![]() | There is currently an ongoing debate over the page deletion process and how it could be improved. See Wikipedia:Deletion reform. See also the separate proposal and vote at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion that would remove the VFD process and replace it with a category-based scheme at once. Also see the related RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD. |
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 23:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This station is too localaized to be notable. 03:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)~~ unsigned nomination by 67.65.163.198 at 14:30, 28 July 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit· t 00:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - just some random junk, borderline abusive. See also Pull a jim. FreplySpang (talk) 00:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a self-promotional CV for a real estate agent who is marketing a line of training courses. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:30, 28 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. android 79 03:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; not notable (preceding unsigned comment by 24.110.232.53 humble fool ® 00:30, 28 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 as hoax khaosworks 06:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a hoax article (also POV and possibly original reasarch too)- while various radio stations and award ceremonies have awarded a "Sexiest Canadian" title, the Government hasn't. A google search suggests that Shane Kippel has never won the title [1] - if they had won it as often as claimed there would be at least one google hit about it. Thryduulf 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Granted I don't play any UT games, but seems Non-notable. Smells very heavily of vanity. DooM Drat 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 23:11, 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 Speedy Keep as indisputably bad-faith nomination by known vandal. android 79 01:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Aquaman is incredibly gay and a big fucking loser. We don't need his kind aroud here.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete all. Redwolf24 23:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see the related VfD that resulted in a deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peep Peep Hurray. These are all individual videos or episodes, which are not notable on their own. Delete them all. Dmcdevit· t 01:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 23:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The guideline says "Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." [2] It does not serve that purpose. This article is a POV fork being used to exclude certain anarchist philosophies (in particular, anarcho-capitalism) from the Anarchism article.
Delete article or Delete all but links does not serve function. POV mess. Amicuspublilius 22:32, 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 Speedy Delete (by Geogre) Redwolf24 23:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Delete Friday 01:23, 28 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. Redwolf24 23:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a playbill, and besides, after two weeks, this article will be dead in the water. Denni ☯ 01:37, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 23:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As far as I know, no such naming system exists for Marine units (Google for "Marine Team 6" dredges up exactly 3 results. The author may be confused with Navy SEAL teams (who do have a numbered naming system), but it's more likely pure fantasy. Borderline speedy, in my opinion. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:46, 28 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. Redwolf24 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page -- Howcheng 19:49, 26 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. Redwolf24 23:29, 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 delete. Redwolf24 23:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No relevant Google hits. Created by user that was also vandalizing. JamesTeterenko 02:40, 28 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. Redwolf24 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Only 51 displayed hits, and most are just coincidental pairings of the two words. Of the few hits that are this usage, almost all are from a blurb about the book Sleeping with the Dictionary. [5] Niteowlneils 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Redwolf24 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a dicdef. Move to Wiktionary? --
Alan Au
02:44, 28 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 Delete (By a different admin) Redwolf24 23:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not yet notable. Text ends with He has yet to make a serious impact on the jazz world, but most believe he will make it big someday. Best wishes to him but propose delete until he has made his serious impact. RJFJR 02:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please tell me being a candidate on a reality show doesn't make one eligible for an article. Denni ☯ 02:51, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
Delete. Just a reality show contestant. Indrian 16:32, August 2, 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. Redwolf24 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a software, sounds like taken from a magazine ad or from the company's web page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete corporate ad Chuck 03:10, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article lists the rules for play on a custom Counter-strike map. pwned. Fernando Rizo T/ C 03:09, 28 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 Redwolf24 00:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is a speedy, but student activists, however noble, are pretty non-notable. humble fool ® 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
he is cool save — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malhala ( talk • contribs) 04:50 28 July 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. Redwolf24 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax. The word "prerenaturalism", and "prerenatural" (and all variants thereof) appear to be freshly coined gibberish with no presence whatsoever on Google. The text is convoluted and barely comprehensible, with no means for establishing context or notability. Binadot 03:24, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"as far [away] as wisconsin" and "currently no plans to record a full-length LP." vanity. Nateji77 03:32, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Appears to be a hoax. "raphael yadgaroff" yields 6 Google hits, one of them being my user page, where I've had this listed as an article to clean up. Tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since June 22; only edits since have been vandalism and the reversion of it. By the article's own admission, Yadgaroff has remained somewhat of an unknown figure in the scientific community. android 79 03:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, hoax/joke, and/or unverifiable. Neither Anthony Moore "Dixie Youth World Series" nor "Anthony Robert Moore" find anything relevant. Niteowlneils 03:46, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unmaintainable list. Now if it were "List of Nigerians who have tangoed with the queen of Spain" we might just have a maintainable list Hansonc 03:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep perfectly legitimate article, we already have several lists of people by nationality, should split it only if it exceeds recommended size. PatGallacher 18:00, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
Comment: to clarify, if I'd had the chance to vote on list of Alaskans, list of Chicagoans, or list of Martians, I would have voted delete on them too. They're just not encyclopedia articles; they're phone book pages, without any data, and they'll never be accurate because they won't be complete. WP is NOT a trivia game or a directory. IOW, the reasoning that there are other articles like this doesn't persuade me. DavidH 18:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Clearly an advertisement Rentastrawberry 03:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Gunbound guild-cruft. Borderline speedy, no information even worth smerging. Back that cacke up. Fernando Rizo T/ C 04:01, 28 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 Redwolf24 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The youngsters behind Cacke strike again. More Gunbound-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/ C 04:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"an emo band that is just kicking it off" means "we haven't made it yet, please delete us!". Or, at least, there's hardly any Googles, and their official site doesn't even come up on the first page of the search. Garrett Talk 04:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
fancruft, had previously been merged with relevant article. 72.25.76.17 04:30, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I can't find any verification of this anywhere. It sounds like original research. The closest links I can find are
Orchestra on SourceForge, which is a system for doing musical composition, and
Enea Orchestra, which is an embedded Linux environment. Neither of these seem to be what this program is, so unless someone can figure out what exactly this software is, I think the article should be deleted as non-notable, unverifiable, and probably original research.
FreelanceWizard
04:51, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like non-notable vanity, but it's borderline so I VfD'd it.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 00:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
In an attempt to use Wikipedia for some general chem. research I wasn't able to find the molecule "permanganate." By creating this reference I was able to easily search for it. I would agree with the merge, it would be important to keep permanganate a searchable string.
plz leave it
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 keep as an invalid and vandalous nomination. FCYTravis 05:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I am not involved in any disputes, this page should not even exist. Plautus satire 05:01, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Pesho does not appear to be a widely documented concept, can anyone confirm/deny, in order to decide whether to keep/delete? -- Sgkay 14:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 00:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
An anagram that's mentioned in a novel. This is scraping the cruftbarrel, I think. Or is WP an anagram dictionary? -- Hoary 05:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
STRONG MERGE and redirect to Count Olaf otherwise we will see this again and agnai and anaig... Instead of listing on VfD I suggest patrollers just merge and/or redirect these on sight. That's a simple edit that saves us all time, satisfies wikipedia's needs, and allows the cruftfan to search for the cruft, and keeps the page from reappearing. Pedant 21:56, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, was deleted before. This guy is still in high school. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:21, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a non-notable entity, promoted by Dixie Randock (which is yet another vanity page, under vfd).
The result was Delete. Redwolf24 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is factually incorrect, it is not even an opposing view to evolution, a google search [6] shows only results regarding using the term in a branding type strategy and this wikipdia article. The fact that it is devoid of scientific merit is not even required since it's not a real opposition view. cohesion | talk 05:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Non-notable. [7] Barfooz (talk) 02:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete Dunc| ☺ 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
it's a joke page. Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 28 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 (6 delete, 5 keep, 6 votes by new users or anons), so keep -- Allen3 talk 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Local radio program, does not establish regional standard of notability EvilPhoenix talk 21:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbodyricardo ( talk • contribs) 18:26, July 27, 2005
but I suspect the blanking of it may have removed it from being visible on VfD. EvilPhoenix talk 00:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No Consensus. I have decided to redirect. Redwolf24 01:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Bucket-O-Nothing is mentioned at random by a character on the ReBoot television programme. It is intended entirely as humour and has no real object. Such an article can never be longer than a dictionary entry. Adam Marx Squared 06:00, 28 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. Redwolf24 01:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - Quite simply, fails the google test Sherurcij 05:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Comment - never submitted so here we go. -- Woohookitty 06:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Promotional/advertisement of non-notable group.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, and I can't verify it myself. I'm assuming hoax or vanity. -- fvw * 06:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Some kind od welcoming program, could be at a school or college, who knows? Delete.-- nixie 06:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nn neologism. -- fvw * 06:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. -- fvw * 06:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable (and what's worse, missing an apostrophe). -- fvw * 07:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. -- fvw * 07:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: Only votes voiced by registered users with a minimum number of outside edits count. This is done to prevent stuffing.
Current valid tally: 7 Deletes (fvw, h8er, Sasquatch, lotsofissues, DavidH, introvert, & nabla) , 2 Keeps (Anne & Exeunt)
Not notable, nor a useful article. -- fvw * 07:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Comments from unsigned/unregistered users
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as repost. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable website, unverifiable. -- M @ th wiz 2020 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (per A7) jni 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This is not even remotely noteworthy Leadingbrand 08:36, 28 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 Unanimous Keep. Redwolf24 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dictionary definition cohesion | talk 09:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I created this page some months ago. William Gardener was my Great Grandfather and I have been asked by a family member to remove the page from Wikipedia, after a lot of discussison with this family member I with regret ask you to please remove it from your site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvernon ( talk • contribs) 2005-07-28 09:10:16 UTC
The result of the debate was delete Redwolf24 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
neologism cohesion | talk 09:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus (10 Keep 7 Delete) Redwolf24 01:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not of sufficent notariety Usrnme h8er 09:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's just an ad. Bubamara 10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. No information worth keeping or merging into Indian film or animation pages Tonywalton 16:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor character in a relatively unknown book. No useful info about him either, just opinions. -- Marcika 10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn band vanity/promo. No Allmusic page, no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSIC. TheMidnighters 10:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep or No Consensus on them ALL. Redwolf24 01:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - not notable. The author has created several articles on churches with no established notability and most containing no substantive information other than geographic location and the fact that the church is growing. In the time it's taken me to put all the vfd tags on all these pages, Sarcelles has added 4 more of these articles. Bubamara 10:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep and Move: Northern Zhuang churches to Zhuang churches [21] Scimitar
Hello i dont know what is wikipedia but im a hobo
KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA
The result of the debate was 3 for delete, 6 for merge and direct, 4 Keep, and 1 transwiki. That qualifies for No Consensus. Redwolf24 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Trivial. Should be merged with pizza. 67.174.230.30 22:32, 13 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 Redwolf24 02:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Totally unverifiable. Delete. (Any shreds of credible fact should be added to Ken Jennings). L upin 12:59, 28 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 07:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that this page be deleted. It appears to be a vanity page with little to no general interest. Also, I believe it to be factually incorrect, as just by doing an internet search on Maddela a large number of indiviuals pop up, contradicting the article's claim. -- Ithacagorges 0:08 July 7 2005
The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 02:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Possibly notorious enough but only about 100 google hits. Page created by previous vanity poster. Usrnme h8er 13:49, 28 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 speedied. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Damn, can we speedy obvious vanity pages yet? DS 13:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fancruft -- Longhair | Talk 13:58, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 20:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del obscure, nonnotable, nonverifiable. "JesusMan" + webcomic 20 google hits. Produced by nonnotable Rubbersuit Studios. mikka (t) 14:44, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 20:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del nonnotable. Nonverifiable. 7 google hits. mikka (t) 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable forum/website. Alexa ranking 1,722,056. TheCoffee 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 02:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad, for a nn enterprise supplied by User:ProphetExchange. Unfortunately, I don't think this is speediable. -- Doc (?) 15:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
If you look at the bet exchange page it clearly shows sub categories for sites like Tradesports and Betfair. This entry is just as valid as these others. Prophet Exchange offers a significant change to the bet exchange system. (Unsigned contribution by User:209.34.235.6)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity. jredmond 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Dear Sir,
you are clearly of little expertise regarding the matter of ancient Igneous rocks. I suggest you do some homework on the basics of geology before resigning one of its most noteable dignitaries to the description "non-notable".
Yours Professor D. Hutton
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Redwolf24 03:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't see that we need an article for a (presumably) obscure nickname. If the nickname was sufficiently known, a redirect would work. However apparently it's meant as an insult, so I'm not sure how appropriate that would be either. At any rate, Delete Friday 15:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Reason? 'Cos its bloody silly. A high proportion of people have been stung by a jelly fish at sometime. What is the point in this? The article promises that wasp stings are next ... joy! (Can't wait for nettles)-- Doc (?) 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Redwolf24 03:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This fictional character is not notable enough for a separate article. I tried to make it a redirect to Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights but was reverted. So... Delete or redirect. DES 15:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable, nn, probable hoax, cruft -- Doc (?) 15:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I suspect vanity. Could also be a tribute, perhaps from a child. Doesn't seem notable, anyway. [[smoddy]] 15:52, 28 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 speedied. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a vanity page. With respect to Ms Dibdahl, the article does not appear to fulfil the criteria for remaining on Wikipedia. Tonywalton 15:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC) Appears to be a vanity page Tonywalton 15:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tribute article (I removed a "Written by" and the subject's email address). She is not notable. [[smoddy]] 15:56, 28 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 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not yet notanble. Tribute article. By the same author as Brianna longbrake, listed for deletion above. [[smoddy]] 16:08, 28 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 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
a non-notable student pressure group. 140 Google hits DJ Clayworth 16:21, 28 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 speedied. Joyous (talk) 21:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't worked out if this is a joke or just someone with too little to do. Either way it should go. See also recent articles by the same author. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 28 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 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Sorry but unwanted - ad for Jaime Buckley's (see above) comic project, nn vanity delete -- Doc (?) 17:02, 28 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 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn website, Alexa rank over 2 million Pyroclastic 17:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit· t 21:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is a brief article about a blog. Google returns eleven non-duplicated hits for the website name. The article itself contains incomprehensible content. A review of the blog shows nothing encyclopedic or notable. This article qualifies for deletion as: not notable and the "Wikipedia is not a web directory" policy. Tobycat 17:29, 28 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 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research?? -- Doc (?) 17:35, 28 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'. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a crummy substub about a topic that IMO doesn't reach the notability threshold. Although google amazingly reports 100,000 hits for JavaTV, only 43 show up because the vast vast majority are duplications of the same page or forum indices. Sun's own forum has less than 2,000 posts and only 3,300 views. Brighterorange 18:11, 28 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 both. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable genealogical articles about a sister and brother. Their father Norman Whitley has an article but is clearly notable for his army service. David | Talk 18:26, 28 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 21:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NominationIt appears to be false vanity. Claims great accomplishments without stating what they are, claims expertise in "life and how the Universe really works", refers to Mr. Walters as an author but implies first book is as-yet unfinished (and unpublished). Claims of contributions to fields of physics and cosmology not backed up by searching authors of articles in the following journals: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics since 1993, International Journal of Modern Physics A: Particles and Fields, Gravitation, Cosmology and Nuclear Physics since 1986 or International Journal of Modern Physics D: Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology since 1992, Progress of Theoretical Physics since 1992, Physics Reports from 1971 to 1994, or Contemporary Physics since 1997. Also no publication in Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology (Previously Techné: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology) during the 1996-2003 period. The Literate Engineer 18:35, 28 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 REDIRECTED. Splash 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This version describes Supreme Master Ching Hai and her teachings as if it were a matter of fact. Also, there is already a page on Supreme Master Ching Hai; the text of the original article is exactly the same as this article, only without the criticism. Tktruong2 18:36, 28 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 deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is posted on en but is not in English Usrnme h8er 10:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I know, I'm just creating this page, the reason is, it's a hoax animal inexistent animal I've done the initial translation. Delete drini ☎ 18:36, 28 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 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is some kind of weird hoax/original research. Please see talk page for details. This article should be deleted since most of it is pure bunk. A brief mention of the one true thing in it (the Heath patent) should be put on Province of Carolina. This page is connected to other pages that I strongly suspect of vanity/non-notable/original research, including: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute (all of these pages were created by User:MPLX). -- JW1805 18:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
hoax (this author ( User:200.73.180.22 ) has repeatedly added hoaxes into wikipedia, look at Blue tiger and Rana lechuza, Vandera, etc. see his talk page drini ☎ 18:52, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 17:58, 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 delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:51, 28 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*weak delete keep it if the article can be verified and expanded otherwise it should be deleted. keep users are making a genuine effort to expand the article and add more information.
Jtkiefer
T |
@ |
C ----- 19:32, July 29, 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 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. mikka (t) 17:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Page of non-important Argentine club by know Hoax fan [ 200.73.180.22/ contrib ]. (see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rana lechuza, or his 3 meter long Blue tiger)
Even though the club exists, and played 9 matches of the Nacional 1985 Argentine championship with 2 wins and 2 ties, the results claimed in the article are not true.
Information on the Nacional 1985 can be found in a reliable source, and in the Argentina All-Time Table it can be seen that it played no other matches in first division.
Since the club is very small and really not notable, I propose to delete it. - Mariano 15:04, 28 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 21:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 21:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, un-maintainable, obvious.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 17:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonencyclopedic, factual inaccuracy, original research, no references, self-promotion, pseudoscience, external link spam Pedant 19:23, 2005 July 28 (UTC) This article, written and edited by those with a self-claimed 'professional interest in the subject, simply reeks of pseudoscience, is subject to an ongoing edit war from people claiming to have a connection to the so-called theory, is not encyclopedic, and is a vanity article of sorts. Blatant promotion of a quacky theory, article as it stands is not sound or encyclopedic, and looks to be trouble all the way to the core. Apparently (from the email I received) the article is being edited by the author, co-author and opponents of the author's theories... all hanging on flimsy references, mostly references to the book that is being promoted using wikipedia as a tool.
Plus the spam:
I received the following email relating to this topic, UNSOLICITED, and with no previous attempt to contact me on my talk page:
Subject: Disputing the Factual Accuracy of a Wikipedia entry: Spiral Dynamics and Don Beck Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:30:28 -0700
(redacted info, contact me if you need it for some reason)
Message-Id: <005401c5930b$9136faf0$220110ac@your4f1261a8e5> Organization: Spiral Dynamics Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01C592D0.E4D822F0" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X- Msmail-Priority: Normal Show Basic Headers Back To [INBOX] Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Pedant, I've been browsing Wikipedia for some information and decided to take a look to see if Spiral Dynamics was being discussed. I was surprised to see that it was included in your online mentions; thus, I did a little tweaking to improve the accuracy (FYI this is a model my partner Chris Cowan, coauthor of Spiral Dynamics, and I work with - please see our web references below.) Thus, I believe we are qualified to make adjustments to the definition. The reason I am writing to you is the factual accuracy of our competitor's bio (Don Beck) and the content of the current Spiral Dynamics definition on Wikipedia. I've copied the bio below and inserted notes as to the questionable entries. Your site suggests that if 5 or more items are incorrect to insert a dispute. I have done that and the warning has been eliminated. You will find the disputed items below under "Issues" where I have itemized statements requiring fact checking. In essence, yes, we have a professional interest in this, thus disclosure applies (we are rather fierce competitors). At the same time, I feel that the reputation of this work can stand only on fact and accuracy, which is what I am seeking by contacting you. The current definition of Spiral Dynamics suffers from some inaccuracies which I attempted to fix; it was reverted to an earlier version. For example, there is no credible evidence of "the Mean Green meme" under the Pathologies section. I have reason to believe that the person making adjustments to the current entries has some interest in skewing this due to his/her affiliations. To make matters more complex, and more sensitive, we are involved in a legal dispute with our former partner, Don Beck. This matter could get quite antagonistic if it isn't handled well, which is why I am contacting you. Your description suggested I could count on your discretion in a sensitive matter. Could you please advise as to how to proceed? Kind Regards, Natasha PS. See below ... Don Beck is an American management consultant involved in the theory known as Spiral Dynamics. Issues: 1) The term "integral theory" is a marketing term designed for promotion which a number of people are attempting to legitimize and using Wikipedia to do so 2) Greater accuracy would be "coauthor of the book, Spiral Dynamics" 3) Spiral Dynamics is a trademark and refers to training, a book, and a popularization of a model of adult development (not a theory) ==Overview== Beck has elaborated upon the work of his mentor, Clare Graves, to develop a multidimensional model for understanding the transformation of human values and cultures. As cofounder of the National Values Center in Denton, Texas, and CEO of the Spiral Dynamics Group, Inc., Beck is employing the Spiral Dynamics model to effect large-scale systems change in and among various sectors and societies of the world. Issues: 1) 95% of Spiral Dynamics is derived directly from the work of Clare W. Graves; there is no elaboration to it other than some conjecture and the link to memetics - in fact, Spiral Dynamics is a popularization and simplification of the work or Graves designed to appeal to a broader market - it's a contraction rather than an expansion. 2) The non-marketing definition of this model is as a 'psycho-social developmental model' - 3) The final line has no supporting evidence other than marketing claims, a fact check is required. ==Career == Beck's consulting career has taken him to such diverse settings as 10 Downing Street to consult with Tony Blair's Policy Unit; the south side of Chicago to address the problems faced by inner-city schools; the World Bank to consider the future of Afghanistan; and the boardrooms of major banks, energy companies, airlines, and government agencies. Following 63 consulting trips to South Africa between 1981 and 1988, he wrote The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future (1991) with Graham Linscott. Beck taught for twenty years at the University of North Texas. He served as team psychologist for The South African Springboks, winners of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and associated with the Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, the Texas Rangers (baseball), and the U.S. Olympic Committee for Men's Track and Field. He writes a “sports values” column for the Dallas Morning News. He lives in Denton, Texas. Issues: 1) The first line claims that this person has consulted to the Blair government, this requires a fact check 2) The item with the south side of Chicago has not been verified 3) The World Bank item is being put across as consulting to the WB - does a single 1.5 hour presentation where he was not invited back consist of consulting? 4) Consulting to various boardrooms - there is no evidence to support this other than claims on his website - a fact check is required 5) How can a person without a degree in psychology serve as team psychologist?
(the part about consulting to the Springboks also requires a fact check) 6) Have the claims for the Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Texas Rangers, and US Olympic committee for Men's Track and Field been verified - we've checked and have been unable to confirm any of these claims. 7) The "sports values" column would be accurate with the start and finish dates, which were some years ago and not very long lived. ==Bibliography== * Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, 1996 * Don Beck and Graham Linscott, The Crucible: Forging South Africa’s Future, 1991 ==External Links== * [ http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=12&cat=&a=17/ Free video clip of Don Beck at Big Picture TV] * [ http://www.spiraldynamics.net/ Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics Integral site] * [ http://www.globalvaluesnetwork.com/ Global Values Network] * [ http://www.humanemergence.org/ Centre for Human Emergence] .................................................................................... Dr. Natasha Todorovic MBA National Values Center & NVC Consulting "The Spiral Dynamics People" PO Box 42212 Santa Barbara, CA 93140 TEL: (805) 962-0366 FAX: (805) 962-0306 E-mail: natasha@spiraldynamics.org WEB: http://www.spiraldynamics.org http://www/clarewgraves.com
Sign up for the FREE Newsletter at http://www.spiraldynamics.org/forms/signup.htm [/quote]
I think this is advertising as well, self-promotion. The text is gibberish and contains no references except to works by, apparently, the original author of the book being promoted, this seems to be promotional in nature and original research to boot. And the above spam is enough to bat it out of the park in my opinion. Pedant 19:04, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was User:Akhu has emailed me about this page and has stated it is copyrighted by his company and that he was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policiy on how do deal with it as a Copyvio. He has requested the page for immediate deletion and I fully intend to do so. Any further comments can be made at my talk page. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔ T↔ C 05:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I was hoping I could get a second opinion on this matter regarding edits to this page, related to edits by this IP who created this account. I have been monitoring the edits associated with this account since July 15, and of late, I have become increasingly skeptical of the intentions of this Wikipedian's edits. I have been very patient with this Wikipedian since the beginning, writing extensively in an encouraging manner how edits to Wikipedia should be made. Although I have been skeptical from the beginning, I decided to "assume good faith" and was hoping that the user would understand that his or her editing style will need to be modulated to resonably expect any of their content to remain on Wikipedia. (See the extensive disscusions on the user and article's talk pages for example.) However, recently I noticed that the exact same content was being duplicated on French Wikipedia. See for example [41]. In fact, in French Wikipedia the article was placed up for deletion, and I am inclined to feel that this should be done here as well. The site has some content that is meritable, but perhaps not encyclopedic enough to warrant an article. At the moment, the page seems only to be more geared towards promoting the content of the external site. I'd appreciate any thoughts or opinions on this VfD here. Thanks! HappyCamper 19:53, 28 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 BJAODN. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, wholly fictional. Dirty South space opera! FreplySpang (talk) 20:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn band vanity. Delete. Ken 20:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Just one of a series of silly "list of..." articles created by User:62.252.0.6. Arbitrary subject (one and a third minutes???) Joyous (talk) 20:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was undecided, kept. mikka (t) 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elf Only Inn.
In this article's defense, I like to note that according to The Notability and Inclusion Guidelines, a webcomic need only comply with the Alternate Proposal to be considered acceptable. I counted weeks of comic strips, and came up with roughly 80 weeks, doing random sampling per month to ensure there weren't bouts of guest strips. That more than surpasses the 33-week requirement. I have not yet counted the number of strips in the EOF archive, but the first few months were every other day upates, the remaining months were sporatic updates; usually 3 a week. I could count 100 strips without breaking a sweat. As to the author of this article, I honestly don't know if it is Josh Sortelli or not, but I doubt he would return from hiatus to write a wiki article and not update his comic. Regardless, if there are suspicions I'll be happy to re-write it myself. Saxon 05:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (GTJoe, just figured out how to sign things) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Megachurch. Splash 18:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I've never heard of this. I can't believe it's in common usage. Deb 21:16, 28 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 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Zero google hits. Anon users have also vandalized Tarvisio and Hanson (town), Massachusetts with information about this alleged mafia. Martg76 21:29, 28 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 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was it got hit with copyvio, will get deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn site, majority of edits to this page have been either vandalism, blanking, or reversion of blanking see: talk:Metal Machine Music (game) for more info regarding previous blankings. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
That being said, veiwing the article from a neutral outside viewpoint does leave me with a desire to comment. The "clean" version of the entry reads more like an andvertisment or blantant promotion then an encylcopedic entry. The "vandalised" version reads like the work of somone with a personal grudge. I would say Delete, but I would also add that the article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. -- 202.92.76.129 22:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC) (But not the same one as above) reply
Considering that said criticism is actually completely erroneous- we have proof- and stemming from a site with a history of disliking us? Last I heard, this was a site for disseminating correct information, hrm? Don't add things that you obviously have no real knowledge in!
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 28 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 22:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. Wikipedia is not FreshMeat. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Athought it is a very nice piece of software, but this is not SourceForge, i.e. if we don't allow Free software listing
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity and/or non-notable person. This article is connected to two other suspicions pages: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute. -- JW1805 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Zero Google hits. Vanity/hoax/Gungan-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/ C 22:10, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 17:56, 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 no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is one of several articles on religious calendars. But what on earth is there here than can't be put in April 1? The whole lot of 'em need merging. Dunc| ☺ 22:26, 28 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 delete. Dmcdevit· t 00:05, July 29, 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. But anyone can of course be BOLD and redirect anytime they like. - Splash 18:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dict def. I'd say redirect to hip hop music, no merge neccessary. -- FuriousFreddy 22:38, 28 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 22:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn band vanity. Delete. Ken 22:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn fancruft. Ken 22:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a fake policy (the proposed policy tag was added later) made up by User:SuperDude115. This user also created Template:Speedyimage and the categories Category:Obscene images and Category:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion, which are also listed for deletion. Delete. ulayiti (talk) 23:32, 28 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a dicdef, and, I suspect a non-notable one at that. CDC (talk) 23:47, 28 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 18:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article should be completely merged into Tony Blair as a very small footnote. Larryfooter 03:42, 24 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. 4 results on google for "podchive". Article was created by User:Idastudios and if you go to the top google result for podchive it says the page website is from "INDEPENDNET [sic] DIGITAL ARTISTS". Aside from this obvious spam and self promotion, the article itself says stuff like podchiving "became popular in late 2005", and in conjunction with the 4 total google hits, it doesn't meet notability requirements. CryptoDerk 00:08, July 29, 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 22:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
![]() | There is currently an ongoing debate over the page deletion process and how it could be improved. See Wikipedia:Deletion reform. See also the separate proposal and vote at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion that would remove the VFD process and replace it with a category-based scheme at once. Also see the related RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD. |
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 23:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This station is too localaized to be notable. 03:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)~~ unsigned nomination by 67.65.163.198 at 14:30, 28 July 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit· t 00:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - just some random junk, borderline abusive. See also Pull a jim. FreplySpang (talk) 00:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a self-promotional CV for a real estate agent who is marketing a line of training courses. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:30, 28 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. android 79 03:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; not notable (preceding unsigned comment by 24.110.232.53 humble fool ® 00:30, 28 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 as hoax khaosworks 06:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a hoax article (also POV and possibly original reasarch too)- while various radio stations and award ceremonies have awarded a "Sexiest Canadian" title, the Government hasn't. A google search suggests that Shane Kippel has never won the title [1] - if they had won it as often as claimed there would be at least one google hit about it. Thryduulf 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Granted I don't play any UT games, but seems Non-notable. Smells very heavily of vanity. DooM Drat 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 23:11, 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 Speedy Keep as indisputably bad-faith nomination by known vandal. android 79 01:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Aquaman is incredibly gay and a big fucking loser. We don't need his kind aroud here.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete all. Redwolf24 23:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see the related VfD that resulted in a deletion: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peep Peep Hurray. These are all individual videos or episodes, which are not notable on their own. Delete them all. Dmcdevit· t 01:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 23:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The guideline says "Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." [2] It does not serve that purpose. This article is a POV fork being used to exclude certain anarchist philosophies (in particular, anarcho-capitalism) from the Anarchism article.
Delete article or Delete all but links does not serve function. POV mess. Amicuspublilius 22:32, 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 Speedy Delete (by Geogre) Redwolf24 23:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Delete Friday 01:23, 28 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. Redwolf24 23:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a playbill, and besides, after two weeks, this article will be dead in the water. Denni ☯ 01:37, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 23:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As far as I know, no such naming system exists for Marine units (Google for "Marine Team 6" dredges up exactly 3 results. The author may be confused with Navy SEAL teams (who do have a numbered naming system), but it's more likely pure fantasy. Borderline speedy, in my opinion. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:46, 28 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. Redwolf24 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page -- Howcheng 19:49, 26 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. Redwolf24 23:29, 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 delete. Redwolf24 23:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No relevant Google hits. Created by user that was also vandalizing. JamesTeterenko 02:40, 28 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. Redwolf24 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Only 51 displayed hits, and most are just coincidental pairings of the two words. Of the few hits that are this usage, almost all are from a blurb about the book Sleeping with the Dictionary. [5] Niteowlneils 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Redwolf24 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a dicdef. Move to Wiktionary? --
Alan Au
02:44, 28 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 Delete (By a different admin) Redwolf24 23:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not yet notable. Text ends with He has yet to make a serious impact on the jazz world, but most believe he will make it big someday. Best wishes to him but propose delete until he has made his serious impact. RJFJR 02:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please tell me being a candidate on a reality show doesn't make one eligible for an article. Denni ☯ 02:51, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
Delete. Just a reality show contestant. Indrian 16:32, August 2, 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. Redwolf24 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a software, sounds like taken from a magazine ad or from the company's web page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete corporate ad Chuck 03:10, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article lists the rules for play on a custom Counter-strike map. pwned. Fernando Rizo T/ C 03:09, 28 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 Redwolf24 00:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is a speedy, but student activists, however noble, are pretty non-notable. humble fool ® 02:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
he is cool save — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malhala ( talk • contribs) 04:50 28 July 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. Redwolf24 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax. The word "prerenaturalism", and "prerenatural" (and all variants thereof) appear to be freshly coined gibberish with no presence whatsoever on Google. The text is convoluted and barely comprehensible, with no means for establishing context or notability. Binadot 03:24, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"as far [away] as wisconsin" and "currently no plans to record a full-length LP." vanity. Nateji77 03:32, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Appears to be a hoax. "raphael yadgaroff" yields 6 Google hits, one of them being my user page, where I've had this listed as an article to clean up. Tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since June 22; only edits since have been vandalism and the reversion of it. By the article's own admission, Yadgaroff has remained somewhat of an unknown figure in the scientific community. android 79 03:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, hoax/joke, and/or unverifiable. Neither Anthony Moore "Dixie Youth World Series" nor "Anthony Robert Moore" find anything relevant. Niteowlneils 03:46, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unmaintainable list. Now if it were "List of Nigerians who have tangoed with the queen of Spain" we might just have a maintainable list Hansonc 03:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep perfectly legitimate article, we already have several lists of people by nationality, should split it only if it exceeds recommended size. PatGallacher 18:00, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
Comment: to clarify, if I'd had the chance to vote on list of Alaskans, list of Chicagoans, or list of Martians, I would have voted delete on them too. They're just not encyclopedia articles; they're phone book pages, without any data, and they'll never be accurate because they won't be complete. WP is NOT a trivia game or a directory. IOW, the reasoning that there are other articles like this doesn't persuade me. DavidH 18:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Clearly an advertisement Rentastrawberry 03:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Gunbound guild-cruft. Borderline speedy, no information even worth smerging. Back that cacke up. Fernando Rizo T/ C 04:01, 28 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 Redwolf24 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The youngsters behind Cacke strike again. More Gunbound-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/ C 04:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"an emo band that is just kicking it off" means "we haven't made it yet, please delete us!". Or, at least, there's hardly any Googles, and their official site doesn't even come up on the first page of the search. Garrett Talk 04:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 00:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
fancruft, had previously been merged with relevant article. 72.25.76.17 04:30, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I can't find any verification of this anywhere. It sounds like original research. The closest links I can find are
Orchestra on SourceForge, which is a system for doing musical composition, and
Enea Orchestra, which is an embedded Linux environment. Neither of these seem to be what this program is, so unless someone can figure out what exactly this software is, I think the article should be deleted as non-notable, unverifiable, and probably original research.
FreelanceWizard
04:51, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like non-notable vanity, but it's borderline so I VfD'd it.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 00:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
In an attempt to use Wikipedia for some general chem. research I wasn't able to find the molecule "permanganate." By creating this reference I was able to easily search for it. I would agree with the merge, it would be important to keep permanganate a searchable string.
plz leave it
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 keep as an invalid and vandalous nomination. FCYTravis 05:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I am not involved in any disputes, this page should not even exist. Plautus satire 05:01, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Pesho does not appear to be a widely documented concept, can anyone confirm/deny, in order to decide whether to keep/delete? -- Sgkay 14:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 00:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
An anagram that's mentioned in a novel. This is scraping the cruftbarrel, I think. Or is WP an anagram dictionary? -- Hoary 05:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
STRONG MERGE and redirect to Count Olaf otherwise we will see this again and agnai and anaig... Instead of listing on VfD I suggest patrollers just merge and/or redirect these on sight. That's a simple edit that saves us all time, satisfies wikipedia's needs, and allows the cruftfan to search for the cruft, and keeps the page from reappearing. Pedant 21:56, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Redwolf24 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, was deleted before. This guy is still in high school. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:21, 28 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. Redwolf24 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a non-notable entity, promoted by Dixie Randock (which is yet another vanity page, under vfd).
The result was Delete. Redwolf24 00:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is factually incorrect, it is not even an opposing view to evolution, a google search [6] shows only results regarding using the term in a branding type strategy and this wikipdia article. The fact that it is devoid of scientific merit is not even required since it's not a real opposition view. cohesion | talk 05:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Non-notable. [7] Barfooz (talk) 02:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete Dunc| ☺ 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
it's a joke page. Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 28 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 (6 delete, 5 keep, 6 votes by new users or anons), so keep -- Allen3 talk 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Local radio program, does not establish regional standard of notability EvilPhoenix talk 21:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbodyricardo ( talk • contribs) 18:26, July 27, 2005
but I suspect the blanking of it may have removed it from being visible on VfD. EvilPhoenix talk 00:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No Consensus. I have decided to redirect. Redwolf24 01:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Bucket-O-Nothing is mentioned at random by a character on the ReBoot television programme. It is intended entirely as humour and has no real object. Such an article can never be longer than a dictionary entry. Adam Marx Squared 06:00, 28 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. Redwolf24 01:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - Quite simply, fails the google test Sherurcij 05:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Comment - never submitted so here we go. -- Woohookitty 06:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Promotional/advertisement of non-notable group.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, and I can't verify it myself. I'm assuming hoax or vanity. -- fvw * 06:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Some kind od welcoming program, could be at a school or college, who knows? Delete.-- nixie 06:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nn neologism. -- fvw * 06:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. -- fvw * 06:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable (and what's worse, missing an apostrophe). -- fvw * 07:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. -- fvw * 07:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: Only votes voiced by registered users with a minimum number of outside edits count. This is done to prevent stuffing.
Current valid tally: 7 Deletes (fvw, h8er, Sasquatch, lotsofissues, DavidH, introvert, & nabla) , 2 Keeps (Anne & Exeunt)
Not notable, nor a useful article. -- fvw * 07:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Comments from unsigned/unregistered users
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as repost. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable website, unverifiable. -- M @ th wiz 2020 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (per A7) jni 15:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This is not even remotely noteworthy Leadingbrand 08:36, 28 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 Unanimous Keep. Redwolf24 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dictionary definition cohesion | talk 09:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I created this page some months ago. William Gardener was my Great Grandfather and I have been asked by a family member to remove the page from Wikipedia, after a lot of discussison with this family member I with regret ask you to please remove it from your site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvernon ( talk • contribs) 2005-07-28 09:10:16 UTC
The result of the debate was delete Redwolf24 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
neologism cohesion | talk 09:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus (10 Keep 7 Delete) Redwolf24 01:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not of sufficent notariety Usrnme h8er 09:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's just an ad. Bubamara 10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. No information worth keeping or merging into Indian film or animation pages Tonywalton 16:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor character in a relatively unknown book. No useful info about him either, just opinions. -- Marcika 10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn band vanity/promo. No Allmusic page, no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSIC. TheMidnighters 10:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep or No Consensus on them ALL. Redwolf24 01:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - not notable. The author has created several articles on churches with no established notability and most containing no substantive information other than geographic location and the fact that the church is growing. In the time it's taken me to put all the vfd tags on all these pages, Sarcelles has added 4 more of these articles. Bubamara 10:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep and Move: Northern Zhuang churches to Zhuang churches [21] Scimitar
Hello i dont know what is wikipedia but im a hobo
KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA KAPPA
The result of the debate was 3 for delete, 6 for merge and direct, 4 Keep, and 1 transwiki. That qualifies for No Consensus. Redwolf24 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Trivial. Should be merged with pizza. 67.174.230.30 22:32, 13 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 Redwolf24 02:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Totally unverifiable. Delete. (Any shreds of credible fact should be added to Ken Jennings). L upin 12:59, 28 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 07:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that this page be deleted. It appears to be a vanity page with little to no general interest. Also, I believe it to be factually incorrect, as just by doing an internet search on Maddela a large number of indiviuals pop up, contradicting the article's claim. -- Ithacagorges 0:08 July 7 2005
The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 02:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Possibly notorious enough but only about 100 google hits. Page created by previous vanity poster. Usrnme h8er 13:49, 28 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 speedied. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Damn, can we speedy obvious vanity pages yet? DS 13:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fancruft -- Longhair | Talk 13:58, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 20:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del obscure, nonnotable, nonverifiable. "JesusMan" + webcomic 20 google hits. Produced by nonnotable Rubbersuit Studios. mikka (t) 14:44, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 20:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del nonnotable. Nonverifiable. 7 google hits. mikka (t) 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable forum/website. Alexa ranking 1,722,056. TheCoffee 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 02:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad, for a nn enterprise supplied by User:ProphetExchange. Unfortunately, I don't think this is speediable. -- Doc (?) 15:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
If you look at the bet exchange page it clearly shows sub categories for sites like Tradesports and Betfair. This entry is just as valid as these others. Prophet Exchange offers a significant change to the bet exchange system. (Unsigned contribution by User:209.34.235.6)
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity. jredmond 15:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Dear Sir,
you are clearly of little expertise regarding the matter of ancient Igneous rocks. I suggest you do some homework on the basics of geology before resigning one of its most noteable dignitaries to the description "non-notable".
Yours Professor D. Hutton
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Redwolf24 03:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't see that we need an article for a (presumably) obscure nickname. If the nickname was sufficiently known, a redirect would work. However apparently it's meant as an insult, so I'm not sure how appropriate that would be either. At any rate, Delete Friday 15:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Reason? 'Cos its bloody silly. A high proportion of people have been stung by a jelly fish at sometime. What is the point in this? The article promises that wasp stings are next ... joy! (Can't wait for nettles)-- Doc (?) 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Redwolf24 03:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This fictional character is not notable enough for a separate article. I tried to make it a redirect to Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights but was reverted. So... Delete or redirect. DES 15:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable, nn, probable hoax, cruft -- Doc (?) 15:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I suspect vanity. Could also be a tribute, perhaps from a child. Doesn't seem notable, anyway. [[smoddy]] 15:52, 28 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 speedied. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a vanity page. With respect to Ms Dibdahl, the article does not appear to fulfil the criteria for remaining on Wikipedia. Tonywalton 15:31, July 28, 2005 (UTC) Appears to be a vanity page Tonywalton 15:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tribute article (I removed a "Written by" and the subject's email address). She is not notable. [[smoddy]] 15:56, 28 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 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not yet notanble. Tribute article. By the same author as Brianna longbrake, listed for deletion above. [[smoddy]] 16:08, 28 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 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
a non-notable student pressure group. 140 Google hits DJ Clayworth 16:21, 28 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 speedied. Joyous (talk) 21:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't worked out if this is a joke or just someone with too little to do. Either way it should go. See also recent articles by the same author. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 28 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 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Sorry but unwanted - ad for Jaime Buckley's (see above) comic project, nn vanity delete -- Doc (?) 17:02, 28 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 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn website, Alexa rank over 2 million Pyroclastic 17:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit· t 21:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is a brief article about a blog. Google returns eleven non-duplicated hits for the website name. The article itself contains incomprehensible content. A review of the blog shows nothing encyclopedic or notable. This article qualifies for deletion as: not notable and the "Wikipedia is not a web directory" policy. Tobycat 17:29, 28 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 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research?? -- Doc (?) 17:35, 28 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'. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a crummy substub about a topic that IMO doesn't reach the notability threshold. Although google amazingly reports 100,000 hits for JavaTV, only 43 show up because the vast vast majority are duplications of the same page or forum indices. Sun's own forum has less than 2,000 posts and only 3,300 views. Brighterorange 18:11, 28 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 both. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable genealogical articles about a sister and brother. Their father Norman Whitley has an article but is clearly notable for his army service. David | Talk 18:26, 28 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 21:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NominationIt appears to be false vanity. Claims great accomplishments without stating what they are, claims expertise in "life and how the Universe really works", refers to Mr. Walters as an author but implies first book is as-yet unfinished (and unpublished). Claims of contributions to fields of physics and cosmology not backed up by searching authors of articles in the following journals: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics since 1993, International Journal of Modern Physics A: Particles and Fields, Gravitation, Cosmology and Nuclear Physics since 1986 or International Journal of Modern Physics D: Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology since 1992, Progress of Theoretical Physics since 1992, Physics Reports from 1971 to 1994, or Contemporary Physics since 1997. Also no publication in Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology (Previously Techné: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology) during the 1996-2003 period. The Literate Engineer 18:35, 28 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 REDIRECTED. Splash 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This version describes Supreme Master Ching Hai and her teachings as if it were a matter of fact. Also, there is already a page on Supreme Master Ching Hai; the text of the original article is exactly the same as this article, only without the criticism. Tktruong2 18:36, 28 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 deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is posted on en but is not in English Usrnme h8er 10:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I know, I'm just creating this page, the reason is, it's a hoax animal inexistent animal I've done the initial translation. Delete drini ☎ 18:36, 28 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 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is some kind of weird hoax/original research. Please see talk page for details. This article should be deleted since most of it is pure bunk. A brief mention of the one true thing in it (the Heath patent) should be put on Province of Carolina. This page is connected to other pages that I strongly suspect of vanity/non-notable/original research, including: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute (all of these pages were created by User:MPLX). -- JW1805 18:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
hoax (this author ( User:200.73.180.22 ) has repeatedly added hoaxes into wikipedia, look at Blue tiger and Rana lechuza, Vandera, etc. see his talk page drini ☎ 18:52, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 17:58, 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 delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:51, 28 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*weak delete keep it if the article can be verified and expanded otherwise it should be deleted. keep users are making a genuine effort to expand the article and add more information.
Jtkiefer
T |
@ |
C ----- 19:32, July 29, 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 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. mikka (t) 17:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Page of non-important Argentine club by know Hoax fan [ 200.73.180.22/ contrib ]. (see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rana lechuza, or his 3 meter long Blue tiger)
Even though the club exists, and played 9 matches of the Nacional 1985 Argentine championship with 2 wins and 2 ties, the results claimed in the article are not true.
Information on the Nacional 1985 can be found in a reliable source, and in the Argentina All-Time Table it can be seen that it played no other matches in first division.
Since the club is very small and really not notable, I propose to delete it. - Mariano 15:04, 28 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 21:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 21:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, un-maintainable, obvious.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 17:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonencyclopedic, factual inaccuracy, original research, no references, self-promotion, pseudoscience, external link spam Pedant 19:23, 2005 July 28 (UTC) This article, written and edited by those with a self-claimed 'professional interest in the subject, simply reeks of pseudoscience, is subject to an ongoing edit war from people claiming to have a connection to the so-called theory, is not encyclopedic, and is a vanity article of sorts. Blatant promotion of a quacky theory, article as it stands is not sound or encyclopedic, and looks to be trouble all the way to the core. Apparently (from the email I received) the article is being edited by the author, co-author and opponents of the author's theories... all hanging on flimsy references, mostly references to the book that is being promoted using wikipedia as a tool.
Plus the spam:
I received the following email relating to this topic, UNSOLICITED, and with no previous attempt to contact me on my talk page:
Subject: Disputing the Factual Accuracy of a Wikipedia entry: Spiral Dynamics and Don Beck Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:30:28 -0700
(redacted info, contact me if you need it for some reason)
Message-Id: <005401c5930b$9136faf0$220110ac@your4f1261a8e5> Organization: Spiral Dynamics Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01C592D0.E4D822F0" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X- Msmail-Priority: Normal Show Basic Headers Back To [INBOX] Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Pedant, I've been browsing Wikipedia for some information and decided to take a look to see if Spiral Dynamics was being discussed. I was surprised to see that it was included in your online mentions; thus, I did a little tweaking to improve the accuracy (FYI this is a model my partner Chris Cowan, coauthor of Spiral Dynamics, and I work with - please see our web references below.) Thus, I believe we are qualified to make adjustments to the definition. The reason I am writing to you is the factual accuracy of our competitor's bio (Don Beck) and the content of the current Spiral Dynamics definition on Wikipedia. I've copied the bio below and inserted notes as to the questionable entries. Your site suggests that if 5 or more items are incorrect to insert a dispute. I have done that and the warning has been eliminated. You will find the disputed items below under "Issues" where I have itemized statements requiring fact checking. In essence, yes, we have a professional interest in this, thus disclosure applies (we are rather fierce competitors). At the same time, I feel that the reputation of this work can stand only on fact and accuracy, which is what I am seeking by contacting you. The current definition of Spiral Dynamics suffers from some inaccuracies which I attempted to fix; it was reverted to an earlier version. For example, there is no credible evidence of "the Mean Green meme" under the Pathologies section. I have reason to believe that the person making adjustments to the current entries has some interest in skewing this due to his/her affiliations. To make matters more complex, and more sensitive, we are involved in a legal dispute with our former partner, Don Beck. This matter could get quite antagonistic if it isn't handled well, which is why I am contacting you. Your description suggested I could count on your discretion in a sensitive matter. Could you please advise as to how to proceed? Kind Regards, Natasha PS. See below ... Don Beck is an American management consultant involved in the theory known as Spiral Dynamics. Issues: 1) The term "integral theory" is a marketing term designed for promotion which a number of people are attempting to legitimize and using Wikipedia to do so 2) Greater accuracy would be "coauthor of the book, Spiral Dynamics" 3) Spiral Dynamics is a trademark and refers to training, a book, and a popularization of a model of adult development (not a theory) ==Overview== Beck has elaborated upon the work of his mentor, Clare Graves, to develop a multidimensional model for understanding the transformation of human values and cultures. As cofounder of the National Values Center in Denton, Texas, and CEO of the Spiral Dynamics Group, Inc., Beck is employing the Spiral Dynamics model to effect large-scale systems change in and among various sectors and societies of the world. Issues: 1) 95% of Spiral Dynamics is derived directly from the work of Clare W. Graves; there is no elaboration to it other than some conjecture and the link to memetics - in fact, Spiral Dynamics is a popularization and simplification of the work or Graves designed to appeal to a broader market - it's a contraction rather than an expansion. 2) The non-marketing definition of this model is as a 'psycho-social developmental model' - 3) The final line has no supporting evidence other than marketing claims, a fact check is required. ==Career == Beck's consulting career has taken him to such diverse settings as 10 Downing Street to consult with Tony Blair's Policy Unit; the south side of Chicago to address the problems faced by inner-city schools; the World Bank to consider the future of Afghanistan; and the boardrooms of major banks, energy companies, airlines, and government agencies. Following 63 consulting trips to South Africa between 1981 and 1988, he wrote The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future (1991) with Graham Linscott. Beck taught for twenty years at the University of North Texas. He served as team psychologist for The South African Springboks, winners of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and associated with the Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, the Texas Rangers (baseball), and the U.S. Olympic Committee for Men's Track and Field. He writes a “sports values” column for the Dallas Morning News. He lives in Denton, Texas. Issues: 1) The first line claims that this person has consulted to the Blair government, this requires a fact check 2) The item with the south side of Chicago has not been verified 3) The World Bank item is being put across as consulting to the WB - does a single 1.5 hour presentation where he was not invited back consist of consulting? 4) Consulting to various boardrooms - there is no evidence to support this other than claims on his website - a fact check is required 5) How can a person without a degree in psychology serve as team psychologist?
(the part about consulting to the Springboks also requires a fact check) 6) Have the claims for the Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Texas Rangers, and US Olympic committee for Men's Track and Field been verified - we've checked and have been unable to confirm any of these claims. 7) The "sports values" column would be accurate with the start and finish dates, which were some years ago and not very long lived. ==Bibliography== * Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, 1996 * Don Beck and Graham Linscott, The Crucible: Forging South Africa’s Future, 1991 ==External Links== * [ http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=12&cat=&a=17/ Free video clip of Don Beck at Big Picture TV] * [ http://www.spiraldynamics.net/ Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics Integral site] * [ http://www.globalvaluesnetwork.com/ Global Values Network] * [ http://www.humanemergence.org/ Centre for Human Emergence] .................................................................................... Dr. Natasha Todorovic MBA National Values Center & NVC Consulting "The Spiral Dynamics People" PO Box 42212 Santa Barbara, CA 93140 TEL: (805) 962-0366 FAX: (805) 962-0306 E-mail: natasha@spiraldynamics.org WEB: http://www.spiraldynamics.org http://www/clarewgraves.com
Sign up for the FREE Newsletter at http://www.spiraldynamics.org/forms/signup.htm [/quote]
I think this is advertising as well, self-promotion. The text is gibberish and contains no references except to works by, apparently, the original author of the book being promoted, this seems to be promotional in nature and original research to boot. And the above spam is enough to bat it out of the park in my opinion. Pedant 19:04, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was User:Akhu has emailed me about this page and has stated it is copyrighted by his company and that he was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policiy on how do deal with it as a Copyvio. He has requested the page for immediate deletion and I fully intend to do so. Any further comments can be made at my talk page. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔ T↔ C 05:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I was hoping I could get a second opinion on this matter regarding edits to this page, related to edits by this IP who created this account. I have been monitoring the edits associated with this account since July 15, and of late, I have become increasingly skeptical of the intentions of this Wikipedian's edits. I have been very patient with this Wikipedian since the beginning, writing extensively in an encouraging manner how edits to Wikipedia should be made. Although I have been skeptical from the beginning, I decided to "assume good faith" and was hoping that the user would understand that his or her editing style will need to be modulated to resonably expect any of their content to remain on Wikipedia. (See the extensive disscusions on the user and article's talk pages for example.) However, recently I noticed that the exact same content was being duplicated on French Wikipedia. See for example [41]. In fact, in French Wikipedia the article was placed up for deletion, and I am inclined to feel that this should be done here as well. The site has some content that is meritable, but perhaps not encyclopedic enough to warrant an article. At the moment, the page seems only to be more geared towards promoting the content of the external site. I'd appreciate any thoughts or opinions on this VfD here. Thanks! HappyCamper 19:53, 28 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 BJAODN. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, wholly fictional. Dirty South space opera! FreplySpang (talk) 20:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn band vanity. Delete. Ken 20:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Just one of a series of silly "list of..." articles created by User:62.252.0.6. Arbitrary subject (one and a third minutes???) Joyous (talk) 20:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was undecided, kept. mikka (t) 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elf Only Inn.
In this article's defense, I like to note that according to The Notability and Inclusion Guidelines, a webcomic need only comply with the Alternate Proposal to be considered acceptable. I counted weeks of comic strips, and came up with roughly 80 weeks, doing random sampling per month to ensure there weren't bouts of guest strips. That more than surpasses the 33-week requirement. I have not yet counted the number of strips in the EOF archive, but the first few months were every other day upates, the remaining months were sporatic updates; usually 3 a week. I could count 100 strips without breaking a sweat. As to the author of this article, I honestly don't know if it is Josh Sortelli or not, but I doubt he would return from hiatus to write a wiki article and not update his comic. Regardless, if there are suspicions I'll be happy to re-write it myself. Saxon 05:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (GTJoe, just figured out how to sign things) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Megachurch. Splash 18:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I've never heard of this. I can't believe it's in common usage. Deb 21:16, 28 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 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Zero google hits. Anon users have also vandalized Tarvisio and Hanson (town), Massachusetts with information about this alleged mafia. Martg76 21:29, 28 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 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was it got hit with copyvio, will get deleted. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 21:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn site, majority of edits to this page have been either vandalism, blanking, or reversion of blanking see: talk:Metal Machine Music (game) for more info regarding previous blankings. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
That being said, veiwing the article from a neutral outside viewpoint does leave me with a desire to comment. The "clean" version of the entry reads more like an andvertisment or blantant promotion then an encylcopedic entry. The "vandalised" version reads like the work of somone with a personal grudge. I would say Delete, but I would also add that the article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. -- 202.92.76.129 22:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC) (But not the same one as above) reply
Considering that said criticism is actually completely erroneous- we have proof- and stemming from a site with a history of disliking us? Last I heard, this was a site for disseminating correct information, hrm? Don't add things that you obviously have no real knowledge in!
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 28 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 22:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. Wikipedia is not FreshMeat. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Athought it is a very nice piece of software, but this is not SourceForge, i.e. if we don't allow Free software listing
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity and/or non-notable person. This article is connected to two other suspicions pages: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute. -- JW1805 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Zero Google hits. Vanity/hoax/Gungan-cruft. Fernando Rizo T/ C 22:10, 28 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 del. mikka (t) 17:56, 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 no consensus. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is one of several articles on religious calendars. But what on earth is there here than can't be put in April 1? The whole lot of 'em need merging. Dunc| ☺ 22:26, 28 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 delete. Dmcdevit· t 00:05, July 29, 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. But anyone can of course be BOLD and redirect anytime they like. - Splash 18:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dict def. I'd say redirect to hip hop music, no merge neccessary. -- FuriousFreddy 22:38, 28 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 22:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn band vanity. Delete. Ken 22:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn fancruft. Ken 22:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a fake policy (the proposed policy tag was added later) made up by User:SuperDude115. This user also created Template:Speedyimage and the categories Category:Obscene images and Category:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion, which are also listed for deletion. Delete. ulayiti (talk) 23:32, 28 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a dicdef, and, I suspect a non-notable one at that. CDC (talk) 23:47, 28 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 18:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article should be completely merged into Tony Blair as a very small footnote. Larryfooter 03:42, 24 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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. 4 results on google for "podchive". Article was created by User:Idastudios and if you go to the top google result for podchive it says the page website is from "INDEPENDNET [sic] DIGITAL ARTISTS". Aside from this obvious spam and self promotion, the article itself says stuff like podchiving "became popular in late 2005", and in conjunction with the 4 total google hits, it doesn't meet notability requirements. CryptoDerk 00:08, July 29, 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 22:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply