This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 01:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nothing but advertising. Title and text don't seem to have anything to do with each other. This is probably a copyvio, but I didn't want to list it there because I want a peremptory decision to delete so this doesn't get recreated. Rick K 00:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was
This page should be deleted because it is unencyclopedic. It is a specific example of Conversion of units. There is no way to expand this article productively. FreplySpang 00:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 20:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tagged on Feb. 27 by Gaurav1146, but not brought here. No vote. Joyous 00:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 18:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
POV, original research. There might be a decent article on how different foods can cause problems, but this isn't it. Rick K 00:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 18:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity. Rick K 00:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm also a music fan and I don't like them, and given their stated influences probably wouldn't like them even if I had heard of them. Vanity. Dsmdgold 22:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A scenario for an open-source game-building program. This was renominated yesterday by KimmoKM, author of both the article and the game, on top of the old vfd with the comment "Marketing" (diff). I fully agree. Delete. — Korath ( Talk) 01:06, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
Death phoenix 15:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete Starwiz 04:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
ugen
64 21:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No Google hits and the article is near-gibberish. Can't find anything to turn it into even the barest substub. Delete as unverifiable. -- Cyrius| ✎ 02:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the title counts as "inherently POV". Current content is not much more than an intro and a link, but it might be intended to grow. Kappa 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vanity - seems to me making a song or two that were "featured" MP3's is not nearly the same as having an actual recorded album on a real record label, which is the usual bar for notability. CDC (talk) 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
ugen
64 21:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As this stub-like article looks like a dictionary definition, doesn't appear to have any sources or provenance for its unusual definition of the word, and generally has a NPOV, ranty vibe (unscientific though I realise that sounds), I suggest that the article should be deleted entirely, as only the title would appear to be of any use to future contributors. -- Chips Critic 02:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
ugen
64 21:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another dictionary entry in the encyclopaedia with no potential for metamorphosis into an encyclopaedia article and no sensible place for a redirect to point to. Wiktionary has an independently grown and better Wiktionary:mishmash (with the more generally accepted etymology, to boot). Uncle G 02:29, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.
ugen
64 21:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Entirely un-encyclopedic as it stands. I doubt it could ever become much better than it is. Starwiz 04:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Research. Ok, I found a few links so far:
I will let yall run with this and see what happens. I will not be surprised if views are/are not changed due to the links. However, I think most of the links are fan sites/dating sites.
Zscout370 21:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fails to meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines, unless I'm mistaken. Delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was pending deletion (block-compressed revisions).
ugen
64 21:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Got directed here from List of DC Comics characters. Right now, all there is is a dicdef and an article about a game that may or may not ever be released. Wikipedia is neither Wiktionary nor a crystal ball. Delete. -- InShaneee 05:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what this is. Original research? Nonsense? But not encyclopedic. Rick K 05:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. What an ugly dump of text. This is not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 06:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Usability and relevance, not entirely convinced that such a list is needed.-- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to word size.
Either delete or merge - somewhere... (where?). At the moment it is one sentence which sounds like the last sentence of a paragraph which is obscure enough to give no real information.
Grutness|
hello?
06:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
A list of the placement of Jewish holidays in the Gregorian calender for the next 50 years, basically a modified text dump, would be better in an almanac setting. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Teaches at University of New South Wales....., ok so is their anything else..... -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Advert for an Illinois country/cover band. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to
University of California, Berkeley. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Possibly notable, but looks better as a merge to me. If it's kept it should be at the full name or CSUA, anyway.
Grutness|
hello?
07:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete slangdef. Gazpacho 07:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Rossami
(talk) 04:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Even for an underground comic i would expect that i would have found a small blurb about it on the web somewhere, especially with it's "cult" status. Their is also no corosopnding information of the publisher either.-- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No stated notability; remarkably few google hits -- #2 is to a mirror, majority seems to be to an assortment of different people. Strange goings-on in edit history. Probable vanity and/or spoof. Alai 08:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —
Korath (
Talk) 03:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, deleted previously per vfd, see this vote's history. Posted his article to this vote. DDerby 19:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated trivia, original research. Rick K 08:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smells of an advert. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smells like a advert. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. No interest in my suggestion to move.
Sjakkalle 08:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hippopotamus Defence should be deleted because the article is technically inaccurate. The page can't be repaired because Hippopotamus Defense is not a well defined term in the chess literature.
The opening given in the article is not commonly called the hippo. (There appears to be only one fringe website that claims this move sequence is called the hippo.) Most commonly hippo is used in the sense of the Hippopotamus System, which is a Black hedgehog formation featuring a double fianchetto. Unlike precisely defined openings like the Ruy Lopez, the Hippopotamus System is a type of postion, not a specific move sequence or even a specific position. A Hippopotamus System page could be added, but no content from the existing page is useful for this purpose. -- Quale 06:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
I count 8 clear "delete" votes and 4 variations of "keep" votes. One of the keep votes is from a very new user. There is no evidence of sockpupperty but also not much evidence of understanding yet of the community's goals and standards. Reviewing the article, I also find that this is at best a blog topic or news article, not a topic normally found in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ebay fan-cruft. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NOTE Text after <--- was added to the original post by Radiant! VladMV ٭ talk 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Text added after "this article." by Clue9 VladMV ٭ talk 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
I count three clear "delete" votes plus my own opinion that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a newspaper vs two "merge" votes. This (barely) establishes the necessary supermajority needed to delete. Rossami (talk) 21:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable. Having one's disappearance and presumed death overshadowed by Chandra Levy's disappearance and presumed death does not make one notable. -- Angr 10:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable local record store. Delete -- Teknic 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Suspect vanity. -- Scott eiπ 11:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Second largest only to B'Kara? What about the island's capital. Also, this sounds more like a travel guide than an article. Delete unless expanded and verified.
Mgm|
(talk) 12:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
The Amazing Race 1 (there was nothing to merge). —
Korath (
Talk) 00:31, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Winners of The Amazing Race 1. Not notable for anything else. Articles contain near to no information. Delete. Mgm| (talk) 13:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Death phoenix 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Misformatted and mistitled advertisement. Delete. Mgm| (talk) 13:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
As the article helpfully tells us in its opening sentence, this isn't a word. Even if it were a word, an article for it such as this would belong in the dictionary, not in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 13:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
POV rant, not encyclopaedic, as one's own concept of what is flair/entertaining in football is entirely subjective. Qwghlm 14:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. –
AB
CD 19:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic. Google search reveals few hits, which for anything related to blogs doesn't bode well; doesn't seem to be widely used. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
Reading through the discussion thread, many of the comments refer not to the article but to the nomination. Those comments which to address the content are about evenly split but still seem to be to be tainted by the controversy of the nomination. I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep but without prejudice against a renomination.
Reminder: Any editor can be bold and "merge and redirect" the article. That decision does not destroy history and therefore does not need the extraordinary process of the VfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is every single fictional person, place and thing from the make believe world of J. R. R. Tolkien considered to be inherently noteworthy? At what point is something so far below the line of notability that it does not merit a redirect? Is there such a line? -- GRider\ talk 17:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User:Chriscf/bad-vfd If you want it deleted, say so. If you want it merged, be bold and do it yourself. Chris 20:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleteno. –
AB
CDNO 19:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yet another conlang, consisting entirely of appending "no" to all words. -- fvw * 14:27, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
I re-added this to the VFD page as it somehow got removed from there without a decision. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Rossami
(talk) 21:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Band Vanity. almost no information. I suggest a Speedy but I thought I'd take it here. Pufferfish101 17:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This was added by someone who reportedly added a bunch of nonsense articles. Apparently they were speedied before I saw them. Anyway, I see nothing notable or even verifable here, and google wasn't helpful. Few hits; couldn't tell if any were relevent. It's tagged for a merge/redirect to Mia Matsumiya, which will likely simply be redirected (no merge) to Kayo Dot (also VfDed, prognosis positive), and as tragibots have nothing to do with Kayo Dot this might as well be deleted. - R. fiend 19:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pyoro is a simple, rather unremarkable bonus mini-game in Wario Ware, a title which itself consists of micro-games. This is the starring "character"'s sole appearance so far. While I have no objection to this entry's information being merged to the main game's entry as a couple of simple short sentences, I do not think such an esoteric subject with so little information available should have its own article in Wikipedia. What do you think? Sinistro 19:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.
Concensus was not reached on whether this article should be kept as an independent article or should be "merged and redirected" back to the parent article. That decision, however, does not require voting on VfD and is appropriate to discuss on the respective article Talk pages.
Sinistro, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/January-February 2005#Merge and Delete for why we need to redirect rather than simply delete. Rossami (talk) 20:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While Mona, like the rest of Wario's video game developers team, warrants a mention in the article under the character section, I see little reason for her to have her own article. The amount of information presented is misleading, I think: half the article describes in every detail the sketchy scenario concerning her microgame stage. I believe that all important information could be easily trimmed into a small paragraph which could be merged to the main article. What do you think, Wikipedians? Sinistro 19:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Reading through the discussion thread, many of the comments refer not to the article but to the way the nomination was made. Those comments which to address the content are about evenly split but still seem to be to be tainted by the controversy of the nomination. I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep but without prejudice against a renomination.
Rossami
(talk) 20:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Blogger cruft"? Vanity? Encyclopedically notable? Which is it? -- GRider\ talk 21:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Vote relocated to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Is this blatant and POV blog spamming, or encyclopedically notable content? If nothing in this article can be factually substatiated, is it still notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? Shall I continue? See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rance -- GRider\ talk 21:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable advertising. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why exactly are there other listings commercial listings? i.e. goto the los angeles home page and their are several businesses listed there. I'm sorry I didn't really believe that I was spamming or doing anything that was of a questionable nature. Only adding a listing that didn't exisit yet. Here are a several examples that are already in the wiki to support what I mean.
List removed. Comment by anon 216.52.210.36, 8 edits, of which 6 are directly related to this VfD.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
How is encyclopedic notability being illustrated in this article? If it isn't, should it be shunted over to List of bloggers or List of translators? Please discuss. -- GRider\ talk 22:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not paper, can we spare enough disk space for articles detailing every single game developer who happens to blog? -- GRider\ talk 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete as unverified.
Rossami
(talk) 20:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rule free card game something like Mornington Crescent (game). Cannot verify, so suggest deleting as original research. -- Henrygb 22:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
AB
CD 19:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
appears to be an invented word
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Are all children with unusually long 43-character names inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? Why or why not? -- GRider\ talk 22:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. –
AB
CD 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. The company that made "the Tapwave Zodiac, a Palm OS 5-based PDA, and the first Palm-based device developed with gaming as a primary consideration". r3m0t talk 23:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
BLANKFAZE |
(что??) 01:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nothing but advertising. Title and text don't seem to have anything to do with each other. This is probably a copyvio, but I didn't want to list it there because I want a peremptory decision to delete so this doesn't get recreated. Rick K 00:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was
This page should be deleted because it is unencyclopedic. It is a specific example of Conversion of units. There is no way to expand this article productively. FreplySpang 00:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 20:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tagged on Feb. 27 by Gaurav1146, but not brought here. No vote. Joyous 00:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 18:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
POV, original research. There might be a decent article on how different foods can cause problems, but this isn't it. Rick K 00:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 18:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity. Rick K 00:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm also a music fan and I don't like them, and given their stated influences probably wouldn't like them even if I had heard of them. Vanity. Dsmdgold 22:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A scenario for an open-source game-building program. This was renominated yesterday by KimmoKM, author of both the article and the game, on top of the old vfd with the comment "Marketing" (diff). I fully agree. Delete. — Korath ( Talk) 01:06, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
Death phoenix 15:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete Starwiz 04:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
ugen
64 21:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No Google hits and the article is near-gibberish. Can't find anything to turn it into even the barest substub. Delete as unverifiable. -- Cyrius| ✎ 02:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the title counts as "inherently POV". Current content is not much more than an intro and a link, but it might be intended to grow. Kappa 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vanity - seems to me making a song or two that were "featured" MP3's is not nearly the same as having an actual recorded album on a real record label, which is the usual bar for notability. CDC (talk) 02:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
ugen
64 21:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As this stub-like article looks like a dictionary definition, doesn't appear to have any sources or provenance for its unusual definition of the word, and generally has a NPOV, ranty vibe (unscientific though I realise that sounds), I suggest that the article should be deleted entirely, as only the title would appear to be of any use to future contributors. -- Chips Critic 02:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
ugen
64 21:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another dictionary entry in the encyclopaedia with no potential for metamorphosis into an encyclopaedia article and no sensible place for a redirect to point to. Wiktionary has an independently grown and better Wiktionary:mishmash (with the more generally accepted etymology, to boot). Uncle G 02:29, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.
ugen
64 21:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Entirely un-encyclopedic as it stands. I doubt it could ever become much better than it is. Starwiz 04:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Research. Ok, I found a few links so far:
I will let yall run with this and see what happens. I will not be surprised if views are/are not changed due to the links. However, I think most of the links are fan sites/dating sites.
Zscout370 21:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fails to meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines, unless I'm mistaken. Delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was pending deletion (block-compressed revisions).
ugen
64 21:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Got directed here from List of DC Comics characters. Right now, all there is is a dicdef and an article about a game that may or may not ever be released. Wikipedia is neither Wiktionary nor a crystal ball. Delete. -- InShaneee 05:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what this is. Original research? Nonsense? But not encyclopedic. Rick K 05:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. What an ugly dump of text. This is not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 06:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Usability and relevance, not entirely convinced that such a list is needed.-- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to word size.
Either delete or merge - somewhere... (where?). At the moment it is one sentence which sounds like the last sentence of a paragraph which is obscure enough to give no real information.
Grutness|
hello?
06:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
A list of the placement of Jewish holidays in the Gregorian calender for the next 50 years, basically a modified text dump, would be better in an almanac setting. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Teaches at University of New South Wales....., ok so is their anything else..... -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Advert for an Illinois country/cover band. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to
University of California, Berkeley. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Possibly notable, but looks better as a merge to me. If it's kept it should be at the full name or CSUA, anyway.
Grutness|
hello?
07:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete slangdef. Gazpacho 07:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Rossami
(talk) 04:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Even for an underground comic i would expect that i would have found a small blurb about it on the web somewhere, especially with it's "cult" status. Their is also no corosopnding information of the publisher either.-- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No stated notability; remarkably few google hits -- #2 is to a mirror, majority seems to be to an assortment of different people. Strange goings-on in edit history. Probable vanity and/or spoof. Alai 08:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —
Korath (
Talk) 03:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, deleted previously per vfd, see this vote's history. Posted his article to this vote. DDerby 19:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated trivia, original research. Rick K 08:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smells of an advert. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smells like a advert. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. No interest in my suggestion to move.
Sjakkalle 08:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hippopotamus Defence should be deleted because the article is technically inaccurate. The page can't be repaired because Hippopotamus Defense is not a well defined term in the chess literature.
The opening given in the article is not commonly called the hippo. (There appears to be only one fringe website that claims this move sequence is called the hippo.) Most commonly hippo is used in the sense of the Hippopotamus System, which is a Black hedgehog formation featuring a double fianchetto. Unlike precisely defined openings like the Ruy Lopez, the Hippopotamus System is a type of postion, not a specific move sequence or even a specific position. A Hippopotamus System page could be added, but no content from the existing page is useful for this purpose. -- Quale 06:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
I count 8 clear "delete" votes and 4 variations of "keep" votes. One of the keep votes is from a very new user. There is no evidence of sockpupperty but also not much evidence of understanding yet of the community's goals and standards. Reviewing the article, I also find that this is at best a blog topic or news article, not a topic normally found in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ebay fan-cruft. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NOTE Text after <--- was added to the original post by Radiant! VladMV ٭ talk 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Text added after "this article." by Clue9 VladMV ٭ talk 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
I count three clear "delete" votes plus my own opinion that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a newspaper vs two "merge" votes. This (barely) establishes the necessary supermajority needed to delete. Rossami (talk) 21:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable. Having one's disappearance and presumed death overshadowed by Chandra Levy's disappearance and presumed death does not make one notable. -- Angr 10:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable local record store. Delete -- Teknic 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Suspect vanity. -- Scott eiπ 11:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Second largest only to B'Kara? What about the island's capital. Also, this sounds more like a travel guide than an article. Delete unless expanded and verified.
Mgm|
(talk) 12:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
The Amazing Race 1 (there was nothing to merge). —
Korath (
Talk) 00:31, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Winners of The Amazing Race 1. Not notable for anything else. Articles contain near to no information. Delete. Mgm| (talk) 13:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Death phoenix 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Misformatted and mistitled advertisement. Delete. Mgm| (talk) 13:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
As the article helpfully tells us in its opening sentence, this isn't a word. Even if it were a word, an article for it such as this would belong in the dictionary, not in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 13:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
POV rant, not encyclopaedic, as one's own concept of what is flair/entertaining in football is entirely subjective. Qwghlm 14:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. –
AB
CD 19:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic. Google search reveals few hits, which for anything related to blogs doesn't bode well; doesn't seem to be widely used. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
Reading through the discussion thread, many of the comments refer not to the article but to the nomination. Those comments which to address the content are about evenly split but still seem to be to be tainted by the controversy of the nomination. I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep but without prejudice against a renomination.
Reminder: Any editor can be bold and "merge and redirect" the article. That decision does not destroy history and therefore does not need the extraordinary process of the VfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is every single fictional person, place and thing from the make believe world of J. R. R. Tolkien considered to be inherently noteworthy? At what point is something so far below the line of notability that it does not merit a redirect? Is there such a line? -- GRider\ talk 17:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User:Chriscf/bad-vfd If you want it deleted, say so. If you want it merged, be bold and do it yourself. Chris 20:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleteno. –
AB
CDNO 19:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yet another conlang, consisting entirely of appending "no" to all words. -- fvw * 14:27, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
I re-added this to the VFD page as it somehow got removed from there without a decision. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Rossami
(talk) 21:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Band Vanity. almost no information. I suggest a Speedy but I thought I'd take it here. Pufferfish101 17:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. –
AB
CD 19:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This was added by someone who reportedly added a bunch of nonsense articles. Apparently they were speedied before I saw them. Anyway, I see nothing notable or even verifable here, and google wasn't helpful. Few hits; couldn't tell if any were relevent. It's tagged for a merge/redirect to Mia Matsumiya, which will likely simply be redirected (no merge) to Kayo Dot (also VfDed, prognosis positive), and as tragibots have nothing to do with Kayo Dot this might as well be deleted. - R. fiend 19:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pyoro is a simple, rather unremarkable bonus mini-game in Wario Ware, a title which itself consists of micro-games. This is the starring "character"'s sole appearance so far. While I have no objection to this entry's information being merged to the main game's entry as a couple of simple short sentences, I do not think such an esoteric subject with so little information available should have its own article in Wikipedia. What do you think? Sinistro 19:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.
Concensus was not reached on whether this article should be kept as an independent article or should be "merged and redirected" back to the parent article. That decision, however, does not require voting on VfD and is appropriate to discuss on the respective article Talk pages.
Sinistro, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/January-February 2005#Merge and Delete for why we need to redirect rather than simply delete. Rossami (talk) 20:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While Mona, like the rest of Wario's video game developers team, warrants a mention in the article under the character section, I see little reason for her to have her own article. The amount of information presented is misleading, I think: half the article describes in every detail the sketchy scenario concerning her microgame stage. I believe that all important information could be easily trimmed into a small paragraph which could be merged to the main article. What do you think, Wikipedians? Sinistro 19:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Reading through the discussion thread, many of the comments refer not to the article but to the way the nomination was made. Those comments which to address the content are about evenly split but still seem to be to be tainted by the controversy of the nomination. I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep but without prejudice against a renomination.
Rossami
(talk) 20:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Blogger cruft"? Vanity? Encyclopedically notable? Which is it? -- GRider\ talk 21:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Vote relocated to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Is this blatant and POV blog spamming, or encyclopedically notable content? If nothing in this article can be factually substatiated, is it still notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? Shall I continue? See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rance -- GRider\ talk 21:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
AB
CD 19:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable advertising. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why exactly are there other listings commercial listings? i.e. goto the los angeles home page and their are several businesses listed there. I'm sorry I didn't really believe that I was spamming or doing anything that was of a questionable nature. Only adding a listing that didn't exisit yet. Here are a several examples that are already in the wiki to support what I mean.
List removed. Comment by anon 216.52.210.36, 8 edits, of which 6 are directly related to this VfD.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
How is encyclopedic notability being illustrated in this article? If it isn't, should it be shunted over to List of bloggers or List of translators? Please discuss. -- GRider\ talk 22:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not paper, can we spare enough disk space for articles detailing every single game developer who happens to blog? -- GRider\ talk 22:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete as unverified.
Rossami
(talk) 20:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rule free card game something like Mornington Crescent (game). Cannot verify, so suggest deleting as original research. -- Henrygb 22:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
AB
CD 19:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
appears to be an invented word
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Are all children with unusually long 43-character names inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? Why or why not? -- GRider\ talk 22:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. –
AB
CD 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. The company that made "the Tapwave Zodiac, a Palm OS 5-based PDA, and the first Palm-based device developed with gaming as a primary consideration". r3m0t talk 23:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —
Korath (
Talk) 00:54, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.