( see that VfD discussion below) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FuriousFreddy 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
See discussion of Graduation (album) above FuriousFreddy 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (and merge). Eugene van der Pijll 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't deserve an article of its own as everything here is covered by World of Warcraft or Exploit (online gaming) Kevin 22:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Someone's internet hoax page. Icelight 23:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to question. – Alphax τ ε χ 05:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. At best, it's a dictionary entry. In reality, it is probably a hoax. This users edits don't help it's credibility. Wikibofh 23:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep -- Allen3 talk 11:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what this is. But it's not an encyclopedia article. Ben-w 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This article is currently listed for translation-cleanup at WP:PNT, but comments there and on the talk page suggest that VfD is a better place for it. I vote delete as unencyclopedic advertising. Physchim62 00:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vandalism. Not relavant HF 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
T/ C 01:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Andrew pmk 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. (The second one will be recreated as a redirect to Traveler's diarrhea.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisment for diarrhea medicine Nelgallan 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was tagged as speedy as advertising, but there's no CSD. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (does not include irrelevant sockpuppet support). Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity page of a mostly non-notable person. Schnee ( cheeks clone) 01:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please pay close attention the footer directly above, which explicitly reads "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it."
Comments from August 1, 2006 have been relocated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (2nd nomination). Yamaguchi先生 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Curps as an article with no content. android 79 02:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would have to work very hard to come up with a less useful list than this, I suspect. Delete. Ken talk| contribs 01:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic -- it is clearly vanity. The writer of the article has a first-hand knowledge of the comic creator's inner thoughts: "Max Hades is intended..." "the creator enjoys ..." etc. Alexa has no data on this comic. Dragonfiend 01:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. — Simon 01:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be nice enough of a lady, but is sadly non-notable. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 02:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
She is honoured in the museums there, has several books written about her, her diaries published, two documentaries made about her life in Canada and one by the BBC. Pretty notable I would say!<preceeding is an unsigned comment by User:80.229.218.245> Fernando Rizo T/ C 02:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. I will not be sending this off to BJAODN. Probably I am tough to humor, but I don't know what's so funny about "The Blinding is a not well known Christian rock band.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't fulfill any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. -- fvw * 02:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Individual fields and forests are not notable. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. -- fvw * 02:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete — just a nn website that sells DVDs. The name is no good for a Google, but the site's Alexa rank is about 13,000th. - Splash 02:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Not sure if its a consensus to keep or not, but that doesn't matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This program seems relatively obscure. Googling "picofirewall -wikipedia" generates about 80 hits. Compare to iptables (over 1 million hits) or shorewall (200,000). Joel7687 02:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 under CSD criterion A7 (admitted non-notability). - Mgm| (talk) 09:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity about a non-notable student. x42bn6 02:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete maybe. I bring this here for assistance, fully aware that VFD:NOT cleanup. This guy is evidently the author of a blog which is a good indicator of non-notableness. But the blog gets lots of Googles; again not too special. But is there something special about The Blogs of War? -
Splash
02:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Why would you delete an article about a major media figure, who happened to have won numerous press awards?
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vandalism; is this article even necessary? Amyrlin 03:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment I am not sure if the article itself is necessary. I assume that being listed here will resolve that question as anyone with something to contribute may happen by and fix it up. But editors should remove the vandalism found on a page on sight rather than simply slapping a VfD tag on them. I have removed the offending words and will await the opinions of others as to the article. -- Mddake 03:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 add a {{cleanup}}-tag. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A lot of claims, but no sources. Googling suggests they're not all that notable. -- fvw * 03:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic as patent nonsense. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax, joke...nonsense really Rx StrangeLove 03:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Shanes as nn/vanity. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable, possibly vanity it seems. Brings up no relevant hits on google. Jobe6 03:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It appears that someone put a good deal of effort into this article, but the band (or, the one individual) apparently has only been in existence for a few years and has appeared only on indie labels. It seems like a vanity article and the notability doesn't seem to be on a level with the WP:MUSIC guidelines. DavidConrad 03:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
No evidence of notability. No allmusic.com entry, no relevant google hits, no albums for sale on any online stores I could find. Gamaliel 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Not notable. -- fvw * 04:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable, probably vanity. Coffee 04:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. -- fvw * 04:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted -- cesarb 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Does this constitute a claim-to-faim and therefor exempt it from WP:CSD? I don't know, you lot decide. -- fvw * 04:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Alexa ranking of 3,778,243. Wikipedia isn't a web directory. Coffee 04:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Brownman40 04:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep -- Allen3 talk 02:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Due to the massive size of this VFD, I have decided to link it instead of transclude it. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Place your vote here reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non notable students' joke CanadianCaesar 05:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Bot vanity. -- fvw * 05:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Independent election candidate in Cambridge, UK who got 60 votes. Delete. Punkmorten 05:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Likely hoax. "Stephen Whelan Prize" gets zero Google hits. -- Curps 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
luddy 17:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC) -- Duplicate vote by 67.82.186.242 ( talk · contribs), who is the original author of Ted Lacey
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Classic example of semi-literate band vanity that garners an impressive zero Google hits. - Lucky 6.9 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete - This appears to be a constructed language created by a 13 years old. Only two ghits, both to the language's homepage. All internal links there are dead, so that there is no proof whatsoever that the language actually exists. Whichever criteria we choose to decide whether a conlang warrants an entry or not, this one is certainly not going to make it. IJzeren Jan 06:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fan-made crossover webcomic. Doesn't meet any inclusion criteria in particular. Nifboy 07:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already redirected which is what the nominator wanted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia doesn't need a separate article for this particular Dartmouth fraternity, especially since we have Dartmouth College Greek organizations. I merged the text of this one into that article, so this should no longer be necessary. Seanadams 07:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
There is no salvagable content on this page that is not already elsewhere. The intro paragraph is "A nymphet is an adolescent young girl", and list of actors in this category is POV. Delete. brenneman (t) (c) 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep We should stop arguing about whether or not to keep this, and start working together to make the article better. Its one of the key words of one of the most important works of literature from the 20th Century.(Sarah) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.249.56 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 August 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was something between a redirect and merge to All Grown Up!. I don't know which sentences we want merged, but I will make a redirect, leave the history in tact, and if anyone wants to merge parts of this article with the main All Grown Up! article, go ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fandom, vanity. I could see make two or three sentences of this being merged into the All Grown Up article, but not much more. Zoe 08:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Apparently some sort of Star Wars character, but both Google and Yahoo! only come up with three hits. Zoe 09:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Self-admitted vanity. Written by an anon IP so can't be userfied. (Speedy) Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Found this whilst cleaning out 'dead-ends'. It is certainly vanity (created by User:AlexMorganis), I don't think he is notable enough - so sending here -- Doc (?) 09:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 10:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. It is indeed band vanity, and has in no way fulfilled any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, so delete, but such things are not speedy deletion candidates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Still no clear consensus on this. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 23:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as "not notable", but not a candidate. The article has in fact been on VFD before. It was ages ago, so long ago that the debate is on the article's talkpage, when it was kept due to no consensus. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Tagged for a speedy, and I was quite tempted to grant that wish. However, there are some fantastic claims in the article which clearly assert notability, but, to put it mildly, all of them are very dubious. Eight google hits for "Stanislav Spasov", claims are most likely a hoax, delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted and recreated as a redirect. FCYTravis 19:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal essay -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Not notable. Yields 726 Google hits, only has two groups, never mentioned in news media and home page has Alexa at 2.8 million. Delete. - brenneman (t) (c) 11:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Unencyclopedic. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Joke, I can't find a single return for this city, except the page itself. No references at all that I can find. Rx StrangeLove 12:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Two deletes and a forest of keeps. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 01:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Just don't see how this is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC). reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Is being married to a celebrity an indication of importance or significance? Speedy delete. --
DrTorstenHenning
12:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non- Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
DarthSidious 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A rumored character? Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Al 13:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was just VfD:ed under the title chiangchun and voted to be moved to this page, though without voters actually paying any attention what the VfD was actually about, which is why I'm resubmitting this again in the hope that people will try to focus on the relevant this time. The previous state of the article made a bogus claim of the word having a meaning separate from the Western concept of general and that there existed a specific knight-like warrior caste in ancient China akin to the Western knights or perhaps samurai, all of it utterly unverifiable. In the previous VfD, there were some very questionable claims that since this word can be used to designate one of the pieces in Xiangqi, Chinese chess, and since it can be used in Chinese similar to a verb meaning "checkmate", it would be enough to grant it a separate article. Verb usage or not, this is a pure dictionary definition and should be deleted. Peter Isotalo 13:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. original research, website spam -- IByte 13:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor company, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. Google shows no impact beyond catalogs and support forums. This isn't an Intel or even a Xylinx. Possibly subtle ad placement, as only infobox info is name and URL. I think the VfD should include SUZAKU FPGA Boards, as it's cross-linked with this page (and no others) and appears similarly non-noteable. Not sure how to actually link that in, however -- do I just start a new VfD and reference it back to here? Anyway, delete. -- Lomn | Talk 14:39:22, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This doesn't appear to be widely used as a distinct type of finance, rather than simply art + finance. Kappa 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable IT professional PubLife 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete: Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball and there's no content anyway. Karmafist 15:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Since I added the stub notice in February, this page wasn't significantly expanded. In a Google search for "True metal" all the pages were either about music or clones of this page. I can therefore reasonably assume that someone made up the term true metal without a serious reason. If we can't make head nor tail of this page, it'd better be deleted (and True metal (music) could then be moved here). Army1987 15:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Marbles. – NSR ( talk) 06:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I merged this into Marbles so this page is now superfluous. -- Howcheng 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. original research, POV. Also take note of the See also section -- IByte 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Articles are not position papers with the intent to persuade. Your entry (and entries) go beyond informing and definitely break the POV rule.-- Daul21 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a disputed speedy. The article asserts notability, is verifiable, and is encyclopedic. The only question is whether the person in question is notable enough for an article. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete.
original research,
POV, website spam. Also take note of the Links section --
IByte
16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Died as baby. Did nothing prominent, represented nothing prominent. All details can be put into his mother's article. 217.140.193.123 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. Or possibly, if the history may have altered significantly, had the baby lived. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This doesn't seem to be a real Mortal Kombat character and I can no mention of him on Google. According to the edit history on Black Dragon (Mortal Kombat), the organization to which the character supposedly belongs, the same user who created these two pages added him onto this page (IP address 67.136.142.x), and it sounds as if this character comes from the comic book but does not appear in any actual games. Not having played Mortal Kombat myself, I wouldn't know, but I can't find him in any Mortal Kombat official sites, either. I say delete for not being a real character, unless someone wants to start add a section of "characters not appearing in games" to the list of Mortal Kombat characters. -- Howcheng 16:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. There is a duplicate copy of this article at Socio-economic environment which will also go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. POV original research part of a POV series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. -- IByte 17:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A page created solely due to an internal dispute concerning the usage of either Slovenian or Slovene (the former is more common) with Eleassar and BT2 being the main protagonists. Non-encyclopedic wiki-internal conflict page. This info can either be covered in about two sentences in just about any article about Slovenians or the Slovenian language. Delete or redirect to Slovenian. Peter Isotalo 17:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete.
POV
original research (+website spam) part of a POV series of articles uploaded by
User:Roger Hicks. Author has reverted others' attempts to dePOV. --
IByte
17:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete Vanity PhilipO 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Died as baby. Did nothing prominent, represented nothing prominent. All details can be put into his mother's article. 217.140.193.123 08:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable. Al 17:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE Meelar 15:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Suspect vanity. User made two contributions on 3 August and hasn't been back. Article claims person has won several international titles. I can not find evidence of any international titles. I have found evidence of at least one age-under-16 Australian state title, and possibly a similar national title (hard to decipher). Does this make this person of interest sufficient for an encyclopedia entry? Frankly, I'm uncertain. Normally, this would be placed for speedy under the new vanity rule, but I'm putting it up for VfD because of the titles this person has received, rather than speedy. Your thoughts? -- Durin 17:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
I'm sure she's gorgeous, but when you can't find a well-conected supermodel on Google, you begin to think 'somethings's wrong' -- Doc (?) 18:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable website advertising. Doesn't even have a dedicated URL - the site is hosted on geocities and redirected with a .tk service. Delete -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 18:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. dicdef part of a POV original research series of articles uploaded by User:Roger Hicks. Roger, please note our policy which states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- IByte 18:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear notable.
Al
18:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable game. Reads like advertising. Al 18:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.
~ Clie
USGovSim.com was mentioned on the September 1, 2004 edition of "Cafe Politics" on WKNT Knightcast, which is student radio for the University of Central Florida. UCF is one of the largest public universities in the nation with over 40,000 students. This discussion was not advertising based and discussed government simulators in relations to the study of politics during the 2004 US Elections. If necessary, I will attempt to attain a copy of that night's show for verification. -Roary Snider, Executive Producer, Cafe Politics on Knightcast WKNT 67.8.248.211 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. As this boy is going to have a cousin who is the heir presumptive, thus Nikolai is not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). He is the heir of his father, thus deserves article a bit better than his own younger brother, but IMO does not yet deserve it. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the child in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – NSR ( talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. Please realize that in addition, this boy is a younger son, thus not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). I know I voted here, but since it was a "delete" vote, I don't feel too guilty about closing this as a keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable person Johntex 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A minor joke in one single episode of SpongeBob. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Character that appears in only one episode, with no more than a guest appearance. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A one-time, plotless character with no personality or back story. Delete. A Link to the Past 19:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep for reasons I don't understand but that's the vote. Woohookitty 10:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This event was an isolated, planned media stunt in a single award show. The information should be dispersed among the articles for MTV Video Music Award, Madonna (entertainer), Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. If someone was looking for this information, they wouldn't randomly search for "Madonna Kiss", they would look on the article page for the event or one of the entertainers involved. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Move to Shia view of the Sahaba and Sunni view of the Sahaba. Redwolf24 ( talk) 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It should be noted that Sunni ranking of the Sahaba also exists and should be considered in this VfD. I am putting this up for deletion because the unsourced "ranking" seems inherently POV / original research to me. I originally placed {{move|Shia view of the Sahaba}} but Striver shot down that idea so I believe here will be a better place to determine communal view of this. For more reasons see my vote.
-- Ya Ali 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
A complete non-topic. It is supposed to be a Current events page, but nothing of any significance has been added to it since it was created. It does not justify its existence. brozen 19:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. – NSR ( talk) 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
--A dicdef, fits the
Deletion policy criterion. (and I personally am not a deletionist)
D. J. Bracey
(talk)
20:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Administrator of an online forum. Not notable. Could perhaps be renamed to Nano-reef.com and rewritten accordingly. Note we already have a nano reef page. -- Curps 20:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
--Delete as per the former Joder article. A foreign "dic-def" D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, non-notable, promotion Ben-w 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Un-encyclopedic PhilipO 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
this person has stood for public office a few times, but has been very unsuccessful, being a councillor for a year only. 81.97.114.168 20:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Nn Bio, "Premier Rhinos" returns nothing in Google - maybe this should be speedy? PubLife 20:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. the transwiki vote is more or less a joke vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Darrien 20:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Only claim to notability is being the brains behind Fooforums, which has no Alexa ranking. GraemeL 20:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. advertising. "leading" seems exaggerated, it's mostly constrained to Ireland. -- IByte 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism - searches of Google and Yahoo turned up several instances of this term, but none with the definition referred to here. Most cite the concept that "any problem has an ultimate solution". Outlander 21:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't assert sufficient notability KeithD (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable, vanity - nomination by User:Ben-w
boing bleep dribble dribble
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
For your perusal...yet another band vanity stub. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism used to support the article Di$h and ShiQuana. 74 unique Google hits. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Di$h and ShiQuana. android 79 22:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Unverifiable vanity - according to the bio she's a musician, (electronic, classical, clash and jaz), movie maker (director and screen writer), exhibiting photographer, visual artist, furniture maker, sculpture and professional comedian. Ho hum! -- Doc (?) 22:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Fails almost all of WP:WEB. Doesn't show up on alexa.com rankings. Might pass proposal #2 under web comics on WP:WEB. But, without having enough traffic to score at all on alexa.com, I think it fails in general. -- Durin 22:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's a band. Discuss. :) - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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/Redirect to Circumcision. Redwolf24 ( talk) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, no possibility of expansion. Should be redirect to circumcision Nohat 22:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Unable to verify, Google returns no hits for creator names + "Cookie Day" [19], likely not sufficiently notable. -- Alan Au 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 are probably some keep votes which should be discounted, but at any rate, there is only one delete vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
perilously close to speedy as patent nonsense Ben-w 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.- Mailer Diablo 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article for planned third album by Kanye West. Meanwhile, his second hasn't even been released yet, and it's stands to reason that not a single note has been recorded for this album, or the planned follow up Good Ass Job ( see that VfD discussion below) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FuriousFreddy 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
See discussion of Graduation (album) above FuriousFreddy 22:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (and merge). Eugene van der Pijll 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't deserve an article of its own as everything here is covered by World of Warcraft or Exploit (online gaming) Kevin 22:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Someone's internet hoax page. Icelight 23:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to question. – Alphax τ ε χ 05:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. At best, it's a dictionary entry. In reality, it is probably a hoax. This users edits don't help it's credibility. Wikibofh 23:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep -- Allen3 talk 11:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what this is. But it's not an encyclopedia article. Ben-w 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply