This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to an unspecified target. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged for deletion by User:132.205.3.20, but he seems not to have been able to figure out how to finish up the deletion process. The article has been nominated for deletion once before: see Talk:Unbibium. No vote -- Carnildo 21:35, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum. No link provided, and I couldn't find it on google. Mairi 00:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Leave it!-Gamers.com is a major forum, it is not all that much different than having an article on ebay or google. I'll admit Gamers is much smaller, but it is still there, and important to many people. - Josiah
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
original research/vanity/pseudoscience Ben-w 00:25, 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 keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Supporting character from The Fairly OddParents without enough information to really be worth keeping. If this is kept, it needs to be moved. "A.J." is a fairly common nickname. - Aranel ("Sarah") 00:36, 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. JYolkowski // talk 22:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, vanity. Near duplicate at Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002. -- IByte 00:37, 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. As for the rewrite, there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus to delete it (although it's close and some votes are ambiguous), so kept for now. Next time could we please not merge VfDs on completely different articles? Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, vanity. Near duplicate at Sydney J Bush.. UK Optometrist/inventor/researcher -- IByte 00:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
However, I have brought Sydney J. Bush under the umbrella of this discussion. Other people don't write much about this person. Research mainly brought up self-publicity. For the latter article, Weak Keep. Uncle G 11:22:50, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
I didn't find anything at all that mentioned the claim that you mention, or the claims to holding patents. The only source for these claims is User:Sydney J Bush, writing his autobiography in Wikipedia. See the rewrite for the stuff that I did find. Uncle G 13:17:16, 2005-08-24 (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 as rewritten. -- BD2412 talk 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Transwiki to WikiBooks.
Acetic Acid 00:44, August 24, 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, merge is moderately suppported. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"Feminity" redirects to Gender role; article is mostly covered by Gender role ♥purplefeltangel 01:12, 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 Speedy Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 02:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. No albums, no major tours yet Zeimusu | Talk page 01:19, 2005 August 24 (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 ambiguous. There is not even a majority for outright deletion, so it stands between redirect and outright keep. There are seven votes to keep, five votes to delete and six votes to redirect. If I put the redirect and delete votes together we have 11-7 for discarding the content, which I will not call a consensus either. Also, I'm not sure if a redirect at this title to Beta Theta Pi would be really useful, or just confusing. Therefore, I will call this an outright keep (no consensus) for the time being. If anyone wants to merge or redirect, they may do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor, non-notable lawyer who founded some fraternity. Delete. Gamaliel 01:38, 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 keep. -- BD2412 talk 03:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This gentleman does not meet the standards of a notable entry. 66.68.156.175 August 23, 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 keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Non Important QB lifelong backup. Delete. Aranda56 01:42, 24 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
no google hits for "Jonathan Large" + "Jerry Lane"—hoax? If so then delete. JeremyA (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a student film. Perhaps he isn't very well known.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable film. No google hits, no IMDB entry. Delete JeremyA (talk) 02:59, 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 all four. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN band vanity, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Co-nominated along with articles on band members Aaron Weik, Matt Conlin, and Dan Leayman. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:08:51, 2005-08-24 (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 Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be the World of Warcraft page with a search and replace conducted. Should be deleted, as no such game is planned at this time. EcoRat 02:32, 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 copyvio for the first article, and no consensus, so keep for the temp article. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 03:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page appears to have been written by Pejman himself (see edit history) who has an account ( User:Pejman) but also edits under different various IPs. Anyways, Pejman Akbarzadeh appears to not be notable enough, as he only gets 296 Google hits. Delete? -- Hottentot
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/advertising in my view. A speedy delete tag was removed by User:JYolkowski, so I suppose this should be taken to VfD. Delete. Martg76 05:13, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Only one editor (besides a minor by me), who I'm guessing is the founder. Site in question is a yahoo group. Most likely original research, vanity, etc. etc.. Also same editor keeps putting in (and occasionally reverting) bits about International Asperger's Year (a term coined by this "group") into ANY Asperger's related article. -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:32, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asperger Adults of Greater Washington - term coined by them. One editor - original research most likely -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete It. merge it if you most.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Woohookitty 09:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
There was a page with the same premise of this one that was previously voted for deletion, yet another one was created. That page is archived here. Articles with personal essays and original thought have no place in Wikipedia. The decision should be respected, and this article should be deleted. Kaonashi 05:12, 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 keep (no consensus), could perhaps be merged with Disney family, but no strong consensus on that either. I will let the article stay as it is for now, but if someone wants to merge it somewhere, go ahead and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable relative of a famous person, attack page. Zoe 05:43, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. The subject is a short film produced by teenagers as a school project. There is no IMDb entry for it or its creators, who, tho creative and surely destined for film immortality, are not yet appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia. Related: Dark Night. Tysto 05:44, 2005 August 24 (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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. The subject is a short film produced by teenagers as a school project. There is no IMDb entry for it or its creators, who, tho creative and surely destined for film immortality, are not yet appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia. Related: The School. Tysto 05:44, 2005 August 24 (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!) 08:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Despite many claims of notability, it seems that this young man's notability is mostly in his own mind. Vanity. Zoe 06:23, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 09:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Article is largely conjecture. Dlyons493 06:33, 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. Woohookitty 09:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blog, 5 days old, doesn't even have its own website. Zoe 06:46, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 09:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. Three Google hits, their website is a mypage. Zoe 06:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I would vote to keep it, but i guess that doesn't count... at least, apparently, i didnt suck, it was just virtually unknown. dammit, but oh well. although if my vote counts, i still vote yay....
-- Rezurrxtionjoe, 2:33AM 8/24/05 (CST) Rezurrxtionjoe 07:32, 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. Woohookitty 09:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable college dining hall. Zoe 07:09, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 10:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable song BrowardHick 07:13, 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 KEEP. Will tag for cleanup.- Splash 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal research BrowardHick 07:14, 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 KEEP. I will revert it to the requested version. - Splash 23:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Rather nonsensical article, is this about the word British in Bulgaria or the word Bulgarian in English? Nothing found on Google other than wiki-mirrors BrowardHick 07:22, 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. Woohookitty 10:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A rally cry used by a dodgeball team in a self-described "obscure unconventional sports league", non-notable BrowardHick 07:24, 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 COPYVIO, with no offer of a rewrite. - Splash 23:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for non-notable company BrowardHick 07:33, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 08:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Page on random nn bar in Dublin BrowardHick 07:39, 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 Speedied per CSD#A1. R adiant 14:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page was voted to be Speedy Deleted in November 2004 yet is still here BrowardHick 07:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Sprankton was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to speedy delete.
Appears to be some sort of joke. I don't get it. -- fvw * 12:11, 2004 Nov 21 (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. Woohookitty 10:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable/What? Santa Clara where? BrowardHick 07:47, 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 and redirect to Aurora. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: Content essentially copied from khet and itrw, and same reasons for deleting as the previous score of articles on VfD from User:rktect (no need to repeat them here). -- Egil 07:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(talk) 08:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be obsessed with trying to tell me what to write about. These pages aren't just talking about measures. In the case of the page on the Aroura we are talking about the differenc e between public and private architecture, the power of landholding, feudalism, Land Tenure in the time of the Ramesides, things about which you are clueless on every level. Why not go make your own contribution and leave mine alone? Rktect 02:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete.
Gene Nygaard 13:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
* Delete per same reasons as the other entries. Repeating material (under new title with the arguemnt the same material is related to the new title). -- <
drini |
∂drini > 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
and how the control of the water to irrigate the fields led to control of the land
a dozen or so
NOTE: In the above, User:Rktect has sprinkled his edits all over the place, so it is now not easy to see who said what. I see that my last comment is now misrepresented. (Please don't ask me to clean it up, I really have spent far too much of my Wiki time cleaning up after this user). -- Egil 11:40, 27 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!) 09:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN winner of a 3-on-3 basketball tournament BrowardHick 08:02, 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 keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Company advertising Dave.Dunford 08:02, 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. Woohookitty 10:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No information on WHICH college of technology this is or at what university, no real content BrowardHick 08:04, 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. Woohookitty 10:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Same as College of Technology BrowardHick 08:05, 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. Woohookitty 10:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Same as College of Tech and Humanities BrowardHick 08:06, 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 wasdelete. Woohookitty 10:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable university student organization, vanity, first person, attempt at communication. Zoe 08:07, August 24, 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 per criterion A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. - Mgm| (talk) 08:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
A tongue in cheek vanity page Dunemaire 08:35, 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. Woohookitty 10:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable pornographic e-zine. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete because insignificant - is not pornographic
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 08:59, 31 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 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Admitted inside joke, and thus inherently non-notable. Zero Google hits. Not a speedy candidate, unfortunately. Fernando Rizo T/ C 09:55, 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 Speedy Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a vanity page. Can't find anything notable on Google. Finbarr Saunders 10:02, 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. Woohookitty 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a howto-guide. Transwiki to
Wikibooks or
Wikisource provided this isn't a copyvio.
Alphax
τ
ε
χ 10:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Delete.
Alphax
τ
ε
χ 04:35, 25 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A combination of fan speculation, very mild fancruft, original research, and opinions. Disney cartoons aren't specially singled out; nearly all network and syndicated animated shows stop after 65 episodes (because at 65, the studio have enough episodes to broadcast for each weekday for 13 weeks--a full season). I'd say to delete this article with no redirect, and make a mention of the policy at an article for television syndication. FuriousFreddy 10:43, 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 keep. Article was rewritten before the VFD debate time expired. Therefore the "conditional" keep votes will be counted as "keep"s. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wall 'o text advertisement for a battery company. Fernando Rizo T/ C 10:49, 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 KEEP. Since there was previously a merge tag on it, I will leave it there although I can't do the merge myself or I would. - Splash 23:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Partisan POV, contains text like "Armenian terrorists". Manik Raina 10:53, 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 keep, no firm decision on where to move. Please use the talk page and WP:RM to arrive at a consensus on renaming if this is desired. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked as a speedy but doesn't fit anything on WP:CSD. I'm tempted to vote delete just so I can say, " WP:NOT a See 'n Say", but in all fairness I think this could be cleaned up into a decent article, after a page move to a better name. No vote, regardless as I'm just fulfilling the original intent of the speedy nominator. Fernando Rizo T/ C 11:08, 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 MERGE to Mario Party. Already done. Will apply the redirect. - Splash 23:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
One mini-game from a whole series is not worthy of an article, it's also very short and there's no reason why it should be in an encyclopedia. Taylor 11:14, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This person does not appear to be in any important, notary or indeed interesting and I see no reason for him to have an entry in any encyclopedia. Cdyson37 11:27, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This was obviously written by a fan of the game but is completely non-sensical to the average browser. I'd say merge to Warhammer 40,000 but that would at best consist of a single sentence which probably already exists; I don't think a sub-plot or sub-category in a sci-fi game deserves more than that Marskell 11:35, 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 keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I could not confirm any of the given information to be true with Google. Anyone else? feydey 11:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Keep the updated version, good work Doc, feydey 15:08, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band KeithD (talk) 11:39, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for non-notable company. Created by anonymous user who posted only on this topic. See also David Hornik. Dlyons493 11:53, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly content-free article to give an excuse to post a link to an external site. Al 12:28, August 24, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This gentleman does not meet the standards of a notable entry 66.68.156.175 12:34, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Only one Google hit. [4] KeithD (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: The article in question was moved early on, during in the deletion discussion, and the text was nominated for deletion under the new title as well, as a result, there was a second discussion about what to do with the content at: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_small_bands -- Mysidia ( talk) 21:35, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
plus a redirect to it. Blatant first person advertising. -- RHaworth 12:28:57, 2005-08-24 (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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The child of a notable person is not automatically also notable. Al 12:34, August 24, 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!) 08:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. See also Machines Of Desire, the author's only other contribution. KeithD (talk) 12:35, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Even article says subject is not notable. Al 12:48, August 24, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Al 13:00, August 24, 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. I think the differences between the various rename suggestions (including straight retention) are fairly moot, so I won't move it. You can take it WP:RM or just be bold. - Splash 00:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Really, how many of these could there possibly be? Al 13:11, August 24, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Al 13:14, August 24, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax? Page creator doesn't seem to know the concept of modulus, and Google returns 1 hit for "invalid number theory", in a totally unrelated context . DS 13:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Oh, and if this one goes, so too should the article on INT's purported creator, Michael Talks (a name inherently ungoogleable). DS 13:33, 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. [[smoddy]] 20:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:30, 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. [[smoddy]] 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn spam -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:33, 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 BJAODN and delete redirect. [[smoddy]] 20:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Someone had a bad day at work did they? DJ Clayworth 13:39, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Creator of invalid number theory, currently on vfd. Not-notable and probably vanity. Brighterorange 14:14, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band KeithD (talk) 14:27, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Someone stuck a VfD on this but did not finish the job. Judge for yourselves. -- RHaworth 15:00:54, 2005-08-24 (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!) 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original article was deleted as a copyvio. Temp article asserts no notability, and is probably little more than spam. KeithD (talk) 15:05, 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 del. mikka (t) 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del. Foreign language dicdef. Etymology not of common acceptance. mikka (t) 15:12, 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 +5/-0
Wikipedia is not a genealogy database KeithD (talk) 15:12, 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 Speedy Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Would appear to be advertising, but not in English. If you look at the creator's user page, it features the same text. Mark Lewis 15:27, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unknown(can't even google),POV, personal page J E Bailey 15:25, 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 keep. [[smoddy]] 19:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Inconceivable that this could be of use in its current form; even if fixed, should be rolled into whatever band recorded it. Uucp 15:32, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hizzoax. Bandity. Whatever you want to call it, it's not real. DS 15:36, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A couple of neologisms that have occasionally reached attack status during editing. Only thing this article offers is an argument for expanding WP:CSD. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:39:43, 2005-08-24 (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 Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 17:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't speak Turkish, but this looks like a blatant advertisement to me. Kurt Shaped Box 15:53, 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 +3/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
This person appears to be the VP of marketing in an Indian television channel. The page was created by the same IP address as Adyanthaya. Delete as nn. Martg76 15:55, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website KeithD (talk) 16:03, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nonsense; can't confirm notability. 0 Google hits. Psychonaut 16:08, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A Google search for "Robocore" returns 507 hits, most of which seem unrelated to music. Also, a Google search for "Bleeding Quinceanera" (supposedly a pioneer of the genere) returns only one hit - a myspace page. I assert that this is non-notable and possible bandcruft. Kurt Shaped Box 16:06, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, non-notable site (65 Google hits). Kurt Shaped Box 16:22, 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 merge to zompist.com. [[smoddy]] 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The article's about a board that has 856 members. 651 have posted more than once. - Home Row Keysplurge 16:27, 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 02:04, August 30, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. A list of bands who aren't notable enough for their own Wikipedia article will be uncontrollably huge. What next, a list of people who aren't notable for their own article? KeithD (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: The article in question was moved early on, during in the deletion discussion, and the text was nominated for deletion under the new title as well, as a result, this was the second discussion about what to do with the content, the first was started at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Machines Of Desire, as far as I could tell, no consensus had been reached to keep the content and merge it to a different article. -- Mysidia ( talk) 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete:Okay, I read the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and I believe Machines of Desire meets the criteria. Does anyone mind if I delete the article right away, or do you want to wait a full seven days to vote on whether it deservers a speedy delete? Sheesh!
Uncle Ed 21:04, August 24, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A minor restaurant on the campus of Dartmouth. I left a friendly note to Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students on the talk page of the anon who created it. Nothing to see here. Meelar (talk) 16:31, August 24, 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 12:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
A minor printing service on the campus of Dartmouth. I left a friendly note to Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students on the talk page of the anon who created it. Nothing to see here. Doesn't deserve a redirect. Meelar (talk) 16:34, August 24, 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 02:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity. 1 Google hit. Kurt Shaped Box 16:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is actually funny. I just received an email to check this out. I am the founder of JMR Band. We ARE a real band. We have been playing a long time. We have played with some notable groups, but WE have never had a national hit record. Of course, that has never been our purpose. We have always been and always will be an indie group. We received some significant regional radio airplay on one of our songs, but that's about it. I hope this clears up the matter. [Joe / jmrband@hotmail.com]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 per CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. FCYTravis 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was previously deleted over a year ago. Still only gets four Google hits, one of which is the wikipedia deleteion log.
Not sure if I'm treating this correctly or not. If not, somebody clean it up for me. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous VfD:
Seems non-notable. No google hits. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Remember to remove from 1988 births. Thue 18:06, 17 Jun 2004 (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 Dulce et Decorum Est. [[smoddy]] 17:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete delete quick boys as band vanity. - Lucky 6.9 17:09, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. -- Ryan Delaney talk 17:11, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Created by 69.69.217.67 who also created JMR -- "Jesus Mighty Rock" and Jesus Mighty Rock. Although there are some google hits, he doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Martg76 17:54, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for non notable software. Only 515 google results. NSR ( talk) 18:12, 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 Duplicate articles, resolving with a history merge -- Allen3 talk 12:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page contains identical information to the page Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike. There is no point having two articles for the same person, one using his full name and one just using a shortened form of his name. Because of this, I would suggest that this page is deleted Vino s 18:26, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original Research - Satori (talk) 18:32, 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 keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to have been created simply for the purpose of adding a single external link. And no mention of the SCA?! Al 18:30, August 24, 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 delete. [[smoddy]] 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity, non-notable Christy747 18:41, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This Guy was Evidently some kind of Football Player but he is Not Notable Enough! (1986-1989) 19:09, 24 August 1991 (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 delete. [[smoddy]] 17:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is advertising for a Romanian car rental company. NSR ( talk) 19:12, 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 merge to birth. [[smoddy]] 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is close to a dicdef and is redundant with childbirth, birth and the other pregnancy related articles. Tznkai 19:17, 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 transwiki. [[smoddy]] 17:08, 30 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. [[smoddy]] 17:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Band vanity; no presence on allmusic, no Google evidence of major label releases or tours. Delete unless noteability established. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:39:43, 2005-08-24 (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. [[smoddy]] 17:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Seems like vanity to me. PhilipO
Delete this rubbish. A disgrace to Wikipedia.-- Fuckthe LHP Haters 23:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Keep-- Fuckthe LHP Haters 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)19:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC) (SOCK PUPPET) *Keep Seems pretty neutral to me (-- Dorang12 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)]], author of the article in question) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep the article seems fine. I live in Southern California and it doesn't look any more biased then some other articles on here. Besides, I've seen the commercials. Seems accurate.-- Pete Mos$ 20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep. I like it -- Sinatra-iz-God 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Those commercials are great. There's nothing wrong here. I say KEEP-- Majutray 20:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep I don't see the problem here. Did Larry Parker write this page himself? What would an article on Wikipedia do for him? Is he hurting for clients that bad? Unsigned edit by User:Dorang12. Third edit by user, made 5 minutes after first edit. Ground Zero 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) Keep This article is factual, whether you "deletionists" like it or not.-- LongDongHanks 21:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Commentthis article, perhaps, should be deleted. However, comparing it to Mein Kampf is ridiculous. agamemnon2, you owe the entire discussion an apology.-- JohnF32 22:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *QUESTION How can so many people be so passionate and emotional about an injury attorney?!? -- JohnF32 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (SOCK PUPPET) *ANSWER That my friend is the real question here. Lots of LHP haters, I suppose--[[-- Dorang12 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)]] 22:20, 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 (9 delete, 3 valid keep). [[smoddy]] 17:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Campus organizations are not inherently noteable. No relevant Google hits found outside of the Cambridge domain (cam.ac.uk). Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:58:57, 2005-08-24 (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. [[smoddy]] 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable neologism, see the terrifying set of e-themed redlinks as well: e-coaching, etc. Sdedeo 20:21, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dwane the graphiti artist from 1984 in Sweeden seems like patent vanity nonsense to me Cloveious 20:59, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Slang dictdef. -- Ryan Delaney talk 21:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Agreed!(Unsigned edit by 207.251.232.173)
The term is used tens of thousands of times on usenet. It is worth including.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)
It's a word coined by a man trying to illegally sell a pirated music bootleg. The reason it is so common on usenet is that he spams prolifically trying to sell copies of his tapes. At best this is a Vanity Page, at worst it's an advert for illegal goods. Either way, delete.(Unsigned edit by 194.79.243.65)
I can't recall the man trying to sell the recordings of the "wereo." He just proclaims that he has them. The above message is an example of the types that would have it deleted for no good reason.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)
If the text of the entry is the problem, please someone edit that text. I am no expert on encyclopedic authoring. The most important facts are these: "The Wereo" is referenced over 23,800 times on usenet. "The Wereo" is not just a slang term but is itself an actual movement on usenet by several hundred people. "The Wereo" is more popular than many subjects that have listings on Wikipedia. Squidhammer(Unsigned edit by User:209.205.191.147')'
This is blatantly incorrect. Those "several hundred people" are one prolific troll and a small group of hangers-on who follow him around. A simple google search will verify that. This same troll like to use the word "awl" instead of "all" (along with many other such baby-talk spellings). Do you therefore suggest "awl" deserves a wiki page just because one man has used it 100,000 times in usenet posts? Ludicrous.(Unsigned edit by User:80.229.30.88')'
Comment once again blanked by 205.188.116.72 Tonywalton | Talk 22:41, 26 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. [[smoddy]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Andrew pmk 21:21, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Other than his published works, a google search indicates a lack of notability. Also, the article's purpose appears to be for the promotion of a religion. Cheese Sandwich 21:36, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal essay.- Aranel ("Sarah") 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete - it is an interesting article but it needs a huge amount of work to make it Wiki-propriate. Eddie.willers 00:43, 27 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. [[smoddy]] 16:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Categorize and delete - can never be fully POV and the list will never be complete Halibu tt 21:42, August 24, 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 15:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Fictitious soccer team. Cheese Sandwich 21:49, 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 (After filtering through the edit history for new users, anons, and other questionable actions, I count 14 delete, 3 merge, and 1 redirect votes) -- Allen3 talk 15:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The tags were added to all the names, I assume by the author. Let's please get this over with. JDoorjam 00:18, 25 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 14:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Forum vanity. 17 distinct hits on Google. Kurt Shaped Box 22:13, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not 100% sure about this. Looks like some sort of trolling attempt. Thought I'd list it here for consensus. Kurt Shaped Box 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Might not be bad if it's done right. I vote to keep it on a probationary status, but not if its sole purpose is to humiliate authors, but rather serves as a source of humor, interest, or examples of what not to do.22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)~~ This comment is by User:Jbrakatselos - user's 6th edit. FreplySpang (talk) 22:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Hi everybody, to the concerned person(s) above, first off, I an not a "troll" (whatever that means!) I work here at the Wiki on my own time as we all do!, I am a participant in the following group for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit and I just happen to be working on a subject in an article for Wikipedia, and yeah, while it is only a stub at this point in a few hours I hope it will be read and enjoyed by most with a smile and a wink at for my efforts at the worst. So please wont you all give me a few measurements of time to show you ???? I am a serious editor here at Wikipedia! (and I care!)
I thank you in advance Shalom! ( Cathytreks 22:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
Is a place where people who dont dare register their IP go, and also those who fail to check their facts first before they make an edit may reside as well! Hey guys who want to delete this remember.....This article is a stub. More ..much more to come...So please stand by for...The Wikipedia Hall of Shame! which will serves as a source for humor, interest, or examples of what not to do while editing here on The Wikipedia! come back and fee free to contribute and edit edit edit..in good fun and so please feel free to share your ideas, I'll be back later with a bunch of things. (btw, im not a troll either but love to help make things better around here) User:Cathytreks 22:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
Here is my view on Wikipedia from the group im in here on reform of Wiki: "I too shall be glad to assist in helping to develop a standard of thoughful concensus building which shall not impose new censorship standards on the Wikipedia, save those self imposed ones that lay within ourselves. While the concept of "decency" may be POV on its face still, there should be some basic standard of decency that a community should strive to abide by, lest we suffer that result, which would undoubtedly be ...total anarchy." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit
Excuse me nice editors...I dont even know some/most of you people and yet you treat me as a vandal/troll!...why?..why are you to be sitting in judgement on me and saying those kinds of things, like im a bad person, give me a break, and just Who or what is a BAJOADN!? , anyway you guys arent even giving me a chance...so im going to just work on my piece and hope you will think differently when its no longer just a stub...Please give my article a chance!? I am a serious editor here and this is rediculous how rudely and wrongly I am treated by some of you. ..forshame on those who act so. :( please...and it is not original research! ( Cathytreks 23:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
I had a dream ...of a Wikipedia site where anyone who was lost or erred by accedent might come to a place of learning from those who messed up..in a good way...no name calling no baiting...just a place to pick up the pieces as editors to be after a gafaw...guess I made a mistake to think it would be an encyclopedic article worth merit and fun...as I slump in defeat over this I am sorry I wasted the idea at Wikipedia...this time, but please dont count either the idea or me out yet cuz..."I'll be back" lol ;-) ( Cathytreks 01:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
Thank you all who wrote so kindly to me on my User Talk page and exsplained it all so well, I want to be an asset to the community and be of value, I'll be back with something of value to contribute I hope that you will be as kind again as you were on my user page after you learned I only meant good stuff! ...best to all Cathy! :-) ( Cathytreks 01:49, 25 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 14:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. A word that means nothing and can be used as a substitute for anything. Right... Delete RJH 22:33, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
One-year-old band from Chicago that allmusic.com hasn't heard of. - Aranel ("Sarah") 22:50, 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 14:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity? It's hard to tell without a last name to look up, but neither singing for the local hockey game (in Ohio, where hockey isn't particularly big) nor performing at the local amusement park are in and of themselves noteworthy. I can't find any hits on Google for either of the bands mentioned. - Aranel ("Sarah") 23:02, 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 speedy delete because that was the virtually unanimous vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. This new posting is identical (at a quick glance) but without the extensive external links that the previous one had. -- RHaworth 00:04:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
I am sure this is a reposting of something deleted a few days ago. The first entry in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of fictional characters with ADHD confirms my suspicion but I cannot find the precedent. Anyway - delete - original research / postumous psychiatric diagnosis / unverifiable. -- RHaworth 23:04:52, 2005-08-24 (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 13:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
nn company Dlyons493 23:14, 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 12:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
A newly-created pseudo religion designed to make fun of computer newbies. Not encyclopedic, and seemingly without any impact beyond the amusement of its creators. "Its basicly just the Christian bible translated into 1337speak..." Joyous (talk) 23:26, August 24, 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 12:42, August 30, 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 12:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
nn band, few songs, little Google Dlyons493 23:32, 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 11:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. -- fvw * 23:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Note from Creator: Aww, man, why does it have to be deleted? Does it really matter if it's insignificant at this point?
This same person has now created a page in German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kourosh_Ziabari My question is how to reactivate the deletion process.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Userfy (discussion could have also supported a consensus for deletion, but userfying is the less drastic option) -- Allen3 talk 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
This article, it seems, was written by Kourosh ziabari. There are a few hundred instances of him on the net; the 6 pages of his from the UK are basically him writing on blogs, though, and they don't particularly make sense. I skimmed over some of the Farsi links too, (although my grip on that language is not strong, to put it lightly,) and it seems that, on most of them, he is just bigging himself up. I highlight this for a votes for deletion because I am not sure whether his age and his 'acceptance' classified him as notable. If so, this article needs some deal of rewriting. If not, like I expect, then so be it. IINAG 23:43, 24th August 2005 (UTC)
You are right, world's youngest journalist returns no google hits but WORLD YOUNGEST JOURNALIST RETURNS MORE THAN 4 PAGES SEARCH RESULT OF GOOGLE. OK?
How can I prove that I am the world youngest journalist? Have I the ability or the permission to link all my 1000 articles?
I have another question, all the boys and girls on this page Child prodigies are real genius and gifted talented personals, and just I am the problem? All the boys and girls on that page have unormal and special abilities and just I have not?
If you link to your articles, it would prove your claim. That's easy!
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No google hits Samw 00:35, 25 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 merge to an unspecified target. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged for deletion by User:132.205.3.20, but he seems not to have been able to figure out how to finish up the deletion process. The article has been nominated for deletion once before: see Talk:Unbibium. No vote -- Carnildo 21:35, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum. No link provided, and I couldn't find it on google. Mairi 00:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Leave it!-Gamers.com is a major forum, it is not all that much different than having an article on ebay or google. I'll admit Gamers is much smaller, but it is still there, and important to many people. - Josiah
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
original research/vanity/pseudoscience Ben-w 00:25, 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 keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Supporting character from The Fairly OddParents without enough information to really be worth keeping. If this is kept, it needs to be moved. "A.J." is a fairly common nickname. - Aranel ("Sarah") 00:36, 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. JYolkowski // talk 22:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, vanity. Near duplicate at Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002. -- IByte 00:37, 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. As for the rewrite, there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus to delete it (although it's close and some votes are ambiguous), so kept for now. Next time could we please not merge VfDs on completely different articles? Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, vanity. Near duplicate at Sydney J Bush.. UK Optometrist/inventor/researcher -- IByte 00:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
However, I have brought Sydney J. Bush under the umbrella of this discussion. Other people don't write much about this person. Research mainly brought up self-publicity. For the latter article, Weak Keep. Uncle G 11:22:50, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
I didn't find anything at all that mentioned the claim that you mention, or the claims to holding patents. The only source for these claims is User:Sydney J Bush, writing his autobiography in Wikipedia. See the rewrite for the stuff that I did find. Uncle G 13:17:16, 2005-08-24 (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 as rewritten. -- BD2412 talk 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Transwiki to WikiBooks.
Acetic Acid 00:44, August 24, 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, merge is moderately suppported. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"Feminity" redirects to Gender role; article is mostly covered by Gender role ♥purplefeltangel 01:12, 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 Speedy Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 02:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. No albums, no major tours yet Zeimusu | Talk page 01:19, 2005 August 24 (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 ambiguous. There is not even a majority for outright deletion, so it stands between redirect and outright keep. There are seven votes to keep, five votes to delete and six votes to redirect. If I put the redirect and delete votes together we have 11-7 for discarding the content, which I will not call a consensus either. Also, I'm not sure if a redirect at this title to Beta Theta Pi would be really useful, or just confusing. Therefore, I will call this an outright keep (no consensus) for the time being. If anyone wants to merge or redirect, they may do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor, non-notable lawyer who founded some fraternity. Delete. Gamaliel 01:38, 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 keep. -- BD2412 talk 03:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This gentleman does not meet the standards of a notable entry. 66.68.156.175 August 23, 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 keep. -- BD2412 talk 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Non Important QB lifelong backup. Delete. Aranda56 01:42, 24 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
no google hits for "Jonathan Large" + "Jerry Lane"—hoax? If so then delete. JeremyA (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a student film. Perhaps he isn't very well known.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable film. No google hits, no IMDB entry. Delete JeremyA (talk) 02:59, 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 all four. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN band vanity, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Co-nominated along with articles on band members Aaron Weik, Matt Conlin, and Dan Leayman. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:08:51, 2005-08-24 (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 Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be the World of Warcraft page with a search and replace conducted. Should be deleted, as no such game is planned at this time. EcoRat 02:32, 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 copyvio for the first article, and no consensus, so keep for the temp article. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 03:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page appears to have been written by Pejman himself (see edit history) who has an account ( User:Pejman) but also edits under different various IPs. Anyways, Pejman Akbarzadeh appears to not be notable enough, as he only gets 296 Google hits. Delete? -- Hottentot
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/advertising in my view. A speedy delete tag was removed by User:JYolkowski, so I suppose this should be taken to VfD. Delete. Martg76 05:13, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Only one editor (besides a minor by me), who I'm guessing is the founder. Site in question is a yahoo group. Most likely original research, vanity, etc. etc.. Also same editor keeps putting in (and occasionally reverting) bits about International Asperger's Year (a term coined by this "group") into ANY Asperger's related article. -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:32, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asperger Adults of Greater Washington - term coined by them. One editor - original research most likely -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete It. merge it if you most.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Woohookitty 09:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
There was a page with the same premise of this one that was previously voted for deletion, yet another one was created. That page is archived here. Articles with personal essays and original thought have no place in Wikipedia. The decision should be respected, and this article should be deleted. Kaonashi 05:12, 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 keep (no consensus), could perhaps be merged with Disney family, but no strong consensus on that either. I will let the article stay as it is for now, but if someone wants to merge it somewhere, go ahead and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable relative of a famous person, attack page. Zoe 05:43, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. The subject is a short film produced by teenagers as a school project. There is no IMDb entry for it or its creators, who, tho creative and surely destined for film immortality, are not yet appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia. Related: Dark Night. Tysto 05:44, 2005 August 24 (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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. The subject is a short film produced by teenagers as a school project. There is no IMDb entry for it or its creators, who, tho creative and surely destined for film immortality, are not yet appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia. Related: The School. Tysto 05:44, 2005 August 24 (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!) 08:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Despite many claims of notability, it seems that this young man's notability is mostly in his own mind. Vanity. Zoe 06:23, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 09:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Article is largely conjecture. Dlyons493 06:33, 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. Woohookitty 09:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blog, 5 days old, doesn't even have its own website. Zoe 06:46, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 09:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. Three Google hits, their website is a mypage. Zoe 06:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I would vote to keep it, but i guess that doesn't count... at least, apparently, i didnt suck, it was just virtually unknown. dammit, but oh well. although if my vote counts, i still vote yay....
-- Rezurrxtionjoe, 2:33AM 8/24/05 (CST) Rezurrxtionjoe 07:32, 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. Woohookitty 09:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable college dining hall. Zoe 07:09, August 24, 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. Woohookitty 10:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable song BrowardHick 07:13, 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 KEEP. Will tag for cleanup.- Splash 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal research BrowardHick 07:14, 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 KEEP. I will revert it to the requested version. - Splash 23:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Rather nonsensical article, is this about the word British in Bulgaria or the word Bulgarian in English? Nothing found on Google other than wiki-mirrors BrowardHick 07:22, 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. Woohookitty 10:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A rally cry used by a dodgeball team in a self-described "obscure unconventional sports league", non-notable BrowardHick 07:24, 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 COPYVIO, with no offer of a rewrite. - Splash 23:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for non-notable company BrowardHick 07:33, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 08:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Page on random nn bar in Dublin BrowardHick 07:39, 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 Speedied per CSD#A1. R adiant 14:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page was voted to be Speedy Deleted in November 2004 yet is still here BrowardHick 07:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Sprankton was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to speedy delete.
Appears to be some sort of joke. I don't get it. -- fvw * 12:11, 2004 Nov 21 (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. Woohookitty 10:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable/What? Santa Clara where? BrowardHick 07:47, 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 and redirect to Aurora. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: Content essentially copied from khet and itrw, and same reasons for deleting as the previous score of articles on VfD from User:rktect (no need to repeat them here). -- Egil 07:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(talk) 08:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be obsessed with trying to tell me what to write about. These pages aren't just talking about measures. In the case of the page on the Aroura we are talking about the differenc e between public and private architecture, the power of landholding, feudalism, Land Tenure in the time of the Ramesides, things about which you are clueless on every level. Why not go make your own contribution and leave mine alone? Rktect 02:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete.
Gene Nygaard 13:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
* Delete per same reasons as the other entries. Repeating material (under new title with the arguemnt the same material is related to the new title). -- <
drini |
∂drini > 15:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
and how the control of the water to irrigate the fields led to control of the land
a dozen or so
NOTE: In the above, User:Rktect has sprinkled his edits all over the place, so it is now not easy to see who said what. I see that my last comment is now misrepresented. (Please don't ask me to clean it up, I really have spent far too much of my Wiki time cleaning up after this user). -- Egil 11:40, 27 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!) 09:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN winner of a 3-on-3 basketball tournament BrowardHick 08:02, 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 keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Company advertising Dave.Dunford 08:02, 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. Woohookitty 10:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No information on WHICH college of technology this is or at what university, no real content BrowardHick 08:04, 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. Woohookitty 10:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Same as College of Technology BrowardHick 08:05, 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. Woohookitty 10:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Same as College of Tech and Humanities BrowardHick 08:06, 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 wasdelete. Woohookitty 10:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable university student organization, vanity, first person, attempt at communication. Zoe 08:07, August 24, 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 per criterion A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. - Mgm| (talk) 08:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
A tongue in cheek vanity page Dunemaire 08:35, 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. Woohookitty 10:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable pornographic e-zine. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete because insignificant - is not pornographic
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 08:59, 31 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 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Admitted inside joke, and thus inherently non-notable. Zero Google hits. Not a speedy candidate, unfortunately. Fernando Rizo T/ C 09:55, 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 Speedy Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a vanity page. Can't find anything notable on Google. Finbarr Saunders 10:02, 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. Woohookitty 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a howto-guide. Transwiki to
Wikibooks or
Wikisource provided this isn't a copyvio.
Alphax
τ
ε
χ 10:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Delete.
Alphax
τ
ε
χ 04:35, 25 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A combination of fan speculation, very mild fancruft, original research, and opinions. Disney cartoons aren't specially singled out; nearly all network and syndicated animated shows stop after 65 episodes (because at 65, the studio have enough episodes to broadcast for each weekday for 13 weeks--a full season). I'd say to delete this article with no redirect, and make a mention of the policy at an article for television syndication. FuriousFreddy 10:43, 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 keep. Article was rewritten before the VFD debate time expired. Therefore the "conditional" keep votes will be counted as "keep"s. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wall 'o text advertisement for a battery company. Fernando Rizo T/ C 10:49, 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 KEEP. Since there was previously a merge tag on it, I will leave it there although I can't do the merge myself or I would. - Splash 23:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Partisan POV, contains text like "Armenian terrorists". Manik Raina 10:53, 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 keep, no firm decision on where to move. Please use the talk page and WP:RM to arrive at a consensus on renaming if this is desired. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked as a speedy but doesn't fit anything on WP:CSD. I'm tempted to vote delete just so I can say, " WP:NOT a See 'n Say", but in all fairness I think this could be cleaned up into a decent article, after a page move to a better name. No vote, regardless as I'm just fulfilling the original intent of the speedy nominator. Fernando Rizo T/ C 11:08, 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 MERGE to Mario Party. Already done. Will apply the redirect. - Splash 23:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
One mini-game from a whole series is not worthy of an article, it's also very short and there's no reason why it should be in an encyclopedia. Taylor 11:14, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This person does not appear to be in any important, notary or indeed interesting and I see no reason for him to have an entry in any encyclopedia. Cdyson37 11:27, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This was obviously written by a fan of the game but is completely non-sensical to the average browser. I'd say merge to Warhammer 40,000 but that would at best consist of a single sentence which probably already exists; I don't think a sub-plot or sub-category in a sci-fi game deserves more than that Marskell 11:35, 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 keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I could not confirm any of the given information to be true with Google. Anyone else? feydey 11:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Keep the updated version, good work Doc, feydey 15:08, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band KeithD (talk) 11:39, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for non-notable company. Created by anonymous user who posted only on this topic. See also David Hornik. Dlyons493 11:53, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly content-free article to give an excuse to post a link to an external site. Al 12:28, August 24, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This gentleman does not meet the standards of a notable entry 66.68.156.175 12:34, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Only one Google hit. [4] KeithD (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: The article in question was moved early on, during in the deletion discussion, and the text was nominated for deletion under the new title as well, as a result, there was a second discussion about what to do with the content at: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_small_bands -- Mysidia ( talk) 21:35, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
plus a redirect to it. Blatant first person advertising. -- RHaworth 12:28:57, 2005-08-24 (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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The child of a notable person is not automatically also notable. Al 12:34, August 24, 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!) 08:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. See also Machines Of Desire, the author's only other contribution. KeithD (talk) 12:35, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Even article says subject is not notable. Al 12:48, August 24, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Al 13:00, August 24, 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. I think the differences between the various rename suggestions (including straight retention) are fairly moot, so I won't move it. You can take it WP:RM or just be bold. - Splash 00:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Really, how many of these could there possibly be? Al 13:11, August 24, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Al 13:14, August 24, 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 07:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax? Page creator doesn't seem to know the concept of modulus, and Google returns 1 hit for "invalid number theory", in a totally unrelated context . DS 13:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Oh, and if this one goes, so too should the article on INT's purported creator, Michael Talks (a name inherently ungoogleable). DS 13:33, 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. [[smoddy]] 20:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:30, 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. [[smoddy]] 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn spam -- Ryan Delaney talk 13:33, 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 BJAODN and delete redirect. [[smoddy]] 20:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Someone had a bad day at work did they? DJ Clayworth 13:39, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Creator of invalid number theory, currently on vfd. Not-notable and probably vanity. Brighterorange 14:14, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band KeithD (talk) 14:27, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Someone stuck a VfD on this but did not finish the job. Judge for yourselves. -- RHaworth 15:00:54, 2005-08-24 (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!) 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original article was deleted as a copyvio. Temp article asserts no notability, and is probably little more than spam. KeithD (talk) 15:05, 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 del. mikka (t) 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del. Foreign language dicdef. Etymology not of common acceptance. mikka (t) 15:12, 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 +5/-0
Wikipedia is not a genealogy database KeithD (talk) 15:12, 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 Speedy Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Would appear to be advertising, but not in English. If you look at the creator's user page, it features the same text. Mark Lewis 15:27, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unknown(can't even google),POV, personal page J E Bailey 15:25, 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 keep. [[smoddy]] 19:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Inconceivable that this could be of use in its current form; even if fixed, should be rolled into whatever band recorded it. Uucp 15:32, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hizzoax. Bandity. Whatever you want to call it, it's not real. DS 15:36, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A couple of neologisms that have occasionally reached attack status during editing. Only thing this article offers is an argument for expanding WP:CSD. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:39:43, 2005-08-24 (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 Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 17:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't speak Turkish, but this looks like a blatant advertisement to me. Kurt Shaped Box 15:53, 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 +3/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
This person appears to be the VP of marketing in an Indian television channel. The page was created by the same IP address as Adyanthaya. Delete as nn. Martg76 15:55, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website KeithD (talk) 16:03, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nonsense; can't confirm notability. 0 Google hits. Psychonaut 16:08, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A Google search for "Robocore" returns 507 hits, most of which seem unrelated to music. Also, a Google search for "Bleeding Quinceanera" (supposedly a pioneer of the genere) returns only one hit - a myspace page. I assert that this is non-notable and possible bandcruft. Kurt Shaped Box 16:06, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, non-notable site (65 Google hits). Kurt Shaped Box 16:22, 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 merge to zompist.com. [[smoddy]] 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The article's about a board that has 856 members. 651 have posted more than once. - Home Row Keysplurge 16:27, 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 02:04, August 30, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. A list of bands who aren't notable enough for their own Wikipedia article will be uncontrollably huge. What next, a list of people who aren't notable for their own article? KeithD (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: The article in question was moved early on, during in the deletion discussion, and the text was nominated for deletion under the new title as well, as a result, this was the second discussion about what to do with the content, the first was started at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Machines Of Desire, as far as I could tell, no consensus had been reached to keep the content and merge it to a different article. -- Mysidia ( talk) 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete:Okay, I read the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and I believe Machines of Desire meets the criteria. Does anyone mind if I delete the article right away, or do you want to wait a full seven days to vote on whether it deservers a speedy delete? Sheesh!
Uncle Ed 21:04, August 24, 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. [[smoddy]] 19:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A minor restaurant on the campus of Dartmouth. I left a friendly note to Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students on the talk page of the anon who created it. Nothing to see here. Meelar (talk) 16:31, August 24, 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 12:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
A minor printing service on the campus of Dartmouth. I left a friendly note to Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students on the talk page of the anon who created it. Nothing to see here. Doesn't deserve a redirect. Meelar (talk) 16:34, August 24, 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 02:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity. 1 Google hit. Kurt Shaped Box 16:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is actually funny. I just received an email to check this out. I am the founder of JMR Band. We ARE a real band. We have been playing a long time. We have played with some notable groups, but WE have never had a national hit record. Of course, that has never been our purpose. We have always been and always will be an indie group. We received some significant regional radio airplay on one of our songs, but that's about it. I hope this clears up the matter. [Joe / jmrband@hotmail.com]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 per CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. FCYTravis 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was previously deleted over a year ago. Still only gets four Google hits, one of which is the wikipedia deleteion log.
Not sure if I'm treating this correctly or not. If not, somebody clean it up for me. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous VfD:
Seems non-notable. No google hits. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Remember to remove from 1988 births. Thue 18:06, 17 Jun 2004 (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 Dulce et Decorum Est. [[smoddy]] 17:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete delete quick boys as band vanity. - Lucky 6.9 17:09, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. -- Ryan Delaney talk 17:11, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Created by 69.69.217.67 who also created JMR -- "Jesus Mighty Rock" and Jesus Mighty Rock. Although there are some google hits, he doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Martg76 17:54, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for non notable software. Only 515 google results. NSR ( talk) 18:12, 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 Duplicate articles, resolving with a history merge -- Allen3 talk 12:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page contains identical information to the page Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike. There is no point having two articles for the same person, one using his full name and one just using a shortened form of his name. Because of this, I would suggest that this page is deleted Vino s 18:26, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original Research - Satori (talk) 18:32, 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 keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to have been created simply for the purpose of adding a single external link. And no mention of the SCA?! Al 18:30, August 24, 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 delete. [[smoddy]] 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity, non-notable Christy747 18:41, 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. [[smoddy]] 17:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This Guy was Evidently some kind of Football Player but he is Not Notable Enough! (1986-1989) 19:09, 24 August 1991 (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 delete. [[smoddy]] 17:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is advertising for a Romanian car rental company. NSR ( talk) 19:12, 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 merge to birth. [[smoddy]] 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is close to a dicdef and is redundant with childbirth, birth and the other pregnancy related articles. Tznkai 19:17, 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 transwiki. [[smoddy]] 17:08, 30 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. [[smoddy]] 17:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Band vanity; no presence on allmusic, no Google evidence of major label releases or tours. Delete unless noteability established. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:39:43, 2005-08-24 (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. [[smoddy]] 17:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Seems like vanity to me. PhilipO
Delete this rubbish. A disgrace to Wikipedia.-- Fuckthe LHP Haters 23:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Keep-- Fuckthe LHP Haters 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)19:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC) (SOCK PUPPET) *Keep Seems pretty neutral to me (-- Dorang12 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)]], author of the article in question) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep the article seems fine. I live in Southern California and it doesn't look any more biased then some other articles on here. Besides, I've seen the commercials. Seems accurate.-- Pete Mos$ 20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep. I like it -- Sinatra-iz-God 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Those commercials are great. There's nothing wrong here. I say KEEP-- Majutray 20:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Keep I don't see the problem here. Did Larry Parker write this page himself? What would an article on Wikipedia do for him? Is he hurting for clients that bad? Unsigned edit by User:Dorang12. Third edit by user, made 5 minutes after first edit. Ground Zero 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) Keep This article is factual, whether you "deletionists" like it or not.-- LongDongHanks 21:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *Commentthis article, perhaps, should be deleted. However, comparing it to Mein Kampf is ridiculous. agamemnon2, you owe the entire discussion an apology.-- JohnF32 22:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(SOCK PUPPET) *QUESTION How can so many people be so passionate and emotional about an injury attorney?!? -- JohnF32 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (SOCK PUPPET) *ANSWER That my friend is the real question here. Lots of LHP haters, I suppose--[[-- Dorang12 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)]] 22:20, 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 (9 delete, 3 valid keep). [[smoddy]] 17:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Campus organizations are not inherently noteable. No relevant Google hits found outside of the Cambridge domain (cam.ac.uk). Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:58:57, 2005-08-24 (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. [[smoddy]] 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable neologism, see the terrifying set of e-themed redlinks as well: e-coaching, etc. Sdedeo 20:21, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dwane the graphiti artist from 1984 in Sweeden seems like patent vanity nonsense to me Cloveious 20:59, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Slang dictdef. -- Ryan Delaney talk 21:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Agreed!(Unsigned edit by 207.251.232.173)
The term is used tens of thousands of times on usenet. It is worth including.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)
It's a word coined by a man trying to illegally sell a pirated music bootleg. The reason it is so common on usenet is that he spams prolifically trying to sell copies of his tapes. At best this is a Vanity Page, at worst it's an advert for illegal goods. Either way, delete.(Unsigned edit by 194.79.243.65)
I can't recall the man trying to sell the recordings of the "wereo." He just proclaims that he has them. The above message is an example of the types that would have it deleted for no good reason.(Unsigned edit by 68.222.33.165)
If the text of the entry is the problem, please someone edit that text. I am no expert on encyclopedic authoring. The most important facts are these: "The Wereo" is referenced over 23,800 times on usenet. "The Wereo" is not just a slang term but is itself an actual movement on usenet by several hundred people. "The Wereo" is more popular than many subjects that have listings on Wikipedia. Squidhammer(Unsigned edit by User:209.205.191.147')'
This is blatantly incorrect. Those "several hundred people" are one prolific troll and a small group of hangers-on who follow him around. A simple google search will verify that. This same troll like to use the word "awl" instead of "all" (along with many other such baby-talk spellings). Do you therefore suggest "awl" deserves a wiki page just because one man has used it 100,000 times in usenet posts? Ludicrous.(Unsigned edit by User:80.229.30.88')'
Comment once again blanked by 205.188.116.72 Tonywalton | Talk 22:41, 26 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. [[smoddy]] 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Andrew pmk 21:21, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Other than his published works, a google search indicates a lack of notability. Also, the article's purpose appears to be for the promotion of a religion. Cheese Sandwich 21:36, 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. [[smoddy]] 16:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal essay.- Aranel ("Sarah") 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete - it is an interesting article but it needs a huge amount of work to make it Wiki-propriate. Eddie.willers 00:43, 27 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. [[smoddy]] 16:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Categorize and delete - can never be fully POV and the list will never be complete Halibu tt 21:42, August 24, 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 15:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Fictitious soccer team. Cheese Sandwich 21:49, 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 (After filtering through the edit history for new users, anons, and other questionable actions, I count 14 delete, 3 merge, and 1 redirect votes) -- Allen3 talk 15:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The tags were added to all the names, I assume by the author. Let's please get this over with. JDoorjam 00:18, 25 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 14:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Forum vanity. 17 distinct hits on Google. Kurt Shaped Box 22:13, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not 100% sure about this. Looks like some sort of trolling attempt. Thought I'd list it here for consensus. Kurt Shaped Box 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Might not be bad if it's done right. I vote to keep it on a probationary status, but not if its sole purpose is to humiliate authors, but rather serves as a source of humor, interest, or examples of what not to do.22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)~~ This comment is by User:Jbrakatselos - user's 6th edit. FreplySpang (talk) 22:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Hi everybody, to the concerned person(s) above, first off, I an not a "troll" (whatever that means!) I work here at the Wiki on my own time as we all do!, I am a participant in the following group for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit and I just happen to be working on a subject in an article for Wikipedia, and yeah, while it is only a stub at this point in a few hours I hope it will be read and enjoyed by most with a smile and a wink at for my efforts at the worst. So please wont you all give me a few measurements of time to show you ???? I am a serious editor here at Wikipedia! (and I care!)
I thank you in advance Shalom! ( Cathytreks 22:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
Is a place where people who dont dare register their IP go, and also those who fail to check their facts first before they make an edit may reside as well! Hey guys who want to delete this remember.....This article is a stub. More ..much more to come...So please stand by for...The Wikipedia Hall of Shame! which will serves as a source for humor, interest, or examples of what not to do while editing here on The Wikipedia! come back and fee free to contribute and edit edit edit..in good fun and so please feel free to share your ideas, I'll be back later with a bunch of things. (btw, im not a troll either but love to help make things better around here) User:Cathytreks 22:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
Here is my view on Wikipedia from the group im in here on reform of Wiki: "I too shall be glad to assist in helping to develop a standard of thoughful concensus building which shall not impose new censorship standards on the Wikipedia, save those self imposed ones that lay within ourselves. While the concept of "decency" may be POV on its face still, there should be some basic standard of decency that a community should strive to abide by, lest we suffer that result, which would undoubtedly be ...total anarchy." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit
Excuse me nice editors...I dont even know some/most of you people and yet you treat me as a vandal/troll!...why?..why are you to be sitting in judgement on me and saying those kinds of things, like im a bad person, give me a break, and just Who or what is a BAJOADN!? , anyway you guys arent even giving me a chance...so im going to just work on my piece and hope you will think differently when its no longer just a stub...Please give my article a chance!? I am a serious editor here and this is rediculous how rudely and wrongly I am treated by some of you. ..forshame on those who act so. :( please...and it is not original research! ( Cathytreks 23:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
I had a dream ...of a Wikipedia site where anyone who was lost or erred by accedent might come to a place of learning from those who messed up..in a good way...no name calling no baiting...just a place to pick up the pieces as editors to be after a gafaw...guess I made a mistake to think it would be an encyclopedic article worth merit and fun...as I slump in defeat over this I am sorry I wasted the idea at Wikipedia...this time, but please dont count either the idea or me out yet cuz..."I'll be back" lol ;-) ( Cathytreks 01:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
Thank you all who wrote so kindly to me on my User Talk page and exsplained it all so well, I want to be an asset to the community and be of value, I'll be back with something of value to contribute I hope that you will be as kind again as you were on my user page after you learned I only meant good stuff! ...best to all Cathy! :-) ( Cathytreks 01:49, 25 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 14:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. A word that means nothing and can be used as a substitute for anything. Right... Delete RJH 22:33, 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
One-year-old band from Chicago that allmusic.com hasn't heard of. - Aranel ("Sarah") 22:50, 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 14:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity? It's hard to tell without a last name to look up, but neither singing for the local hockey game (in Ohio, where hockey isn't particularly big) nor performing at the local amusement park are in and of themselves noteworthy. I can't find any hits on Google for either of the bands mentioned. - Aranel ("Sarah") 23:02, 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 speedy delete because that was the virtually unanimous vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. This new posting is identical (at a quick glance) but without the extensive external links that the previous one had. -- RHaworth 00:04:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
I am sure this is a reposting of something deleted a few days ago. The first entry in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of fictional characters with ADHD confirms my suspicion but I cannot find the precedent. Anyway - delete - original research / postumous psychiatric diagnosis / unverifiable. -- RHaworth 23:04:52, 2005-08-24 (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 13:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
nn company Dlyons493 23:14, 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 12:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
A newly-created pseudo religion designed to make fun of computer newbies. Not encyclopedic, and seemingly without any impact beyond the amusement of its creators. "Its basicly just the Christian bible translated into 1337speak..." Joyous (talk) 23:26, August 24, 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 12:42, August 30, 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 12:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
nn band, few songs, little Google Dlyons493 23:32, 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 11:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. -- fvw * 23:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Note from Creator: Aww, man, why does it have to be deleted? Does it really matter if it's insignificant at this point?
This same person has now created a page in German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kourosh_Ziabari My question is how to reactivate the deletion process.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Userfy (discussion could have also supported a consensus for deletion, but userfying is the less drastic option) -- Allen3 talk 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
This article, it seems, was written by Kourosh ziabari. There are a few hundred instances of him on the net; the 6 pages of his from the UK are basically him writing on blogs, though, and they don't particularly make sense. I skimmed over some of the Farsi links too, (although my grip on that language is not strong, to put it lightly,) and it seems that, on most of them, he is just bigging himself up. I highlight this for a votes for deletion because I am not sure whether his age and his 'acceptance' classified him as notable. If so, this article needs some deal of rewriting. If not, like I expect, then so be it. IINAG 23:43, 24th August 2005 (UTC)
You are right, world's youngest journalist returns no google hits but WORLD YOUNGEST JOURNALIST RETURNS MORE THAN 4 PAGES SEARCH RESULT OF GOOGLE. OK?
How can I prove that I am the world youngest journalist? Have I the ability or the permission to link all my 1000 articles?
I have another question, all the boys and girls on this page Child prodigies are real genius and gifted talented personals, and just I am the problem? All the boys and girls on that page have unormal and special abilities and just I have not?
If you link to your articles, it would prove your claim. That's easy!
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Tony Sidaway Talk 09:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No google hits Samw 00:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply