This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable GinaDana 00:16, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable GinaDana 00:20, 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 REDIRECT to Commission, with the reduser vote discounted. - Splash 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang - which this article says the term is Eddie.willers 00:27, 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 keep (but move to proper capitalization). -- BD2412 talk 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a pop single by whom, exactly? And released when? And just who is its influence? Eddie.willers 00:39, 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 speedy delete executed by User:User:MacGyverMagic. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete it is an article about a real(?) person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject Grcampbell 00:47, 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 keep Could use a cleanup. --18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete not particularly notable except in niche-market, no biographical or career info. given other than link to imdb (duh!). Eddie.willers 00:55, 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 copyvio [1]. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Weak delete I'm sure there's something of relevance or interest in there but where? Eddie.willers 00:59, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page (and badly written). Eddie.willers 01:06, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
POV, the article itself is well enough written, but a page on the problems of MATLAB cannot be neutral. Zeimusu | Talk page 01:06, 2005 August 27 (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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about a book which...does not exist?! No ISBN, No publisher. and online bookshops do not have anything with this title. 202.156.2.74 01:09, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. - Splash 01:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
No google hits for "World Maths debate".... what is this? I don't know enough about the subject.... so I'm not going to vote for now... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:17, 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 Copyvio. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Can a landscaping/interior design firm be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry? Definitely not NPOV. Al 01:23, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm from this part of the world. It's nonsense. -- PhilipO 01:50, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as self-promotion. FreplySpang (talk) 01:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
*weak keep What is the threshold of notability for comedy troupes? Do they have to be nationally fameous?
Roodog2k 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
keep them
KEEP: Shit Storm is good, and worthy of this entry. delete: guilty as charged
Keep: We may yet discover their importance.
DeleteOne time I farted and everyone blamed it on my teacher.
KEEP: Yeehaw!
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC) – Copied from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MEDIATARY, which now redirects here. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Someone added the tag to the page, but didn't complete the process, so I'm doing it for them. At a guess, I'd say they nominated it because it amounts to no more than a neologism. Rob Church Talk | Desk 02:38, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Current content appears to be advertising material. Google search for "EVE iPortal" returns 5 hits, making this non-notable. Rob Church Talk | Desk 02:17, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Brand new micronation. Not encyclopedic. Also Consociatus Insula/Constitution. RADICALBENDER ★ 02:43, August 27, 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/No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
software prograom, sub-stub. no indication of notability. Delete unless expanded to show signifigance. DES (talk) 02:46, 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 05:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
ug - nn, vanity Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:01, 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 Speedy delete. HappyCamper 05:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Your guess is as good as mine. Borderline patent nonsense. No Google hits. RADICALBENDER ★ 03:06, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable - not a single reference found on Google with name in quotes Groeck 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*Merge and re-direct into
Hudson Leick if it can be confirmed that she's her daughter (sounds like it, since the article mentions her not being as famous as her mom). --
rob 14:34, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hardly notable. Found only about 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:41, 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 Keep. Article contents moved to new namespace: Amiya "Kani" Deb, current namespace deleted.
Not notable. Found less than 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:46, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable
Groeck 03:57, 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 06:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Another digusting attack page that an anon won't leave as a redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series). Another non-notable game contestant who doesn't need her own article. There seems to be an agenda among the anons to make certain members of the game look as bad as possible. Zoe 04:22, August 27, 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 HappyCamper 06:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, not notable Groeck 04:27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The mentioned film and the character exists, but the context seems to be made up. Groeck 04:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. It could use a cleanup, but the Search for Animal Chin video is pretty legendary, and worthy of a more intelligent entry than this User:OllieRagdiprice
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Tito xd 03:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable filmmaker OllieRagdiprice 04:39, 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 Speedy delete, blanked by creator. Thue | talk 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
nn-band. if we had a speedy criterion for bands this would surely qualify. Delete. DES (talk) 04:51, 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 Speedy Delete. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, vanity Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted as vanity with no allegations of notability. Zoe 05:48, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is simply a non verifiable personal opinion. Following this user's contributions around [7] is providing great fodder for our deletion campaign. I urge you all to do the same! TheDeletator ( talk · contribs)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Rje 14:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity. Groeck 06:28, 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. Rje 14:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 06:52, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 15:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy (#A7). Baronet is a very minor inherited title, and being an officer is very doubtful - he could have been a sergeant for all we know. Looks like it's genealogy, WP:NOT. R adiant _>|< 19:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Article doesn't explain what makes this person notable. Zoe 07:25, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 15:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Arcane slang not in general use; poorly written article. Paul Klenk 07:22, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Article does not explain what makes this person notable. That she's buried in a parking lot? That she may have inspired a song (though there is no substantiation for that allegation, and even that is hardly notable)? Zoe 07:28, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Article does not explain what makes this person notable. But it sure uses a lot of words to do it. Zoe 07:32, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Creating the VfD page for an article which had the header added but the rest of the nomination not completed. It would be an extremely bad precedent to start creating articles about individual scenes from movies, especially non-notable scenes. This is another stub created by User:Wiki brah. Zoe 07:52, August 27, 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. Rje 14:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ad for a rather new band that fails google and allmusic tests. Punkmorten 08:25, 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 Speedy deleted by SWAdair. Rje 14:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Last VfD had 60% delete - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes. Hopelessly POV, among many other issues. At best, these should be merged with their appropriate countries/ethnicities.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 with A Clockwork Orange. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a dictionary Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:31, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like Advertizing or Vanity. — Kjammer ⌂ 09:38, 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. Rje 14:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
unverifiable secret society. -- TimPope 09:41, 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. Rje 14:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page of non notable band JoanneB 09:52, 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 no consensus; kept. -- Canderson 7 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, but not notable - the article's claim to notability is that it's widely popular in internet forum discuission - but Google says 'not really' - a 100 odd hits, but just two forum [10]. -- Doc (?) 10:43, 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 KEEP, but in my future defence, I observe the author's vote! - Splash 01:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Should be deleted Planetpjs 11:28, 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. Rje 14:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable (no related Google hits), article links to nonsense page also up for speedy deletion Halo 11:53, 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. Rje 14:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Delete brenneman (t) (c) 11:53, 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. Rje 14:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be nonsense, no notability, mentions a metalcore band with no Google hits and is just generally stupid. Halo 11:56, 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 speedy redirect as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
get rid of this or fix it up Planetpjs 11:59, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Internet club with only 321 registered forum members. Not notable enough. Phil H. E. O. 12:42, 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 redirected to Édouard Glissant. --Canderson7 16:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Dupicate article of Édouard Glissant--Don't think that it should redirect there because it's mispelled. Kewp 12:44, 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 no consensus; kept. -- Canderson 7 23:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A pub crawl in Cambridge. Drunk students are tedious, but they are not notable. Pilatus 12:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The Cambridge Arms. If the consensus on that vote is to delete, please remove the information about The Cambridge Arms from the King Street Run article, as it would be a violation of GFDL to keep that information. Zoe 21:04, August 27, 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 MERGE to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Already been done — I will apply the redirect. - Splash 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
It looks like this is the same person as Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. I suspect it was created in error by a new contributor.
Also, I think there's some clever process by which you can do a redirect and delete simultaneously but I can't find it now. I do recall it looked rather complicated anyway. If someone knows, let me know. Cheers. Finbarr Saunders 13:04, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Inherently POV, and impossible to maintain. Might benefit from being userfied, but I doubt it. DS 13:38, 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 wasalready redirected -- SPUI ( talk) 17:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Marskell 07:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Abstain. This was a speedy I thought others might consider notable. Marskell 13:43, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity Groeck 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R adiant _>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
dicdef, likely vanity neologism Wyss 03:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. R adiant _>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
NN. I Googled "Matthew Dean", and came up with hits for a comedian, BMX free-stylist, Actor, and a Whistle, Flute and Bodhran player, but none for this vocalist. Perhaps the most notable thing about Mr. Dean according to the article is that he co-founded a Russian Folk group, but this group does not have a WP entry. I found such a beast on Google at: Golosa Choir, but under the "History" section on this site, Mr. Dean is not attributed as a co-founder (before you ask, the two listed founders don't have pages in WP). David Henderson 03:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 21:55, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
not notable blog. For some reason, though, lots of user pages appear to be linking to it, and if I understand it correctly, that was the reason it was created in the first place. How does that work? JoanneB 14:30, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn Vanity; appears to be a nickname of one specific child. 64.173.27.127 14:40, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
In the first place, Wikipedia is not a place for "speculation". This article seems to want to serve as an sort of archive of how the Eldest article looked a few days ago, before the book was released. Wikipedia already has a place for archived articles, and it's called "history". Coffee 14:49, 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 speedy deleted A7. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity Groeck 14:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Delete-- Aranda56 21:38, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
pure nn vanity Groeck 14:54, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 15:05, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, no notability given and no significant mention on IMDB Halo 15:18, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Googling indicates non-notability, and I really doubt the claims here are true. Ingoolemo talk 23:42, 2005 Jun 9 (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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
On the talk page, the author admits that this is a story ?he is writing and also appears to be claiming copyright. Anyway, it's not an encyclopedia article.- Aranel ("Sarah") 15:34, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominated for speedy, but not a candidate. Former head of a university department. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 15:34, August 27, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possibly vanity, quite likely MIT alumni cruft. Anville 15:37, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
A technical writer with several unpublished books doesn't appear very notable to me. The article is also very POV. Al 15:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
=The author wishes to be deleted. She didn't asked to be placed on wikipedia nor did she ask for any type of publicity. Her fans took it amongst themselves. So I recommend removing it due to the author, Ms. Evans wishes. That was my faux pas.
Please delete this entry, and please for the love of God find some way to stop certain users from lingering on the deletion section, as it seems a CERTAIN user likes to bash on any "up for deletion" topics. Perhaps it would be advisable that the wikipedia administration find a better way to stop the newbie bashing and belittling. Damned if you visit wiki, it seems.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED to Boss (video games). - Splash 01:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I think this should be deleted because there is already a page about video game bosses here, Boss (video games) Videogameplayer 15:43, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
weak delete; nn vanity. 51 hits on Google (not 139 as first reported) seem to be a bit low for a political commentator Groeck 15:51, 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 to delete the article.
American-influenced rankingcruft, and an inherently subjective list and title. These are all good universities, as far as I know, but so are several others which could be included, depending on exactly how Central Europe is to be defined. We could include the University of Vienna and several other Austrian universities, if Austria is included, and a couple of dozen German and Swiss universities, if we chose to include those countries. Uppland 15:49, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, product advertising Groeck 15:56, 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 move to hazardous powders testing kit (the best I could thing of in accordance with the below suggestions). -- Canderson 7 23:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Product advertising Groeck 15:58, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 16:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Barely makes any sense, if it's a person then nn but doesn't quite fit speedy deletion Halo 16:04, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 16:06, 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 to delete the article.
nn vanity, product advertising (advertising for pd product is still advertising) Groeck 16:14, 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 speedied (instantly challengable) as an obvious clone of a copyvio. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is cut-and-pasted from Robert Dietz, about a geologist who had nothing to do with labial furrows, as far as I know JanSöderback 16:16, 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 redirected to Causality. -- Canderson 7 17:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A fictional theory, I assume, and not one used by physicists or philosophers. See Causality Austrian 16:22, 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 -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability requirements at WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 19:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, only a few Google hits (~30) and article doesn't attempt notability. Probable vanity of author Halo 16:34, 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 redirected to Newgrounds. -- Canderson 7 17:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This article only has meaning to Newgrounds and is only linked to from Newgrounds and Blam. The Newgrounds article already explains what blamming is, so this piece is pointless. Billpg 16:50, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Neutral -- The nominator placed the vfd tag on a page without creating a discussion. Therefore I have created the discussion. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:09, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be about some smalltown lad with a camcorder avec 0 hits by Google. Craigy ( talk) 17:11, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion, probably for being non-notable, but it's not a candidate. Coffee 17:12, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense", but it doesn't seem like nonsense so I'm listing it here. Coffee 17:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Disagree - John Bowndre - Ive seen them play, no idea about the harrogathshire part nor the 2.2 million, they're a sunday league team 4D in Norfolk. They do have an Irish striker, 1/8 th apparently , met him in the local pub when our team played them at Old Catton Sports Ground. Don't delete, we need some humour in our lives (albeit in the form of a Sundayleague team)
Ronnie Piles; just a team by the looks of it. Seems a good idea to put teams up on Wilki, so locals wanting to play for an SL can find one. I found this looking for Sunday League divisions. If more teams did this the better. Disagree with deletion.
- Alex James - Thankyou for your concerns about this being a hoax, you've shown how speedy you can detect jokes and fakes. However this is no fraud. I do manage a 4D sunday league team called Dancing Farmers FC. We are an amateur club in the Old Catton part of Norwich. 4C next season for sure. Don't delete this page because it could be useful to people such as above, and also it is a lot better than some of the other articles on your website. Perhaps this will start a lot of average joes using your site rather than the usual: obsessed, "geeky", hobbyists and boffins that mostly do at the moment. - Disagree.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but it's not a candidate. Reason given was: Obviously nonsense; has all of 24 google hits, so I tend to doubt that it is "very common." Coffee 17:14, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
A vfd notice was added to the article stating it was a vanity page: although the discusion was not created, it appears to be correct: under 10,000 google hits. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:16, 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 KEEP, although raw vote-count a touch low for an outright declaration, but there's evident satisfaction in the discussion at meeting part of WP:MUSIC. - Splash 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
one full album, does not seen to filfull the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete DES (talk) 17:16, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcomic (844 Google hits). Though I concede a webcomic about nudists is a brilliant idea. tregoweth 17:11, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 18:14, 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 Speedily deleted and BJAODN. HappyCamper 05:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Get real. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity; close to speedy Groeck 18:20, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I can understand why villages, towns, cities and countries have pages... but streets? I just don't think it's notable enough to need its own page. Halo 18:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. Note: Cambie Street, Robson Street, and Burrard Street. If this article is deleted, some of thoes should go too. Zhatt 19:13, August 28, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Only 10 google hits, seems to be vanity, advertisement and has no domain name - not notable Halo 18:50, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is a non-notable neologism (15 Google hits, + 56 for "ignoracism") created by a non-notable professor. It is an orphan article that nothing links to and that is uncategorized. Delete. - Willmcw 18:58, August 27, 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. HappyCamper 04:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a personal essay. -- Mysidia ( talk) 19:06, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
advertising vanity Groeck 19:23, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity; some 20-30 Google hits doesn't sound like influential to me Groeck 19:35, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 19:40, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A classic vanity article. A bit part in an off-Broadway play (I can't help but ask how far off) and a show on a cable channel does not make one notable. Denni ☯ 19:42, 2005 August 27 (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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity; only a few Google hits found Groeck 19:46, 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 05:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I think this is a hoax and a candidate for speedy, but I am not entirely sure. No google hits. Groeck 19:58, 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 KEEP, and move to Brænne Mineralvatn. - Splash 01:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity/advertising. Groeck 20:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Absolutely nn vanity Groeck 20:15, 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 merge to Belgrade. -- Canderson 7 18:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn; sad but nevertheless vanity Groeck 20:19, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism (or hoax). No google hits - except Wikipedia mirrors and proper names. Delete. Cje 20:24, 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 speedied by User:Denni. -- Canderson 7 18:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 20:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 20:37, 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. Rje 19:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Lacks significance Steve Casburn 20:32, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity/advertising (same as Brænne brus, also on vfd); or at least merge the two. Groeck 20:39, 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. Redwolf24 ( talk) 03:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 07:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a completely non-notable piece of software. CDC (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Lacks significance Steve Casburn 20:42, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 20:45, 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 to delete the article.
nn vanity Groeck 20:49, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity/self advertising Groeck 20:55, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity / advertising Groeck 20:59, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 21:01, 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 rename to 24th Congressional District of New York. -- Canderson 7 22:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Does not make sense as individual article Groeck 21:07, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 21:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Text speaks for itself. Seems to be a not-notable bar in Greenock Groeck 21:13, 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. Woohookitty 11:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
An obscure, probably non-notable project. I can't find anything on Google about this outside of Wikipedia mirrors. CDC (talk) 21:10, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 23:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 21:25, 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. Woohookitty 11:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity/advertising; little context between headline and text Groeck 21:31, 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 to keep the article. -- Canderson 7 23:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is King Street, Cambridge, which branches off from Jesus Lane, named after Jesus College that it runs behind. It makes a turn and then runs parallel to Jesus Street for maybe 500 meters until it reaches a small roundabout. The only coffee house in Cambridge that doesn't close at 6 PM is on that road, as is the delightful St. Radegund's pub, which has a selection of well kept guest ales on offer. There are a few shops and pubs more. It it away from the main shopping area. As I say, it's not particularly long, not particularly wide, it's not particular in any way in fact. It's not even a B-road. That's why it isn't encyclopedia-worthy.
129.215.195.81
Pilatus 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete R adiant _>|< 22:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable music producer, probably vanity. -- KFP 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
People seem to be following WP:VFD: "You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed." Pilatus 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep/Merge. R adiant _>|< 22:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
duplicates and does a worse job than Waldemar Haffkine -- Mareklug 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
People seem to be following WP:VFD: "You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed." Pilatus 22:20, 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. Woohookitty 11:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable neologism. IceKarma ॐ 22:08, 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 Speedily deleted. -- HappyCamper 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete Article serves no purpose except to flame another internet user. Not encyclopedic. Article originates from an internet forum Tykell 22:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
PLEASE DELETE MY PAGE, GURPREET_CHAGGAR ! Thanks
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was move to Jewban. -- Canderson 7 23:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a neologism, Google tells me that Juban is a lot of things but I can't find any evidence that this term is widely used in the given context. Article does not (and I would argue, cannot) have any sources which verify such use. ESkog 22:57, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 23:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
An Arcanum videogame NPC. Denni ☯ 23:09, 2005 August 27 (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. Woohookitty 11:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
idosynchratic and unverified war hero story, per anonymous editor at 66.20.226.60. I am just completing process for review.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page or non notably. UnlimitedAccess 23:14, 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 keep in new form, remove copyvio from history.
It appears to be a copyvio, and it should be marked as a requested article. Delete. -- WikiFan04 Talk 18:28, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)This was listed again on August 28th, 2005, but was already listed. So here, it is re-listed.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Scimitar parley 19:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
More patent nonsense from the creator of Beerbonie. IceKarma ॐ 23:29, 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 'ALREADY SPEEDIED, apparently, but not by me. - Splash 01:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non noteable item from a video game; should probably be merged with Spyro or one of the Spyro games articles. realwingus 23:45, 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. Woohookitty 11:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable forum. Can't get an alexa ranking, and throwing out a lot of false hits in Google ('"Neptune Ice" -tea -"ice giant" -carpet -planet') still comes up with a lot of false positives but only shows 74 unique hits. Zoe 23:59, August 27, 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 12:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable GinaDana 00:16, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable GinaDana 00:20, 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 REDIRECT to Commission, with the reduser vote discounted. - Splash 01:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang - which this article says the term is Eddie.willers 00:27, 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 keep (but move to proper capitalization). -- BD2412 talk 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a pop single by whom, exactly? And released when? And just who is its influence? Eddie.willers 00:39, 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 speedy delete executed by User:User:MacGyverMagic. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete it is an article about a real(?) person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject Grcampbell 00:47, 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 keep Could use a cleanup. --18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete not particularly notable except in niche-market, no biographical or career info. given other than link to imdb (duh!). Eddie.willers 00:55, 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 copyvio [1]. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Weak delete I'm sure there's something of relevance or interest in there but where? Eddie.willers 00:59, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page (and badly written). Eddie.willers 01:06, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
POV, the article itself is well enough written, but a page on the problems of MATLAB cannot be neutral. Zeimusu | Talk page 01:06, 2005 August 27 (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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about a book which...does not exist?! No ISBN, No publisher. and online bookshops do not have anything with this title. 202.156.2.74 01:09, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. - Splash 01:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
No google hits for "World Maths debate".... what is this? I don't know enough about the subject.... so I'm not going to vote for now... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:17, 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 Copyvio. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Can a landscaping/interior design firm be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry? Definitely not NPOV. Al 01:23, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm from this part of the world. It's nonsense. -- PhilipO 01:50, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as self-promotion. FreplySpang (talk) 01:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
*weak keep What is the threshold of notability for comedy troupes? Do they have to be nationally fameous?
Roodog2k 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
keep them
KEEP: Shit Storm is good, and worthy of this entry. delete: guilty as charged
Keep: We may yet discover their importance.
DeleteOne time I farted and everyone blamed it on my teacher.
KEEP: Yeehaw!
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC) – Copied from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MEDIATARY, which now redirects here. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
Someone added the tag to the page, but didn't complete the process, so I'm doing it for them. At a guess, I'd say they nominated it because it amounts to no more than a neologism. Rob Church Talk | Desk 02:38, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Current content appears to be advertising material. Google search for "EVE iPortal" returns 5 hits, making this non-notable. Rob Church Talk | Desk 02:17, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Brand new micronation. Not encyclopedic. Also Consociatus Insula/Constitution. RADICALBENDER ★ 02:43, August 27, 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/No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
software prograom, sub-stub. no indication of notability. Delete unless expanded to show signifigance. DES (talk) 02:46, 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 05:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
ug - nn, vanity Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:01, 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 Speedy delete. HappyCamper 05:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Your guess is as good as mine. Borderline patent nonsense. No Google hits. RADICALBENDER ★ 03:06, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable - not a single reference found on Google with name in quotes Groeck 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*Merge and re-direct into
Hudson Leick if it can be confirmed that she's her daughter (sounds like it, since the article mentions her not being as famous as her mom). --
rob 14:34, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hardly notable. Found only about 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:41, 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 Keep. Article contents moved to new namespace: Amiya "Kani" Deb, current namespace deleted.
Not notable. Found less than 50 entries on Google. Groeck 03:46, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable
Groeck 03:57, 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 06:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Another digusting attack page that an anon won't leave as a redirect to Big Brother (USA TV series). Another non-notable game contestant who doesn't need her own article. There seems to be an agenda among the anons to make certain members of the game look as bad as possible. Zoe 04:22, August 27, 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 HappyCamper 06:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, not notable Groeck 04:27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The mentioned film and the character exists, but the context seems to be made up. Groeck 04:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. It could use a cleanup, but the Search for Animal Chin video is pretty legendary, and worthy of a more intelligent entry than this User:OllieRagdiprice
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Tito xd 03:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable filmmaker OllieRagdiprice 04:39, 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 Speedy delete, blanked by creator. Thue | talk 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
nn-band. if we had a speedy criterion for bands this would surely qualify. Delete. DES (talk) 04:51, 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 Speedy Delete. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, vanity Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted as vanity with no allegations of notability. Zoe 05:48, August 27, 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. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is simply a non verifiable personal opinion. Following this user's contributions around [7] is providing great fodder for our deletion campaign. I urge you all to do the same! TheDeletator ( talk · contribs)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Rje 14:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity. Groeck 06:28, 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. Rje 14:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 06:52, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 15:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy (#A7). Baronet is a very minor inherited title, and being an officer is very doubtful - he could have been a sergeant for all we know. Looks like it's genealogy, WP:NOT. R adiant _>|< 19:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Article doesn't explain what makes this person notable. Zoe 07:25, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 15:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Arcane slang not in general use; poorly written article. Paul Klenk 07:22, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Article does not explain what makes this person notable. That she's buried in a parking lot? That she may have inspired a song (though there is no substantiation for that allegation, and even that is hardly notable)? Zoe 07:28, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Article does not explain what makes this person notable. But it sure uses a lot of words to do it. Zoe 07:32, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Creating the VfD page for an article which had the header added but the rest of the nomination not completed. It would be an extremely bad precedent to start creating articles about individual scenes from movies, especially non-notable scenes. This is another stub created by User:Wiki brah. Zoe 07:52, August 27, 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. Rje 14:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ad for a rather new band that fails google and allmusic tests. Punkmorten 08:25, 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 Speedy deleted by SWAdair. Rje 14:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Last VfD had 60% delete - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes. Hopelessly POV, among many other issues. At best, these should be merged with their appropriate countries/ethnicities.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 with A Clockwork Orange. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a dictionary Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:31, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like Advertizing or Vanity. — Kjammer ⌂ 09:38, 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. Rje 14:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
unverifiable secret society. -- TimPope 09:41, 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. Rje 14:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page of non notable band JoanneB 09:52, 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 no consensus; kept. -- Canderson 7 23:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, but not notable - the article's claim to notability is that it's widely popular in internet forum discuission - but Google says 'not really' - a 100 odd hits, but just two forum [10]. -- Doc (?) 10:43, 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 KEEP, but in my future defence, I observe the author's vote! - Splash 01:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Should be deleted Planetpjs 11:28, 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. Rje 14:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable (no related Google hits), article links to nonsense page also up for speedy deletion Halo 11:53, 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. Rje 14:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Delete brenneman (t) (c) 11:53, 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. Rje 14:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be nonsense, no notability, mentions a metalcore band with no Google hits and is just generally stupid. Halo 11:56, 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 speedy redirect as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
get rid of this or fix it up Planetpjs 11:59, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Internet club with only 321 registered forum members. Not notable enough. Phil H. E. O. 12:42, 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 redirected to Édouard Glissant. --Canderson7 16:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Dupicate article of Édouard Glissant--Don't think that it should redirect there because it's mispelled. Kewp 12:44, 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 no consensus; kept. -- Canderson 7 23:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A pub crawl in Cambridge. Drunk students are tedious, but they are not notable. Pilatus 12:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The Cambridge Arms. If the consensus on that vote is to delete, please remove the information about The Cambridge Arms from the King Street Run article, as it would be a violation of GFDL to keep that information. Zoe 21:04, August 27, 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 MERGE to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. Already been done — I will apply the redirect. - Splash 01:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
It looks like this is the same person as Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. I suspect it was created in error by a new contributor.
Also, I think there's some clever process by which you can do a redirect and delete simultaneously but I can't find it now. I do recall it looked rather complicated anyway. If someone knows, let me know. Cheers. Finbarr Saunders 13:04, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Inherently POV, and impossible to maintain. Might benefit from being userfied, but I doubt it. DS 13:38, 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 wasalready redirected -- SPUI ( talk) 17:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Marskell 07:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Abstain. This was a speedy I thought others might consider notable. Marskell 13:43, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity Groeck 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R adiant _>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
dicdef, likely vanity neologism Wyss 03:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. R adiant _>|< 22:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
NN. I Googled "Matthew Dean", and came up with hits for a comedian, BMX free-stylist, Actor, and a Whistle, Flute and Bodhran player, but none for this vocalist. Perhaps the most notable thing about Mr. Dean according to the article is that he co-founded a Russian Folk group, but this group does not have a WP entry. I found such a beast on Google at: Golosa Choir, but under the "History" section on this site, Mr. Dean is not attributed as a co-founder (before you ask, the two listed founders don't have pages in WP). David Henderson 03:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 21:55, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
not notable blog. For some reason, though, lots of user pages appear to be linking to it, and if I understand it correctly, that was the reason it was created in the first place. How does that work? JoanneB 14:30, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn Vanity; appears to be a nickname of one specific child. 64.173.27.127 14:40, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 16:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
In the first place, Wikipedia is not a place for "speculation". This article seems to want to serve as an sort of archive of how the Eldest article looked a few days ago, before the book was released. Wikipedia already has a place for archived articles, and it's called "history". Coffee 14:49, 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 speedy deleted A7. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity Groeck 14:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Delete-- Aranda56 21:38, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
pure nn vanity Groeck 14:54, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 15:05, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, no notability given and no significant mention on IMDB Halo 15:18, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Googling indicates non-notability, and I really doubt the claims here are true. Ingoolemo talk 23:42, 2005 Jun 9 (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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
On the talk page, the author admits that this is a story ?he is writing and also appears to be claiming copyright. Anyway, it's not an encyclopedia article.- Aranel ("Sarah") 15:34, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominated for speedy, but not a candidate. Former head of a university department. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 15:34, August 27, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possibly vanity, quite likely MIT alumni cruft. Anville 15:37, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
A technical writer with several unpublished books doesn't appear very notable to me. The article is also very POV. Al 15:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
=The author wishes to be deleted. She didn't asked to be placed on wikipedia nor did she ask for any type of publicity. Her fans took it amongst themselves. So I recommend removing it due to the author, Ms. Evans wishes. That was my faux pas.
Please delete this entry, and please for the love of God find some way to stop certain users from lingering on the deletion section, as it seems a CERTAIN user likes to bash on any "up for deletion" topics. Perhaps it would be advisable that the wikipedia administration find a better way to stop the newbie bashing and belittling. Damned if you visit wiki, it seems.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED to Boss (video games). - Splash 01:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I think this should be deleted because there is already a page about video game bosses here, Boss (video games) Videogameplayer 15:43, 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. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
weak delete; nn vanity. 51 hits on Google (not 139 as first reported) seem to be a bit low for a political commentator Groeck 15:51, 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 to delete the article.
American-influenced rankingcruft, and an inherently subjective list and title. These are all good universities, as far as I know, but so are several others which could be included, depending on exactly how Central Europe is to be defined. We could include the University of Vienna and several other Austrian universities, if Austria is included, and a couple of dozen German and Swiss universities, if we chose to include those countries. Uppland 15:49, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, product advertising Groeck 15:56, 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 move to hazardous powders testing kit (the best I could thing of in accordance with the below suggestions). -- Canderson 7 23:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Product advertising Groeck 15:58, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 16:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Barely makes any sense, if it's a person then nn but doesn't quite fit speedy deletion Halo 16:04, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 16:06, 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 to delete the article.
nn vanity, product advertising (advertising for pd product is still advertising) Groeck 16:14, 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 speedied (instantly challengable) as an obvious clone of a copyvio. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is cut-and-pasted from Robert Dietz, about a geologist who had nothing to do with labial furrows, as far as I know JanSöderback 16:16, 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 redirected to Causality. -- Canderson 7 17:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A fictional theory, I assume, and not one used by physicists or philosophers. See Causality Austrian 16:22, 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 -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability requirements at WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 19:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, only a few Google hits (~30) and article doesn't attempt notability. Probable vanity of author Halo 16:34, 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 redirected to Newgrounds. -- Canderson 7 17:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This article only has meaning to Newgrounds and is only linked to from Newgrounds and Blam. The Newgrounds article already explains what blamming is, so this piece is pointless. Billpg 16:50, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Neutral -- The nominator placed the vfd tag on a page without creating a discussion. Therefore I have created the discussion. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:09, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be about some smalltown lad with a camcorder avec 0 hits by Google. Craigy ( talk) 17:11, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion, probably for being non-notable, but it's not a candidate. Coffee 17:12, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense", but it doesn't seem like nonsense so I'm listing it here. Coffee 17:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Disagree - John Bowndre - Ive seen them play, no idea about the harrogathshire part nor the 2.2 million, they're a sunday league team 4D in Norfolk. They do have an Irish striker, 1/8 th apparently , met him in the local pub when our team played them at Old Catton Sports Ground. Don't delete, we need some humour in our lives (albeit in the form of a Sundayleague team)
Ronnie Piles; just a team by the looks of it. Seems a good idea to put teams up on Wilki, so locals wanting to play for an SL can find one. I found this looking for Sunday League divisions. If more teams did this the better. Disagree with deletion.
- Alex James - Thankyou for your concerns about this being a hoax, you've shown how speedy you can detect jokes and fakes. However this is no fraud. I do manage a 4D sunday league team called Dancing Farmers FC. We are an amateur club in the Old Catton part of Norwich. 4C next season for sure. Don't delete this page because it could be useful to people such as above, and also it is a lot better than some of the other articles on your website. Perhaps this will start a lot of average joes using your site rather than the usual: obsessed, "geeky", hobbyists and boffins that mostly do at the moment. - Disagree.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but it's not a candidate. Reason given was: Obviously nonsense; has all of 24 google hits, so I tend to doubt that it is "very common." Coffee 17:14, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
A vfd notice was added to the article stating it was a vanity page: although the discusion was not created, it appears to be correct: under 10,000 google hits. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:16, 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 KEEP, although raw vote-count a touch low for an outright declaration, but there's evident satisfaction in the discussion at meeting part of WP:MUSIC. - Splash 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
one full album, does not seen to filfull the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete DES (talk) 17:16, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcomic (844 Google hits). Though I concede a webcomic about nudists is a brilliant idea. tregoweth 17:11, August 27, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 18:14, 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 Speedily deleted and BJAODN. HappyCamper 05:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Get real. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity; close to speedy Groeck 18:20, 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 KEEP. - Splash 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I can understand why villages, towns, cities and countries have pages... but streets? I just don't think it's notable enough to need its own page. Halo 18:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. Note: Cambie Street, Robson Street, and Burrard Street. If this article is deleted, some of thoes should go too. Zhatt 19:13, August 28, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 17:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Only 10 google hits, seems to be vanity, advertisement and has no domain name - not notable Halo 18:50, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is a non-notable neologism (15 Google hits, + 56 for "ignoracism") created by a non-notable professor. It is an orphan article that nothing links to and that is uncategorized. Delete. - Willmcw 18:58, August 27, 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. HappyCamper 04:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a personal essay. -- Mysidia ( talk) 19:06, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
advertising vanity Groeck 19:23, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity; some 20-30 Google hits doesn't sound like influential to me Groeck 19:35, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 19:40, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A classic vanity article. A bit part in an off-Broadway play (I can't help but ask how far off) and a show on a cable channel does not make one notable. Denni ☯ 19:42, 2005 August 27 (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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity; only a few Google hits found Groeck 19:46, 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 Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 05:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I think this is a hoax and a candidate for speedy, but I am not entirely sure. No google hits. Groeck 19:58, 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 KEEP, and move to Brænne Mineralvatn. - Splash 01:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity/advertising. Groeck 20:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Absolutely nn vanity Groeck 20:15, 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 merge to Belgrade. -- Canderson 7 18:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn; sad but nevertheless vanity Groeck 20:19, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 18:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism (or hoax). No google hits - except Wikipedia mirrors and proper names. Delete. Cje 20:24, 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 speedied by User:Denni. -- Canderson 7 18:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 20:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 20:37, 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. Rje 19:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Lacks significance Steve Casburn 20:32, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity/advertising (same as Brænne brus, also on vfd); or at least merge the two. Groeck 20:39, 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. Redwolf24 ( talk) 03:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 07:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a completely non-notable piece of software. CDC (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Lacks significance Steve Casburn 20:42, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Steve Casburn 20:45, 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 to delete the article.
nn vanity Groeck 20:49, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity/self advertising Groeck 20:55, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 21:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity / advertising Groeck 20:59, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 22:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 21:01, 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 rename to 24th Congressional District of New York. -- Canderson 7 22:58, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Does not make sense as individual article Groeck 21:07, 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 speedy deleted -- cesarb 21:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Text speaks for itself. Seems to be a not-notable bar in Greenock Groeck 21:13, 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. Woohookitty 11:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
An obscure, probably non-notable project. I can't find anything on Google about this outside of Wikipedia mirrors. CDC (talk) 21:10, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 23:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
nn vanity Groeck 21:25, 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. Woohookitty 11:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity/advertising; little context between headline and text Groeck 21:31, 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 to keep the article. -- Canderson 7 23:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is King Street, Cambridge, which branches off from Jesus Lane, named after Jesus College that it runs behind. It makes a turn and then runs parallel to Jesus Street for maybe 500 meters until it reaches a small roundabout. The only coffee house in Cambridge that doesn't close at 6 PM is on that road, as is the delightful St. Radegund's pub, which has a selection of well kept guest ales on offer. There are a few shops and pubs more. It it away from the main shopping area. As I say, it's not particularly long, not particularly wide, it's not particular in any way in fact. It's not even a B-road. That's why it isn't encyclopedia-worthy.
129.215.195.81
Pilatus 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete R adiant _>|< 22:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable music producer, probably vanity. -- KFP 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
People seem to be following WP:VFD: "You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed." Pilatus 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep/Merge. R adiant _>|< 22:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
duplicates and does a worse job than Waldemar Haffkine -- Mareklug 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
People seem to be following WP:VFD: "You don't have to vote on every nomination; consider not participating if consensus you agree with has already been formed." Pilatus 22:20, 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. Woohookitty 11:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable neologism. IceKarma ॐ 22:08, 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 Speedily deleted. -- HappyCamper 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete Article serves no purpose except to flame another internet user. Not encyclopedic. Article originates from an internet forum Tykell 22:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply
PLEASE DELETE MY PAGE, GURPREET_CHAGGAR ! Thanks
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was move to Jewban. -- Canderson 7 23:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a neologism, Google tells me that Juban is a lot of things but I can't find any evidence that this term is widely used in the given context. Article does not (and I would argue, cannot) have any sources which verify such use. ESkog 22:57, 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 to delete the article. -- Canderson 7 23:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
An Arcanum videogame NPC. Denni ☯ 23:09, 2005 August 27 (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. Woohookitty 11:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
idosynchratic and unverified war hero story, per anonymous editor at 66.20.226.60. I am just completing process for review.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page or non notably. UnlimitedAccess 23:14, 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 keep in new form, remove copyvio from history.
It appears to be a copyvio, and it should be marked as a requested article. Delete. -- WikiFan04 Talk 18:28, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)This was listed again on August 28th, 2005, but was already listed. So here, it is re-listed.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Scimitar parley 19:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
More patent nonsense from the creator of Beerbonie. IceKarma ॐ 23:29, 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 'ALREADY SPEEDIED, apparently, but not by me. - Splash 01:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non noteable item from a video game; should probably be merged with Spyro or one of the Spyro games articles. realwingus 23:45, 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. Woohookitty 11:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable forum. Can't get an alexa ranking, and throwing out a lot of false hits in Google ('"Neptune Ice" -tea -"ice giant" -carpet -planet') still comes up with a lot of false positives but only shows 74 unique hits. Zoe 23:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)