This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. Where can I find mr. Rat ?
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was listed for speedy but dosen't meet criteria. A developer of various Amazon.com related scripts. NSR ( talk) 00:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable site/network. Every Google hit I've checked refered to UK Digital Networks' site at www.ukdnet.co.uk. But this is not it. Nabla 00:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (14 delete, 6 keep, 1 new user, and 2 votes by anons) -- Allen3 talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Little evidence that this "internet phenomenon" was anything of the sort; it was just a blogger in-joke. ~6000 google hits, yes, but that's very little for a "phenomenon" that has absolutely no existence outside of a bunch of blogs. CDC (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep -- Allen3 talk 02:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Moved here from Speedy, but does not meet criteria for a Speedy delete. I'm not voting Manning 01:34, July 19, 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; attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Removed from Speedy as fails to fit criteria. Possibly meritorious article. Might be too obscure to develop properly though. Manning 01:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED for having little or no context. Postdlf 05:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Also appears to be a badly formed article name (no space before paren). Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm gonna go out on a limb and call nn vanity on this livejournal author. TheMidnighters 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep Haha if you think it's vanity you should check out the journal. Anyone who takes that thing seriously needs to get their head checked. Anonymous 2:09, 19 July 2005
Delete not notable. This is why saying "vanity" gets us in trouble sometimes. Sirmob 05:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
A parody known to the Wikipedia community but otherwise unheard of. Move from main space to a Wikipedia internal page, perhaps, a new section for parodies of the project lots of issues | leave me a message 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
*Strong Keep. Shouldn't go to BJAODN because it's a real site. In fact, it gets
LOTS of Google hits. Let's have a sense of humour here. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! (or whatever the hell the saying is)
CanadianCaesar
03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
Wickerpedia: The parody. Wikipedia is the collaboratively created Web encyclopedia, using software that permits many editors, i.e., a wiki. Wickerpedia is not. It's a parody of wikipedia.org, only with more of an emphasis on wicker (which is terribly represented by wikipedia). The site features a more wickercentric view of history, the news, and common wisdom, as well as a much improved searching engine.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Upon review, the result of the debate was clearly Delete with many requesting transwiki. Transwiki has been performed and article is deleted. - Tεx τ urε 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a great idea, but I think it belongs on Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. Can it be moved over? I proposed this by tagging the article as such, but this was reverted without comment by the page's creator, and I thought I should ask the broader community. -- Beland 03:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Not sure why this article's history indicates that I created this page. I certainly didn't.... PhilipO 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. The article has been tagged for merging. Joyous (talk) 13:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Minor character that appeared in one episode and made a cameo appearance in another. Most of the article is the transcription of the part where he is actually seen, and I don't think anything more than one or two sentences can be said about this. -- Conti| ✉ 04:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
nn High School - vanity PhilipO 04:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like vanity to me PhilipO 04:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Google searches for "Alianism" etc. yield no related results. Additionally, user on this IP has a record of vandalism. Almost certainly, the subject is fake. M412k 04:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Simple nn link PhilipO 04:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Practically empty page PhilipO 04:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Almost empty article PhilipO 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity band page Hansonc 04:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Non notable web forum advertising. drini ☎ 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I think I'd rather wait until I'm done writing the book before I add an article for it. Link 04:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Author's request to Delete. Fulfill it. ~ WCFrancis 18:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Andrew J. "A.J." Branigan (born January 19, 1990) is first young American movie filmaker in the whole world. Well, probably not. Calton | Talk 04:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable band-- BMIComp (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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), consider renaming this but that is a debate for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete neologism. Article is dicdef with list of supposed entries in this genre, though I'm struggling to think of many spy films/tv shows that don't include elements of science fiction. Google results are in the mere hundreds, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Postdlf 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparent vanity. reverted blanking and sent to VFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. A probable vanity. I reverted blanking of the page added {{vfd}}. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:17, July 19, 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be commercial advertisement. I unblanked it and sent it to VFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:37, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Possible vanity. -- DooM Drat 06:12, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - damn I wish every American Idol reject didn't try and create their own wikipedia article... Sherurcij 06:56, July 19, 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 both. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
A label with only one band and the band signed to that label that doesn't even have a demo tape yet... Violates everything in WP:MUSIC. Delete both. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 07:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't you think it's a ltitle bit unnotable? (preceding unsigned comment by 68.91.113.252 20:22, July 9, 2005 UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I feel that it was a huge mistake for me to create this article! (preceding unsigned comment by 67.86.88.191 00:43, June 15, 2005 UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - vanity/prank Sherurcij 07:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose this page be deleted, since it has been inactive since creation in September 2004 and there is nothing major to archive. Hiding talk 07:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The "sex toy" described is obscure, despite the article's claim that it is "popular", and the self-reference to Wikipedia vandal Willy on wheels is unacceptable. Besides, this page was created by User:Windupremisonwheels, whose contributions and user page strongly indicate that he has created this solely for disruption purposes. Phil s 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy; no context. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
content-free; Google returned zero hits Robinh 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Clean Up If we delete the spam, it could become usefull. MicroFeet 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 13:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, consiting of one line, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 07:34, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Does not assert notability. brenneman (t) (c) 07:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student. Delete. jni 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable (probably created by the same person who did Mark Chen, which is also on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently there have only been four articles on VFD... Someone was confused; we have Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and this is redundant/irrelevant/unused/useless. No point, so delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 07:53, July 19, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd vote delete as this seems to be a neologism. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be articles on different types of vandalism, so it could be a merge candidate. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I thought you weren't to create redirects across namespaces so perhaps merge with vandalism instead of WP:VAND? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 15:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, with information moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states/Austria Hungary, admittedly an also inactive project but a better place to archive what material is here Hiding talk 07:55, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable Muhgcee 01:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa ranked 2,246,522! And they're going down, not up (apparently it's possible to go down from there). "[...]creators have hopes of turning it into a full fledged record label at some point in the future."?! I don't doubt it's advertisement of a non-notable website. Delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 08:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person from the Philippines Jojit fb 08:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy, but not a candidate. To me "Architect of the Capitol" seems like a notable title and that any architect holding it would be a notable one. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. Attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
To start off with, Josh Hambrock receives only 8 google hits, the chief claim to notability seems to be winning some sort of informal contest which I think was about predicting Oscar winners. Further down the article we find information which I don't think even the subject had any clue about. Looks to me like a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like band advertising to me. Much is written in first person, and the google search gave me 11 hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy; biographical article with no claim of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seemingly completely made up/uncited and a vandalism/troll playground. zen master T 09:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE! This guy is full of himself!
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal article of no interest 212.68.150.1 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page seems like overt use of Wikipedia for advertising... IMHO, i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. What do other wise Wikipedians say ? Manik Raina 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable (22 year old) student political groupie. Is one of several co-authors of a soon-to-be published handbook on the most recent installment of the " Ars Magica" game, apparently intentionally misspelled "Arse Magica" in the article. Some of the claims of notability seem exaggerated. Unreferenced claim that his blog that "is a frequent reference point for campaigners" in Melbourne or student government. A careful Google search excluding other "Alex Whites" brings up only about 200 unique hits, mostly from an active blogging community at his college. Nonetheless, no printed sources. So he appears to be a young political-type who may someday be notable. Delete or userfy. (if one of the several users named "Alex White" who've been editing recently wants to claim it.) Willmcw 10:17, July 19, 2005 / revised 11:54, July 19, 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 12:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable slang word. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, spam, no content (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, project inactive with one meaningful edit in February since creation in September 2004. Hiding talk 12:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004. Hiding talk 12:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 12:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm simply questioning the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. What do you think, as I'm not so sure. Silles Sellis 12:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 15:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm proposing it for deletion since there are no meaningful edits since August 04. Also, it seems somewhat controversial, in that I'm not sure where it fits in with NPOV. Hiding talk 12:54, July 19, 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 12:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm proposing deletion since it hasn't been meaningfully updated since May 2003, has no real definition, and the talk page mainly features a long conversation about whether Chinese characters are encyclopedix which might be more usefully archived elsewhere, maybe Chinese character Hiding talk 13:05, July 19, 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 (speedily?) deleted. Eugene van der Pijll 18:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I suspect this article was generated by the Postmodernism Generator. Googling for phrases from the article (like "Neotextual desublimation" and "Contexts of collapse") turns up either the Postmodernism Generator or other pages generated from it. Sneaky... TheCoffee 13:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as per above. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Most of 195.224.186.179 ( talk · contribs)'s entries have been vandalism. Dunc| ☺ 13:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. smoddy 14:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/hoax. smoddy 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, but there is a difficulty with the target. THe suggested target in the debate is List of characters in the Harry Potter books, but that article does not accomodate descriptions of characters, and merging the article there would more or less amount to creating only a redirect (this character is already mentioned there). Therefore I will be merging this to Sybill Trelawney instead, and hope that nobody will notice... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be highly obscure, I don't remember this character in the books at all. Corection: Book 5, Ch. 15
JGorton
14:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Dubious type of burger, claims to be the vegetarian version of the Johnson burger, which is also on VFD. NSR ( talk) 14:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page should be deleted because it is a personal atteck on Brendan Mahon.-- Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
personal attack. Not encyclopedic. Not acted on in July 2005 One Salient Oversight 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Advertising... but please don't sic one of your dogs on me. Gunmetal 14:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Merged and redirected. android 79 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Already a correct article The Larry Sanders Show Occono 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, I couldn't find anything remotely encyclopedic (or any mention at all that I could see) while searching for him. Delete Rx StrangeLove 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, but I'm going to move it per Doc and take this to CP per Durin. Dmcdevit· t 08:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Strikes me as highly unremarkable. JGorton 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism dicdef, 77 google hits. Thue | talk 15:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No idea why it has to be deleted!! Surely, there is more loose stuff on wikipedia??
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Thue | talk 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No meaningful edits since creation in August 2003 and nothing there to archive. Hiding talk 15:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research, wishfull thinking. Not an encyclopedic article. Better suited to a user subpage. Thue | talk 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not terribly encyclopedic; it's not as though musicians who appear on Nickelodeon appear nowhere else or are somehow unique. Also, currently contains one (1) entry. tregoweth 15:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
For a long time, this page listed all the stub categories. Now, it's a description of how to modify your CSS settings to make a couple of templates look different. Is there a general how-to page for tweaking Wikipedia CSS? I couldn't find one, except on MediaWiki -- maybe this belongs there. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to have a page just to describe these two templates. If nothing else, put the CSS instructions on the talk pages of the templates themselves.— Wahoofive ( talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism describing a technique used by, apparently, but one photographer, and one whose notability is questionable at best. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. I had not realized we have an article on this publisher until now. I spoke with Marc Snyder, the proprieter of this establishment, some time back while verifying some facts regarding the now-deleted Daniel C. Boyer article. Marc told me at that time that they typically produce 10-25 copies of the materials that they publish, and that distribution is primarily to a list of subscriber/sponsors. Insofar as none of the chapbooks they have published are particularly notable, I believe that this falls well short of the notability we would expect for a publisher. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable brand of typing paper. Of the many brands of typing paper that have existed over the years, and indeed of the several types of erasable paper, this is not particularly notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No major edits since creation in July 2004, and nothing much to archive. Hiding talk 16:22, July 19, 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 12:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-encycolpedic. It is a definition and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If anyplace, it should go to the Wiktionary. Epolk 16:22, July 19, 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 Userfy -- Allen3 talk 12:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Lyrics of some song. This is linked from User:Admiral Roo's page, along with a bunch of other similar lyrics pages. Userfy if the song is Admiral Roo's own work, otherwise delete as a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Agree with above, but contact Admiral Roo. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
See my entry on Talk:Made it Whack. -- Admiral Roo 17:56, July 19, 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 12:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
No major edits to project page since creation in June 2004, and subpage consists of one comment. Hiding talk 16:42, July 19, 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 12:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of it, it hasn't been edited since creation in June 2004, and even then the creation barely advanced beyond slapping the WikiProject template onto the page. Hiding talk 16:49, July 19, 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. jni 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
delete: google report only 3 hits (twice in a forum and once in freedictionary). Article in a very bad form, and it doesn't seems serious. Cate 17:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
No meaningful edits since brief flurry from creation in June 2004 until October 2004 Hiding talk 17:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No edits since creation in August 2004, nothing here that can't be recreated if needed again. Hiding talk 17:37, July 19, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Completing a re-nomination by User:RyanKoppelman of a previously deleted and (differently) recreated article. Previous VfD here, you may also wish to see the author's talk page. Whilst this is effectively a self-vanity page retaliation for the Tom G. Palmer article, a person with whom the author of this page disagrees, I will cast no vote. - Splash 17:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.
... Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory. ... In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's [16] and Williamson Evers's [17] "title transfer" theory of contract, linking it with inalienabiltiy theory while also clarifying that theory ("A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability" [18]). Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory ("Causation and Aggression" [19]). Kinsella, as a practicing intellectual property attorney, also gives non- utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles ("Against Intellectual Property" [20]). Kinsella advances a " discourse ethics" argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel ( A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights).
Man ( talk) 05:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). As for vote count, my tally (which may be slightly inaccurate) places this at 34 keep (after Dv and Incognito have been discounted as possible sockpuppets, and LokiCT has also been discounted), 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes and one redirect vote. In other words a very close call, with a lot of comments. There are a lot of shouting matches with a load of people emphatically holding their positions. The main concern has the neutrality and verifiability of the article. I am in doubt here. Therefore I cannot delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity/attack/whatever by habitual vandal IP Ben-w 18:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit· t 08:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
As not notable. Lamb seem to be the only example of this genre, and even they seem to not be widely categorised as such. The only examples I can find with Google are mirrors of wikipedia. It seems to be a genre of which only one band is an example, and it is seemingly used by only one (unnamed) critic. -- ascorbic 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Created in August 2004, although the template never got completely filled in, nothing since. Hiding talk 18:22, July 19, 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not true. They have announced no such plans and the game itself is far from bug free for them to start working on something new. Delete ASAP and remove from the template and respective pages. 142.58.101.46 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or BJADON Humerous, but not notable. "Daddy's Favorite Porridge" gets 0 Google hits, and it appears to be a simple game someone made up. Icelight 19:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Pook. This game's real. I've played it. It's real. Dunno what else to say.
BuyLowSellHigh. Played this game years ago at boarding school in England. Could be a British/European thing, but it's definitely legit.
The Voice of Reason. Hey, here's a crazy thought. Why don't you guys stop acting like a bunch of colossal tools and leave the stupid entry alone? Honestly, this is pathetic. Do you really have that miserable of lives, where you feel the need to lord your nonexistent powers over everyone else here by playing Wikipedia Nazis? Go outside. Go get laid, for Christ's sake. Go do something -- ANYTHING -- constructive with your time instead of sitting here and acting like your socially inept opinions matter to anyone. You are a bunch of man children. All of you. Who cares if you can Google this entry successfully or not? Who died and made you king of the internet? Seriously. Get. A. Freaking. Life. Yes, "Icelight," I'm talking to you. Do not delete the entry.
DO NOT DELETE This is the original poster of the article again. Maybe I can help shed some light on this, because it's clearly caused some confusion. I actually did first play this game in England when I was studying aboard in 2000. It was taught to me in the kitchen of our dorm by some local students as a drinking game. We then started using it as a means of dividing chores, or deciding who had to do a particularly unappealing duty in the building (kitchen duty for the week, for instance). Now, living in Los Angeles, I've played this game in many contexts. I'm not sure how else to explain it's real other than by offering my experience. I can't vouch for the universality of its name, of course. Perhaps the people who taught it to me renamed it, or perhaps those who taught it to them renamed it. I just don't know. All I do know is it's a common occurrence in my life, the lives of many people I know, to play this game. I'd ask you to not dismiss it just because you haven't happened upon it, and because nobody has chosen to write about it in his blog or on his site (as if being on a personal site confers any legitimacy anyway). Thank you.
DON'T DELETE! Everyone should at least have the opportunity to learn the rules of this clever game. What group of roustabouts wouldn't want to take part in a game where one player per round is burdened with the label of Daddy's Favorite Porridge?! Please don't delete. I've played this game (and loved it), and want others to have the opportunity to learn the rules.
DO NOT DELETE This game is of fairly recent origins, but it is legitimate. I've played it myself a few times. GodAmongMen 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was RESULT: Speedied by Manning 00:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Web site advert / Vanity / not notable - Nearly speediable as vandalism. Tεx τ urε 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedied by Manning 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
And some more pseudo-linguistic hoaxery. Joyous (talk) 19:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Save this article: it is an obscure yet significant linguistic development that needs to be documented. A failure to do so would fly in the face of Wikipedia's very purpose
T. Blake Littwin
---
Save the Brotiger!
-Andrew: Boston,MA
Save this entry At first glance, this entry seems like a farcical excercise in wordplay. But after consulting with a few of my colleagues, I came to the realization that 'brotiger' is a genuine linguistic development. Please reconsider.
Regards, Prof. Carl J. Harris (Utah State College)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was tagged for cleanup-rewrite but has not been touched for nearly three months.
Delete. This is a good idea for an article, but if no one is going to write it, it might as well go. Some one can recreate later when they actaully want to write something. •Zhatt• 17:30, July 19, 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 13:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity/advert - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/C Programming Mistakes - Looks like an advert for the book/site/person in combination with the other article about the book. - Tεx τ urε 19:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
reason #1: content is copy-paste from gasb.org; reason#2: it's a very narrow topic only nerdy accountants would be interested (too insignificant to have 50 different articles about them); reason #3: the list is not finished and the guy disappeared; reason#4: I created just a simple list of all those statements so they don't mess up the accounting category (see List of GASB Statements) - User:Renata3
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It just as worth while as a list of members of parliament. It's level is part of the Birth Place/Grave Yard of UK politicians. If some one every get around to writting the much needed Political COntrol of UK Police Forces it will be a useful example.-- Jirate 20:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently a Star Wars character. The article had a speedy tag, which I removed since it does not fit the criteria. It should still go, however, unless someone can fix it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Very short article with no references, near speedy but not quite. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). Dmcdevit· t 02:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
No real content but not quite a speedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, if the new proposal for non-notable bands passes, this will be a speedy candidate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. Google gives >30 000 hits for "Dupper", but that's because it's a surname and a Norwegian plural noun. DS 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This is another of Striver's article creations. There is interesting material here, but it should be placed in an article on Islamic law re marriage. I am not sure that there IS such an article. No one looking for this material could find it from this bizarre title. Zora 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Oh, wow, how amusing, my article got a Vfd... and guess by who? If im not mistaken, this is the 4:th Vfd she has been puting on my articles.
Zora, why dont you just link it, or put a sugestion to merge or rename it? No, we must have a Vfd, it just would'nt be the same, whould it?
My motivation for not having it in another article: It easier to link to it, since ther is 3 articles that result in this and ther is 3 article that can resolve it. It would not be fair to the other 5 articles if it would be put in one of the 6, if the reader wants to read only about this, s/he will have to searh for this in the article it will be put in. Hence, it is easier for the reader if it haves it own aricle, even, or just because, it does not contain so much information related to a single one of the 6.
-- Striver 21:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Khalid! 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
coment Islamic view of marriage is a overview page linking to separat articles, not a independen article of its own. The title needing to be changed does not warant a deletion. -- Striver 15:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Another of Striver's creations. It refers, obliquely, to a fine point of Islamic law. Should be put into Sharia. Zora 21:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Why did you not do the same to this articles:
not delet for the same reason that the above should not be deleted. -- Striver 00:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Ya Ali 11:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, we have the Shi'a contingent here saying to keep, in solidarity.
Regarding Striver's first point, re articles for various Arabic technical terms -- I presume that those articles are there because someone found them as technical terms in English books/articles/whatever, and felt that they should have an explanation. I gather that some editors feel very strongly that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and would argue that any one-sentence articles on Islamic technical terms should be moved into the Wiktionary. Or they might be better in the List of Arabic terms article, whatever it's called. But I don't think the matter is urgent because the titles of the articles are so obviously foreign-language-technical-terms. No one is going to be confused.
However, "Recommended precautions" is a completely opaque and misleading title. If I google on it, I get 2,430,000 hits. 99.99% of which have nothing to do with sharia. So, the title is completely wrong. Could the content be slotted somewhere else? Yup, it is just a stub and could be put into Sharia easily. So why have an article with a misleading title and no content? Zora 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally, I was going to leave it as a redirect to Goatse.cx but anon users keep restoring this article. I therefore see fit to nominate this article for deletion as a neologism and as shown by google and therefore a lack of notability and verifability. Delete. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 21:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
VFD was not correctly listed, trying to fix that; no vote on my part -- Metropolitan90 04:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC-- Striver 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)) reply
Another of Striver's creations. He seems to have fixated on the topic of Islam and marriage and to be starting many articles on minor points, often with oblique, opaque, or misleading titles. Should be merged into one article. Zora 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment Islam does not have the same view of marriage as the west have. In the west, most people consider marriage as based on love. So is not the case in Islam. In Islam it is based on worshiping God, and that diffrens needs a lot of explanation to make sence to a non-Muslim.
-- Striver 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Coment Islamic view of marriage is a overiew of manny topics related to marriage, the current topic is to large to fitt entirely into a overview article. -- Striver 15:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 user:Joy Stovall, presumably as a vanity article (criteria #7). Thue | talk 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm really not quite sure what this is, aside from an attack on Sonycorp's web policies by a non-native English speaker. I don't think it's encyclopedic. DS 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delte -- Allen3 talk 13:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
On 14 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The final decision was a judgment call. I called it as a m:transwiki to WikiNews. We have since learned that transwiki to WikiNews is incompatible with GFDL. I am returning it to VfD for reconsideration. The prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2005 Hudson Valley Mall shooting incident.
I recommend deletion because this is a news article, not an encyclopedic event. Wikipedia does not need or want an article on every non-notable crime. (It would be nice if we lived in a world where this was a notable crime but we don't. Similar incidents occur on a daily basis. I believe this got attention only because it was a slow news day.) There have been no significant edits to this article since 14 Feb (the day after the article was created). The article is an orphan. While low edits and orphan status are not deletion criteria, they are supporting evidence that this is not a requested article. A good WikiNews article already exists here. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --04:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
VFD was not properly formatted, fixing that; no vote on my part. -- Metropolitan90 04:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be a repository for hadith dumps. If the "evidence" doesn't fit in the main article, then it should either be in Wikisource (?) or relegated to external links. As it stands, this article is completely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what nikah mut'ah is and why it is controversial. If that is added, then the article is just a repetition of the nikah mut'ah article. Zora 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
coment The article does not interpret the hadith, it represent how diffrent famous scholars imterpreted them. A major difrence, and worth representation. furthermore, Mut'ah (marriage) presents the concept, not shows how the scholars interpret wheather it is allowed or not. The concept is one thing, the cholars view of wheather it is allowed or not is a tottaly diffrent matter.
-- Striver 16:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Crystal ball, likely hoax (see talk page). Delete with prejudice. Grue 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure how notable this is or if this could be expanded. It was made and later blanked by anon. JJLeahy 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 14:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 22:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. It's unanimous apart from the dubious nom, regardless of which votes I discard or not. - Splash 01:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, why not include everyone who was murdered in the greater Detroit area in 1982? SquirrelKabob 22:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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' humble' fool ® Deletion Reform 19:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No major edits since March 2004, nothing much to archive. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a template, been that way since July 2004. Nothing to archive, arguably redundant with the equally inactive but arguably more substantial Wikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationships Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nothing substantial here, just discussion, no major edits since 2003. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No major edits since October 2004, no major structure worth saving. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what it's about. It was created in June, and its creation is also the creator's only edits. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No structure, no major edits since December 2004. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (I'm redirecting on my own). humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundancy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to have been created as a template for articles on Malt whisky in Feb 2003, and remained thus ever since. Is this the best place for such information? Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Inactive since October 2004 and redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No edits since creation in October 2004 Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 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 22:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Project not completely defined since creation in October 2004 Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not edited since creation, doesn't fit WikiProject format and would seem better suited to being userfied along with associated subpage Hiding talk 22:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Runs counter to Wikipedia spirit. Not encyclopedic. Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic, unnecessary. Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 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. jni 07:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
A 5-month-old neologism from a webcomic. Joyous (talk) 22:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
-you just don't travel to the right places(preceding unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] {{{2}}})
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unsigned"
"The Vagoo is in danger!" forum post.
'Keep The might be a new word to you long established people here. Might be new to this, but that doesn't mean my voice doesn't count. Keep the Vagoo, its good for all. Keep: Keep the Vagoo, its a great word for use in many nonvulgar discussions. Plus its just fun to say.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.147.103.143 ( talk • contribs) then faked. Rich Farmbrough 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nom. - Splash 01:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable scientist SquirrelKabob 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimous apart from nom. - Splash 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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: 3r, 1m, 1d. 4 votes are a form of keep, but 3 of them don't want the content so I will WP:BOLDLY redirect. - Splash 01:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nominator. - Splash 01:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nom. Appears to have been cleaned, so not tagged. - Splash 01:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 disabiguate. Dmcdevit· t 05:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 22:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (so keep redirect). I presume Harmil's suggestion concurs with Alarm's. - Splash 01:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, keep rewrite -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 09:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, despite a considerable number of votes by new users and anons. Defaults to keep. -- Allen3 talk 22:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep: Keep the site!-- 24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
-- 24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (this signature was placed at the top of the debate, for no apparent reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)) reply
Moved mudslinging to discussion page. Have at it!
68.51.80.209 00:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Neocapitalist, too lazy to sign in) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 21:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a non-notable vanity band article, Babajobu 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 21:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn company that sells "samwishes". Gets 326 unique Google hits, at least some of which are from people's blogs and things. - Splash 23:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and redirect. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete crystalball-gazing. IMDb has a page, it contains no information and does not confirm the info in the article. Should be recreated when there's something non-speculative. - Splash 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete non-encyclopedic. This just says that trains run between two towns — we could have articles about X to Y where X and Y are one stop apart! - Splash 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
To be fair, the pages are about entire routes, not just one stop between towns. My comment was
Ojw 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
comment Waterloo via Weybridge railway service, a similar page, was created by me. The point from Splash above is a entirely valid, via reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps a more appropriate page title might provide resolution? However, information on what regular, timetabled, multi-stop railway services are available to UK railway users is encyclopedic, and useful. Sliggy 00:28, July 20, 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. jni 10:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Should the flight schedule of an airport be included? An entry on the airport is fine, but... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete character in NN webcomic we just vfd'd. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Captain SNES: The Game Masta. As goes the comic, so should its characters. Postdlf 23:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn, admits to having no albums or any other claims to notability. Fails WP:MUSIC.- Splash 23:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was disambigged. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable vanity band article Babajobu 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)}} reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 00:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete so much advertising it even includes a phone number. It might be 60 years old, but I can't find Googles, so it's unverifiable from here. - Splash 23:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, admitted invented slang, dicdef at best. Could possibly redirect if there's anywhere sensible, but redirects are for things that ought to stay but point elsewhere. This oughtn't to stay.- Splash 23:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Dmcdevit· t 00:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
VFD isn't a court of opinion, but it's up to law enforcement to "bust" predators, not pejorative idiots. However, an article shouldn't just go on vfd because I don't like it... I just thought I'd state my opinion.
Alexa ranking of 153,797. Not doing anything original (besides ruining people's lives, of course); feds entrap predators all the time. I don't think we should have articles on websites, with exceptions like Google, Slashdot, and Wikipedia. Not-notable. However, the writers have done a pretty good job writing the article, but that's not enough to save it from my delete vote... 24 at 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. Dmcdevit· t 01:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
This was marked as a speedy, but does not meet any of the speedy criteria. His article seems to have been deleted from the German wikipedia, and the page now contains the text
Or translated
No vote from me. Thue | talk 15:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Replies:
I suggest we close this VfD process (again) unless we soon see some actual arguments for why this page should be deleted.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. Where can I find mr. Rat ?
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was listed for speedy but dosen't meet criteria. A developer of various Amazon.com related scripts. NSR ( talk) 00:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable site/network. Every Google hit I've checked refered to UK Digital Networks' site at www.ukdnet.co.uk. But this is not it. Nabla 00:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (14 delete, 6 keep, 1 new user, and 2 votes by anons) -- Allen3 talk 02:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Little evidence that this "internet phenomenon" was anything of the sort; it was just a blogger in-joke. ~6000 google hits, yes, but that's very little for a "phenomenon" that has absolutely no existence outside of a bunch of blogs. CDC (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep -- Allen3 talk 02:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Moved here from Speedy, but does not meet criteria for a Speedy delete. I'm not voting Manning 01:34, July 19, 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; attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Removed from Speedy as fails to fit criteria. Possibly meritorious article. Might be too obscure to develop properly though. Manning 01:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED for having little or no context. Postdlf 05:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Also appears to be a badly formed article name (no space before paren). Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm gonna go out on a limb and call nn vanity on this livejournal author. TheMidnighters 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep Haha if you think it's vanity you should check out the journal. Anyone who takes that thing seriously needs to get their head checked. Anonymous 2:09, 19 July 2005
Delete not notable. This is why saying "vanity" gets us in trouble sometimes. Sirmob 05:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
A parody known to the Wikipedia community but otherwise unheard of. Move from main space to a Wikipedia internal page, perhaps, a new section for parodies of the project lots of issues | leave me a message 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
*Strong Keep. Shouldn't go to BJAODN because it's a real site. In fact, it gets
LOTS of Google hits. Let's have a sense of humour here. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! (or whatever the hell the saying is)
CanadianCaesar
03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
Wickerpedia: The parody. Wikipedia is the collaboratively created Web encyclopedia, using software that permits many editors, i.e., a wiki. Wickerpedia is not. It's a parody of wikipedia.org, only with more of an emphasis on wicker (which is terribly represented by wikipedia). The site features a more wickercentric view of history, the news, and common wisdom, as well as a much improved searching engine.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Upon review, the result of the debate was clearly Delete with many requesting transwiki. Transwiki has been performed and article is deleted. - Tεx τ urε 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a great idea, but I think it belongs on Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. Can it be moved over? I proposed this by tagging the article as such, but this was reverted without comment by the page's creator, and I thought I should ask the broader community. -- Beland 03:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Not sure why this article's history indicates that I created this page. I certainly didn't.... PhilipO 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. The article has been tagged for merging. Joyous (talk) 13:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Minor character that appeared in one episode and made a cameo appearance in another. Most of the article is the transcription of the part where he is actually seen, and I don't think anything more than one or two sentences can be said about this. -- Conti| ✉ 04:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
nn High School - vanity PhilipO 04:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like vanity to me PhilipO 04:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Google searches for "Alianism" etc. yield no related results. Additionally, user on this IP has a record of vandalism. Almost certainly, the subject is fake. M412k 04:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Simple nn link PhilipO 04:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Practically empty page PhilipO 04:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Almost empty article PhilipO 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity band page Hansonc 04:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Non notable web forum advertising. drini ☎ 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I think I'd rather wait until I'm done writing the book before I add an article for it. Link 04:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Author's request to Delete. Fulfill it. ~ WCFrancis 18:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Andrew J. "A.J." Branigan (born January 19, 1990) is first young American movie filmaker in the whole world. Well, probably not. Calton | Talk 04:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable band-- BMIComp (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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), consider renaming this but that is a debate for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete neologism. Article is dicdef with list of supposed entries in this genre, though I'm struggling to think of many spy films/tv shows that don't include elements of science fiction. Google results are in the mere hundreds, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Postdlf 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparent vanity. reverted blanking and sent to VFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. A probable vanity. I reverted blanking of the page added {{vfd}}. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:17, July 19, 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be commercial advertisement. I unblanked it and sent it to VFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:37, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Possible vanity. -- DooM Drat 06:12, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - damn I wish every American Idol reject didn't try and create their own wikipedia article... Sherurcij 06:56, July 19, 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 both. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
A label with only one band and the band signed to that label that doesn't even have a demo tape yet... Violates everything in WP:MUSIC. Delete both. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 07:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't you think it's a ltitle bit unnotable? (preceding unsigned comment by 68.91.113.252 20:22, July 9, 2005 UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I feel that it was a huge mistake for me to create this article! (preceding unsigned comment by 67.86.88.191 00:43, June 15, 2005 UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - vanity/prank Sherurcij 07:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose this page be deleted, since it has been inactive since creation in September 2004 and there is nothing major to archive. Hiding talk 07:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The "sex toy" described is obscure, despite the article's claim that it is "popular", and the self-reference to Wikipedia vandal Willy on wheels is unacceptable. Besides, this page was created by User:Windupremisonwheels, whose contributions and user page strongly indicate that he has created this solely for disruption purposes. Phil s 23:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy; no context. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
content-free; Google returned zero hits Robinh 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Clean Up If we delete the spam, it could become usefull. MicroFeet 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 13:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, consiting of one line, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 07:34, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Does not assert notability. brenneman (t) (c) 07:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student. Delete. jni 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable (probably created by the same person who did Mark Chen, which is also on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently there have only been four articles on VFD... Someone was confused; we have Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and this is redundant/irrelevant/unused/useless. No point, so delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 07:53, July 19, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 18:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd vote delete as this seems to be a neologism. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be articles on different types of vandalism, so it could be a merge candidate. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I thought you weren't to create redirects across namespaces so perhaps merge with vandalism instead of WP:VAND? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 15:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, with information moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states/Austria Hungary, admittedly an also inactive project but a better place to archive what material is here Hiding talk 07:55, July 19, 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. Joyous (talk) 13:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable Muhgcee 01:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa ranked 2,246,522! And they're going down, not up (apparently it's possible to go down from there). "[...]creators have hopes of turning it into a full fledged record label at some point in the future."?! I don't doubt it's advertisement of a non-notable website. Delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 08:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person from the Philippines Jojit fb 08:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy, but not a candidate. To me "Architect of the Capitol" seems like a notable title and that any architect holding it would be a notable one. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. Attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
To start off with, Josh Hambrock receives only 8 google hits, the chief claim to notability seems to be winning some sort of informal contest which I think was about predicting Oscar winners. Further down the article we find information which I don't think even the subject had any clue about. Looks to me like a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like band advertising to me. Much is written in first person, and the google search gave me 11 hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy; biographical article with no claim of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seemingly completely made up/uncited and a vandalism/troll playground. zen master T 09:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE! This guy is full of himself!
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Personal article of no interest 212.68.150.1 09:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page seems like overt use of Wikipedia for advertising... IMHO, i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. What do other wise Wikipedians say ? Manik Raina 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable (22 year old) student political groupie. Is one of several co-authors of a soon-to-be published handbook on the most recent installment of the " Ars Magica" game, apparently intentionally misspelled "Arse Magica" in the article. Some of the claims of notability seem exaggerated. Unreferenced claim that his blog that "is a frequent reference point for campaigners" in Melbourne or student government. A careful Google search excluding other "Alex Whites" brings up only about 200 unique hits, mostly from an active blogging community at his college. Nonetheless, no printed sources. So he appears to be a young political-type who may someday be notable. Delete or userfy. (if one of the several users named "Alex White" who've been editing recently wants to claim it.) Willmcw 10:17, July 19, 2005 / revised 11:54, July 19, 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 12:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable slang word. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, spam, no content (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, project inactive with one meaningful edit in February since creation in September 2004. Hiding talk 12:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004. Hiding talk 12:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion, since project inactive since creation in April 2004, therefore nothing major to archive Hiding talk 12:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm simply questioning the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. What do you think, as I'm not so sure. Silles Sellis 12:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 15:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm proposing it for deletion since there are no meaningful edits since August 04. Also, it seems somewhat controversial, in that I'm not sure where it fits in with NPOV. Hiding talk 12:54, July 19, 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 12:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm proposing deletion since it hasn't been meaningfully updated since May 2003, has no real definition, and the talk page mainly features a long conversation about whether Chinese characters are encyclopedix which might be more usefully archived elsewhere, maybe Chinese character Hiding talk 13:05, July 19, 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 (speedily?) deleted. Eugene van der Pijll 18:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I suspect this article was generated by the Postmodernism Generator. Googling for phrases from the article (like "Neotextual desublimation" and "Contexts of collapse") turns up either the Postmodernism Generator or other pages generated from it. Sneaky... TheCoffee 13:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as per above. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Most of 195.224.186.179 ( talk · contribs)'s entries have been vandalism. Dunc| ☺ 13:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. smoddy 14:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/hoax. smoddy 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, but there is a difficulty with the target. THe suggested target in the debate is List of characters in the Harry Potter books, but that article does not accomodate descriptions of characters, and merging the article there would more or less amount to creating only a redirect (this character is already mentioned there). Therefore I will be merging this to Sybill Trelawney instead, and hope that nobody will notice... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be highly obscure, I don't remember this character in the books at all. Corection: Book 5, Ch. 15
JGorton
14:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Dubious type of burger, claims to be the vegetarian version of the Johnson burger, which is also on VFD. NSR ( talk) 14:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page should be deleted because it is a personal atteck on Brendan Mahon.-- Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
personal attack. Not encyclopedic. Not acted on in July 2005 One Salient Oversight 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Advertising... but please don't sic one of your dogs on me. Gunmetal 14:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Merged and redirected. android 79 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Already a correct article The Larry Sanders Show Occono 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, I couldn't find anything remotely encyclopedic (or any mention at all that I could see) while searching for him. Delete Rx StrangeLove 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, but I'm going to move it per Doc and take this to CP per Durin. Dmcdevit· t 08:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Strikes me as highly unremarkable. JGorton 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism dicdef, 77 google hits. Thue | talk 15:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No idea why it has to be deleted!! Surely, there is more loose stuff on wikipedia??
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Thue | talk 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No meaningful edits since creation in August 2003 and nothing there to archive. Hiding talk 15:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research, wishfull thinking. Not an encyclopedic article. Better suited to a user subpage. Thue | talk 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not terribly encyclopedic; it's not as though musicians who appear on Nickelodeon appear nowhere else or are somehow unique. Also, currently contains one (1) entry. tregoweth 15:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
For a long time, this page listed all the stub categories. Now, it's a description of how to modify your CSS settings to make a couple of templates look different. Is there a general how-to page for tweaking Wikipedia CSS? I couldn't find one, except on MediaWiki -- maybe this belongs there. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to have a page just to describe these two templates. If nothing else, put the CSS instructions on the talk pages of the templates themselves.— Wahoofive ( talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism describing a technique used by, apparently, but one photographer, and one whose notability is questionable at best. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. I had not realized we have an article on this publisher until now. I spoke with Marc Snyder, the proprieter of this establishment, some time back while verifying some facts regarding the now-deleted Daniel C. Boyer article. Marc told me at that time that they typically produce 10-25 copies of the materials that they publish, and that distribution is primarily to a list of subscriber/sponsors. Insofar as none of the chapbooks they have published are particularly notable, I believe that this falls well short of the notability we would expect for a publisher. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable brand of typing paper. Of the many brands of typing paper that have existed over the years, and indeed of the several types of erasable paper, this is not particularly notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No major edits since creation in July 2004, and nothing much to archive. Hiding talk 16:22, July 19, 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 12:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Non-encycolpedic. It is a definition and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If anyplace, it should go to the Wiktionary. Epolk 16:22, July 19, 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 Userfy -- Allen3 talk 12:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Lyrics of some song. This is linked from User:Admiral Roo's page, along with a bunch of other similar lyrics pages. Userfy if the song is Admiral Roo's own work, otherwise delete as a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Agree with above, but contact Admiral Roo. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
See my entry on Talk:Made it Whack. -- Admiral Roo 17:56, July 19, 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 12:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
No major edits to project page since creation in June 2004, and subpage consists of one comment. Hiding talk 16:42, July 19, 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 12:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of it, it hasn't been edited since creation in June 2004, and even then the creation barely advanced beyond slapping the WikiProject template onto the page. Hiding talk 16:49, July 19, 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. jni 07:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
delete: google report only 3 hits (twice in a forum and once in freedictionary). Article in a very bad form, and it doesn't seems serious. Cate 17:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
No meaningful edits since brief flurry from creation in June 2004 until October 2004 Hiding talk 17:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No edits since creation in August 2004, nothing here that can't be recreated if needed again. Hiding talk 17:37, July 19, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Completing a re-nomination by User:RyanKoppelman of a previously deleted and (differently) recreated article. Previous VfD here, you may also wish to see the author's talk page. Whilst this is effectively a self-vanity page retaliation for the Tom G. Palmer article, a person with whom the author of this page disagrees, I will cast no vote. - Splash 17:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.
... Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory. ... In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's [16] and Williamson Evers's [17] "title transfer" theory of contract, linking it with inalienabiltiy theory while also clarifying that theory ("A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability" [18]). Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory ("Causation and Aggression" [19]). Kinsella, as a practicing intellectual property attorney, also gives non- utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles ("Against Intellectual Property" [20]). Kinsella advances a " discourse ethics" argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel ( A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights).
Man ( talk) 05:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). As for vote count, my tally (which may be slightly inaccurate) places this at 34 keep (after Dv and Incognito have been discounted as possible sockpuppets, and LokiCT has also been discounted), 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes and one redirect vote. In other words a very close call, with a lot of comments. There are a lot of shouting matches with a load of people emphatically holding their positions. The main concern has the neutrality and verifiability of the article. I am in doubt here. Therefore I cannot delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity/attack/whatever by habitual vandal IP Ben-w 18:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit· t 08:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
As not notable. Lamb seem to be the only example of this genre, and even they seem to not be widely categorised as such. The only examples I can find with Google are mirrors of wikipedia. It seems to be a genre of which only one band is an example, and it is seemingly used by only one (unnamed) critic. -- ascorbic 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Created in August 2004, although the template never got completely filled in, nothing since. Hiding talk 18:22, July 19, 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not true. They have announced no such plans and the game itself is far from bug free for them to start working on something new. Delete ASAP and remove from the template and respective pages. 142.58.101.46 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or BJADON Humerous, but not notable. "Daddy's Favorite Porridge" gets 0 Google hits, and it appears to be a simple game someone made up. Icelight 19:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Pook. This game's real. I've played it. It's real. Dunno what else to say.
BuyLowSellHigh. Played this game years ago at boarding school in England. Could be a British/European thing, but it's definitely legit.
The Voice of Reason. Hey, here's a crazy thought. Why don't you guys stop acting like a bunch of colossal tools and leave the stupid entry alone? Honestly, this is pathetic. Do you really have that miserable of lives, where you feel the need to lord your nonexistent powers over everyone else here by playing Wikipedia Nazis? Go outside. Go get laid, for Christ's sake. Go do something -- ANYTHING -- constructive with your time instead of sitting here and acting like your socially inept opinions matter to anyone. You are a bunch of man children. All of you. Who cares if you can Google this entry successfully or not? Who died and made you king of the internet? Seriously. Get. A. Freaking. Life. Yes, "Icelight," I'm talking to you. Do not delete the entry.
DO NOT DELETE This is the original poster of the article again. Maybe I can help shed some light on this, because it's clearly caused some confusion. I actually did first play this game in England when I was studying aboard in 2000. It was taught to me in the kitchen of our dorm by some local students as a drinking game. We then started using it as a means of dividing chores, or deciding who had to do a particularly unappealing duty in the building (kitchen duty for the week, for instance). Now, living in Los Angeles, I've played this game in many contexts. I'm not sure how else to explain it's real other than by offering my experience. I can't vouch for the universality of its name, of course. Perhaps the people who taught it to me renamed it, or perhaps those who taught it to them renamed it. I just don't know. All I do know is it's a common occurrence in my life, the lives of many people I know, to play this game. I'd ask you to not dismiss it just because you haven't happened upon it, and because nobody has chosen to write about it in his blog or on his site (as if being on a personal site confers any legitimacy anyway). Thank you.
DON'T DELETE! Everyone should at least have the opportunity to learn the rules of this clever game. What group of roustabouts wouldn't want to take part in a game where one player per round is burdened with the label of Daddy's Favorite Porridge?! Please don't delete. I've played this game (and loved it), and want others to have the opportunity to learn the rules.
DO NOT DELETE This game is of fairly recent origins, but it is legitimate. I've played it myself a few times. GodAmongMen 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was RESULT: Speedied by Manning 00:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Web site advert / Vanity / not notable - Nearly speediable as vandalism. Tεx τ urε 19:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedied by Manning 00:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
And some more pseudo-linguistic hoaxery. Joyous (talk) 19:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Save this article: it is an obscure yet significant linguistic development that needs to be documented. A failure to do so would fly in the face of Wikipedia's very purpose
T. Blake Littwin
---
Save the Brotiger!
-Andrew: Boston,MA
Save this entry At first glance, this entry seems like a farcical excercise in wordplay. But after consulting with a few of my colleagues, I came to the realization that 'brotiger' is a genuine linguistic development. Please reconsider.
Regards, Prof. Carl J. Harris (Utah State College)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was tagged for cleanup-rewrite but has not been touched for nearly three months.
Delete. This is a good idea for an article, but if no one is going to write it, it might as well go. Some one can recreate later when they actaully want to write something. •Zhatt• 17:30, July 19, 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 13:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity/advert - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/C Programming Mistakes - Looks like an advert for the book/site/person in combination with the other article about the book. - Tεx τ urε 19:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
reason #1: content is copy-paste from gasb.org; reason#2: it's a very narrow topic only nerdy accountants would be interested (too insignificant to have 50 different articles about them); reason #3: the list is not finished and the guy disappeared; reason#4: I created just a simple list of all those statements so they don't mess up the accounting category (see List of GASB Statements) - User:Renata3
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It just as worth while as a list of members of parliament. It's level is part of the Birth Place/Grave Yard of UK politicians. If some one every get around to writting the much needed Political COntrol of UK Police Forces it will be a useful example.-- Jirate 20:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently a Star Wars character. The article had a speedy tag, which I removed since it does not fit the criteria. It should still go, however, unless someone can fix it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Very short article with no references, near speedy but not quite. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). Dmcdevit· t 02:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
No real content but not quite a speedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, if the new proposal for non-notable bands passes, this will be a speedy candidate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. Google gives >30 000 hits for "Dupper", but that's because it's a surname and a Norwegian plural noun. DS 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This is another of Striver's article creations. There is interesting material here, but it should be placed in an article on Islamic law re marriage. I am not sure that there IS such an article. No one looking for this material could find it from this bizarre title. Zora 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Oh, wow, how amusing, my article got a Vfd... and guess by who? If im not mistaken, this is the 4:th Vfd she has been puting on my articles.
Zora, why dont you just link it, or put a sugestion to merge or rename it? No, we must have a Vfd, it just would'nt be the same, whould it?
My motivation for not having it in another article: It easier to link to it, since ther is 3 articles that result in this and ther is 3 article that can resolve it. It would not be fair to the other 5 articles if it would be put in one of the 6, if the reader wants to read only about this, s/he will have to searh for this in the article it will be put in. Hence, it is easier for the reader if it haves it own aricle, even, or just because, it does not contain so much information related to a single one of the 6.
-- Striver 21:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Khalid! 11:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
coment Islamic view of marriage is a overview page linking to separat articles, not a independen article of its own. The title needing to be changed does not warant a deletion. -- Striver 15:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Another of Striver's creations. It refers, obliquely, to a fine point of Islamic law. Should be put into Sharia. Zora 21:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Why did you not do the same to this articles:
not delet for the same reason that the above should not be deleted. -- Striver 00:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Ya Ali 11:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, we have the Shi'a contingent here saying to keep, in solidarity.
Regarding Striver's first point, re articles for various Arabic technical terms -- I presume that those articles are there because someone found them as technical terms in English books/articles/whatever, and felt that they should have an explanation. I gather that some editors feel very strongly that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and would argue that any one-sentence articles on Islamic technical terms should be moved into the Wiktionary. Or they might be better in the List of Arabic terms article, whatever it's called. But I don't think the matter is urgent because the titles of the articles are so obviously foreign-language-technical-terms. No one is going to be confused.
However, "Recommended precautions" is a completely opaque and misleading title. If I google on it, I get 2,430,000 hits. 99.99% of which have nothing to do with sharia. So, the title is completely wrong. Could the content be slotted somewhere else? Yup, it is just a stub and could be put into Sharia easily. So why have an article with a misleading title and no content? Zora 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 07:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally, I was going to leave it as a redirect to Goatse.cx but anon users keep restoring this article. I therefore see fit to nominate this article for deletion as a neologism and as shown by google and therefore a lack of notability and verifability. Delete. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 21:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
VFD was not correctly listed, trying to fix that; no vote on my part -- Metropolitan90 04:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC-- Striver 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)) reply
Another of Striver's creations. He seems to have fixated on the topic of Islam and marriage and to be starting many articles on minor points, often with oblique, opaque, or misleading titles. Should be merged into one article. Zora 21:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment Islam does not have the same view of marriage as the west have. In the west, most people consider marriage as based on love. So is not the case in Islam. In Islam it is based on worshiping God, and that diffrens needs a lot of explanation to make sence to a non-Muslim.
-- Striver 12:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Coment Islamic view of marriage is a overiew of manny topics related to marriage, the current topic is to large to fitt entirely into a overview article. -- Striver 15:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 user:Joy Stovall, presumably as a vanity article (criteria #7). Thue | talk 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 13:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm really not quite sure what this is, aside from an attack on Sonycorp's web policies by a non-native English speaker. I don't think it's encyclopedic. DS 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delte -- Allen3 talk 13:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
On 14 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The final decision was a judgment call. I called it as a m:transwiki to WikiNews. We have since learned that transwiki to WikiNews is incompatible with GFDL. I am returning it to VfD for reconsideration. The prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2005 Hudson Valley Mall shooting incident.
I recommend deletion because this is a news article, not an encyclopedic event. Wikipedia does not need or want an article on every non-notable crime. (It would be nice if we lived in a world where this was a notable crime but we don't. Similar incidents occur on a daily basis. I believe this got attention only because it was a slow news day.) There have been no significant edits to this article since 14 Feb (the day after the article was created). The article is an orphan. While low edits and orphan status are not deletion criteria, they are supporting evidence that this is not a requested article. A good WikiNews article already exists here. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --04:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
VFD was not properly formatted, fixing that; no vote on my part. -- Metropolitan90 04:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be a repository for hadith dumps. If the "evidence" doesn't fit in the main article, then it should either be in Wikisource (?) or relegated to external links. As it stands, this article is completely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what nikah mut'ah is and why it is controversial. If that is added, then the article is just a repetition of the nikah mut'ah article. Zora 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
coment The article does not interpret the hadith, it represent how diffrent famous scholars imterpreted them. A major difrence, and worth representation. furthermore, Mut'ah (marriage) presents the concept, not shows how the scholars interpret wheather it is allowed or not. The concept is one thing, the cholars view of wheather it is allowed or not is a tottaly diffrent matter.
-- Striver 16:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Crystal ball, likely hoax (see talk page). Delete with prejudice. Grue 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure how notable this is or if this could be expanded. It was made and later blanked by anon. JJLeahy 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 14:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, advertising SquirrelKabob 22:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. It's unanimous apart from the dubious nom, regardless of which votes I discard or not. - Splash 01:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, why not include everyone who was murdered in the greater Detroit area in 1982? SquirrelKabob 22:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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' humble' fool ® Deletion Reform 19:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No major edits since March 2004, nothing much to archive. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a template, been that way since July 2004. Nothing to archive, arguably redundant with the equally inactive but arguably more substantial Wikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationships Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nothing substantial here, just discussion, no major edits since 2003. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No major edits since October 2004, no major structure worth saving. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what it's about. It was created in June, and its creation is also the creator's only edits. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No structure, no major edits since December 2004. Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (I'm redirecting on my own). humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundancy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 18:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to have been created as a template for articles on Malt whisky in Feb 2003, and remained thus ever since. Is this the best place for such information? Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Inactive since October 2004 and redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics Hiding talk 22:25, July 19, 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No edits since creation in October 2004 Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 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 22:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Project not completely defined since creation in October 2004 Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not edited since creation, doesn't fit WikiProject format and would seem better suited to being userfied along with associated subpage Hiding talk 22:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Runs counter to Wikipedia spirit. Not encyclopedic. Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic, unnecessary. Hiding talk 22:26, July 19, 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. jni 07:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
A 5-month-old neologism from a webcomic. Joyous (talk) 22:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
-you just don't travel to the right places(preceding unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] {{{2}}})
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unsigned"
"The Vagoo is in danger!" forum post.
'Keep The might be a new word to you long established people here. Might be new to this, but that doesn't mean my voice doesn't count. Keep the Vagoo, its good for all. Keep: Keep the Vagoo, its a great word for use in many nonvulgar discussions. Plus its just fun to say.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.147.103.143 ( talk • contribs) then faked. Rich Farmbrough 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nom. - Splash 01:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable scientist SquirrelKabob 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimous apart from nom. - Splash 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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: 3r, 1m, 1d. 4 votes are a form of keep, but 3 of them don't want the content so I will WP:BOLDLY redirect. - Splash 01:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nominator. - Splash 01:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, unanimously apart from nom. Appears to have been cleaned, so not tagged. - Splash 01:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 disabiguate. Dmcdevit· t 05:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 22:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (so keep redirect). I presume Harmil's suggestion concurs with Alarm's. - Splash 01:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, keep rewrite -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 09:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, despite a considerable number of votes by new users and anons. Defaults to keep. -- Allen3 talk 22:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep: Keep the site!-- 24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
-- 24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (this signature was placed at the top of the debate, for no apparent reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)) reply
Moved mudslinging to discussion page. Have at it!
68.51.80.209 00:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Neocapitalist, too lazy to sign in) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Allen3 talk 21:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
NN, D. ComCat 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D. ComCat 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a non-notable vanity band article, Babajobu 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 21:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn company that sells "samwishes". Gets 326 unique Google hits, at least some of which are from people's blogs and things. - Splash 23:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and redirect. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete crystalball-gazing. IMDb has a page, it contains no information and does not confirm the info in the article. Should be recreated when there's something non-speculative. - Splash 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete non-encyclopedic. This just says that trains run between two towns — we could have articles about X to Y where X and Y are one stop apart! - Splash 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
To be fair, the pages are about entire routes, not just one stop between towns. My comment was
Ojw 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
comment Waterloo via Weybridge railway service, a similar page, was created by me. The point from Splash above is a entirely valid, via reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps a more appropriate page title might provide resolution? However, information on what regular, timetabled, multi-stop railway services are available to UK railway users is encyclopedic, and useful. Sliggy 00:28, July 20, 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. jni 10:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Should the flight schedule of an airport be included? An entry on the airport is fine, but... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete character in NN webcomic we just vfd'd. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Captain SNES: The Game Masta. As goes the comic, so should its characters. Postdlf 23:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 10:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn, admits to having no albums or any other claims to notability. Fails WP:MUSIC.- Splash 23:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was disambigged. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable vanity band article Babajobu 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)}} reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 00:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete so much advertising it even includes a phone number. It might be 60 years old, but I can't find Googles, so it's unverifiable from here. - Splash 23:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, admitted invented slang, dicdef at best. Could possibly redirect if there's anywhere sensible, but redirects are for things that ought to stay but point elsewhere. This oughtn't to stay.- Splash 23:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Dmcdevit· t 00:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
VFD isn't a court of opinion, but it's up to law enforcement to "bust" predators, not pejorative idiots. However, an article shouldn't just go on vfd because I don't like it... I just thought I'd state my opinion.
Alexa ranking of 153,797. Not doing anything original (besides ruining people's lives, of course); feds entrap predators all the time. I don't think we should have articles on websites, with exceptions like Google, Slashdot, and Wikipedia. Not-notable. However, the writers have done a pretty good job writing the article, but that's not enough to save it from my delete vote... 24 at 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. Dmcdevit· t 01:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
This was marked as a speedy, but does not meet any of the speedy criteria. His article seems to have been deleted from the German wikipedia, and the page now contains the text
Or translated
No vote from me. Thue | talk 15:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Replies:
I suggest we close this VfD process (again) unless we soon see some actual arguments for why this page should be deleted.