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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somebody's campaign worker, I guess. Orphan, only 7 hits on 5 sites for "Greg Sparks" "dick spring", and most can't even confirm the sparse amount of info given, raising verifiability questions. Niteowlneils 00:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need an article that deals solely with Glaswegian dictdefs? →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:03, 2005 May 24 (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. —
Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
As the article says, these two are only up coming book writers, and their debut book has not been published yet. Thus, not noteworthy yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Swat 16:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
16:12, 29 May 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. —
Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like an anti-circumcision hoax page. Google doesn't find any results for the hyphenated or unhyphenated forms of the word. From an anatomical standpoint, the described etiology doesn't make sense. Delete this medical nonsense. -- TenOfAllTrades ( talk/ contrib) 00:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Definitely. I was going to recommend it for speedy deletion, actually. M412k 02:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Definitely POV, anti-semitic in fact. Detetion is warranted. Cyferx 02:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 19:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Just another high school garage band, near as I can tell. Zero hits for "Dark Tall Females"--allmusic.com hasn't heard of 'em either. dtf toronto adler cohen doesn't find anything relelvant either. Niteowlneils 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
---It didn't have instruments because it was a barbershop quartet! They wrote out all 4 parts with no help, tabs, score-sheets or anything - just a pen and paper! You don't even know what you're talking about buddy.
I jus't thought that I would point out the hypocracy here. All of these wikipedia members are arguing that we should get rid of this DTF page because it is not relevant and simply trying to promote the band. The funny part is that all of these people on the message board have a page written about themselves. THAT seems completely relevant to me. So it is alright for all of you to have a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post some RELEVANT and TRUE information about themselves?
Dont Delete! This is completely relevant! Some people are researching information on the popularity of unknown teenage bands. The fact that DTF may not be as well known as some other bands does not mean that it does not have potential. DTF is worthy of a spot on the Wikipedia encyclopedia. There are many people interested, as you can see it has had a lot of viewers. I, myself, am a DTF fan. Please do not delete this page! It is gaining popularity to a wider range of people using Wikipedia by drawing attention to the encyclopedia. It is no harm to anybody!
Dont Delete! "What am I talking about?"...well, I am talking about the fact that you (for example Cyrius) would like DTF's page to be deleted because you find it to be irrelevant and for the purpose of self-promotion, yet you happen to have a page on wikipedia for yourself, describing yourself as "just some guy". Why should it be alright for you to post a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post a page about themselves? Personally, I do not have a problem with either.
Alright, sorry for my confusion. I still think that DTF should be allowed to keep this page, because they are a talented band that will make a name for themselves one day. I do not think that we should discriminate against bands because they are not as well-known as others. Every band has to start from somewhere.
I will restate the fact that DTF has signed a deal with British record label Delerium to promote their EP in the United States, Continental Europe and Israel, and they have taken it upon themselves to deal with domestic distribution. That in itself is indicative of success, no?
I would just like to say.....DTF rawks the kazbah. My name is Regina Felangi, and i am a very important business woman in the business world. I know when a band is going to make it big. Just this morning, while i was in board room A, I was discussing with my fellow workers, the potential that said band had. Wikipedia is not being harmed by this link, that is my business perspective.
Dont Delete!!!!! DTF is my favorite band! They have the hottest guys ever! Have you ever seen Jacob Fox? His last name is there for a reason. HE certainly is a Fox. A really fine one. I'm sure that if everyone on this forum saw him, they would immeadiately change their mind about deleting this. Did I mention that he is also an AMAZING lead guitarist? He is.Wow.
Dont Delete!!! I love Jacob too! Even more than her!
Dont Delete! But I must disagree with that other fan. Ben is definitely the hottest band member. Seriously. He is gorgeous. DTF for life!
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 transwiki and delete.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This belongs in WikiBooks or some other reference. P0per 00:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This is a dictionary article about an idiom (one that Wiktionary had already had for a month, by the way — see smart aleck), not an encyclopaedia article about smart alecs. (This article was originally created as "smart alec".) It's difficult to see how one can have an (NPOV) encyclopaedia article about smart alecs, moreover; and no sensible place for a redirection to point to springs to mind. (If we had a biography of Alec Hoag, we could redirect there. But we haven't.) Uncle G 01:00, 2005 May 24 (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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what ought to be done with this article. Submitted to request community review on the notibility of this article. It is possible it is vanity, but then again it does seem to have a least some claim to merit. - SocratesJedi | Talk 01:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rarely used unit with an archaic SI prefix. Georgia guy 01:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Notability not established Samw 02:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:48, 7 Jun 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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just an acronym expansion, has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. — A.M. 03:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 in some form.
I count 1 "delete" vote, 6 "keep as redirect" to the band, 8 "keep as is" (one probable troll vote discounted) and 3 "keep as disambiguation page". The decision about what form to keep this article should now be moved to the article's Talk page.
I will, however, add my own vote. Reviewing the revised content, I consider this to still be a dictionary definition - that is, a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase. If this is not substantially expanded in a reasonable period of time, it may be reappropriate to renominate the page for deletion after updating the transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Megadeath page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Should this remaining page be deleted? Ryan Prior 03:26, May 24, 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 speedy delete per below. Closing the discussion.
Rossami
(talk) 22:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Current Revision Empty. Previous revision appears to be a vanity page with no notable substance. P0per 03:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
I count 7 "delete" to 9 "keep" and note that several people changed their votes following the expansion of the article. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - idle speculation, dicdef at best. FreplySpang (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Slang dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Cyrius| ✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Slang dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Definition also does not appear on urbandictionary.com, where one would expect such a word to reside. Cyrius| ✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Minor gaming clan vanity, with no evidence that it's not a vanity article provided. Cyrius| ✎ 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. (One probable troll vote discounted)
Rossami
(talk) 22:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This place does not yet exist, and as such is inherently unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball -- Durin 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I say keep. Looks like something in the works. There are plans for the new world trade center - even links for people to be influenced and educated. the topic may seem trivial, but if its really underway, it merits an entry. Barrettmagic
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. —
Xezbeth 07:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be the author of one self-published book, probable vanity. The foundation he links to appears to exist only to publish the book. Very few hits on google: it's not clear whether or not this guy is even the internet's most popular "David Snyder, Ph.D." or "David N. Snyder". - Nat Kraus e 04:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Reads like it's entirely made up or may be from some fictional universe. DJ Clayworth 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 No Consensus -> Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Student newspaper for a school we don't have an article on. Rick K 04:32, May 24, 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. —
Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. He may be a prince, but he only has two Google hits, one to a guestbook and one a "website dedicated to reuniting Nigerian ex-schoolmates". Nothing to verify that he is a prince, and otherwise non-notable. Rick K 04:44, May 24, 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 move to a Wikiproject, then delete the subsequent redirect. This page will therefore be at a new location:
Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Ocean Animals.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 07:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article apparently started as a school project for the kids to learn how to write and cite sources (see teachers explanation) Duk 04:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Apparent vanity. -- Durin 04:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Apparent vanity. -- Durin 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. DJ Clayworth 05:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Although it's a nice tribute, I don't see why this is notable enough to include. Xcali 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 as merge.
Rossami
(talk) 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Plenty of things in the Star Wars universe are notable, but a battle maneuver? Firebug 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 1 "keep" vote (one very new user discounted) and 4 "keep as merge" votes (one probable troll discounted). Reviewing the article, I conclude that the content was in fact a fork from Islamophobia and find nothing that is appropriate to merge back. I also note that the article is an orphan.
On the principle that we should discourage the creation of forked articles that have the intent of pushing a particular point of view, I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and call it as a delete. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
POV fork. Firebug 05:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 remove content and redirect to
Western world.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Procedural nomination. This article had been listed for VfD earlier, when I speedied it as nonsense. The deletion was disputed. I have agreed to undelete and allow it a chance on VfD. SWAdair | Talk 02:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. "Gregory Kleciak" only gets one Google hit -- us. "Greg Kleciak" gets two hits -- non-notable ones (and his home page at http://wholenote.com/member/profile/profile.asp?i=25255 is empty). "Lame Ass Productions" gets 7 hits. No entry at imdb under Gregory or Greg. Rick K 06:12, May 24, 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.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Wolf530 06:16, May 24, 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 Redirect to
crucifixion since the content is already in that article.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 20:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has been moved to Wiktionary already. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 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. —
Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Falls closest into the category of original research. But also unverifiable and not noteworthy, considering it's still an "idea" that clearly doesn't have any actual backing, plans, or really any information on what it actually is. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 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.
Sjakkalle
13:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Feel free to prove me wrong, but this seems like a vanity page. Are they notable? Wolf530 06:22, May 24, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Advertising, non-notable multi-level marketing company. Article creator Mrcolj ( talk · contribs) has linked to his "profile" page instead of the main page not only on this page, but also on Multi-level marketing and List of network marketing companies. Google shows that this person is supposedly the VP of the company. The company name itself returns 128 pages. Claims to be a matrix scheme, not a pyramid scheme. — Mar ka ci 2005-05-24 T 06:35 Z
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 to
List of minor Star Wars characters
CDC
(talk) 21:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5-word substub (one misspelled) for Star Warscruft minor character. Rick K 07:14, May 24, 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.
161.55.168.90 21:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: Because this discussion was closed by anon, the deletion log says that this article was in fact deleted at 21:23, 9 Jun 2005 by Cdc ( Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monssfisch). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it a joke or not? Is it notable or not? I don't know, but it sure looks shady. Eixo 07:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
CDC
(talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry Swedish Chef, but there's already an article on this; it's South Africa's Great Trek. Eixo 07:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
CDC
(talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If anyone can make sense of this article, please explain it to the rest of us. -- Beland 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 but without prejudice if someone wants to move the content to Wiktionary.
Rossami
(talk) 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what the consensus supposedly is on names, since I see no consensus on the discussion of it, but it's been closed as having reached consensus. But this is not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 07:45, May 24, 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 - should be merged -
SimonP 13:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
User:Harro5 nominated the Gray article for speedy deletion. I disagree, even though the article is woefully stubby, Gossamer is a notable band with a large article. I think keep, merge or redirect but not delete. Sjakkalle 08:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep with a stub tag. If the band page is that long, then there must be a decent amount to say about each member too. Internodeuser 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Advertising. Website 942,551 on Alexa. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. The community was ultimately unable to
verify the alleged content.
Rossami
(talk) 03:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look, in the spirit of nicey-nicey week, here's a ref to Factitious disorder with psychological schizophrenia symptoms. [8] Unfortunately, the only reference to it on the entire Web is a single page referring to the Morrison, Doe and Decker case. -- The Anome 12:35, May 24, 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.
CDC
(talk) 01:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable, judging from the article, his website, and a Google search. Sietse 10:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 was keep. Reasoning: There is no consensus to delete. The question is whether to keep or merge. Since the article now actually consists of two sections one about Discworld another about Maskerade, unrelated to each other, I am calling this an outright keep for the moment. This does not mean that it cannot be merged later if somebody wants to do some rework, splitting this article into two pieces and merging both of them.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 07:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK this is some sort of TV show that will be published in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so delete. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Sjakkalle
11:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Nonsense article. No relevance except to a tiny group having fun griff 12:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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: speedily deleted.
sjorford
→•← 22:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
nonsense entry. Delete. P0ppe 12:47, 2005 May 24 (according to history Uncle G 14:47, 2005 May 24 (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.
JeremyA 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 20:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Complete and utter vanity. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
JeremyA 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another contribution from User:Serapion/Mythrandia (?) who gave us Western civilzation (above). Given the creator's history, their note that 'This is of course purely hypothetical, and wrong in some ways, but hey--when it comes to biology--what isn't?' (see edit history), and that the concept draws a google-blank, I think we have reason to suspect this article's legitimacy -- Doc (t) 13:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
CDC
(talk) 01:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense, for the reasons described on the
talk page.
Physchim62
13:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Suggestion withdrawn. Internodeuser's references have been included in the article. Physchim62 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even if they are related, Wikipedia is not an advert for wikicities. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Most of the "delete" voters clearly expressed an opinion that a new entity can not generally be encyclopedia-worthy the day of its launch (or worse, the day prior) and that more time should be allowed before the decision is made to include it. The "keep" voters were less consistent in their reasoning. By strict vote-count, I count 20 "deletes", 20 "keep as is" (though ten of them had to be discounted as either anonymous or so new that they were indistinguishable from sockpuppets) and 6 "merge". Since the "merge" votes count as a variant of "keep", the decision to delete fails to meet the necessary concensus even though there is a clear majority (20 to 16) in favor of deletion. There is, however, an overwhelming concensus (26 to 10) that this should not remain as an independent article. Accordingly, I am going to call this one as a "merge and redirect". Relevant content has been merged with Kevin Rose per the recommendations below. (If anyone thinks I missed an important detail, you can view it in the page history and can merge it yourself.)
This decision should be considered binding until there is clear and convincing evidence that Systm is independently encyclopedia-worthy. That is usually taken to mean that the entity has been around long enough and has had enough general impact on society that a verifiable article of greater than stub length can be written and that the topic is widely enough known that we can expect the necessary critical mass of knowledgable reader/editors to keep the article neutral. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A web videozine released tomorrow. Not encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Scimitar
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fails the Wikipedia:Google test. Waxtal 02:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. At best should be moved to Wiktionary, but probably not. Kelly Martin 15:42, May 24, 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 article was Speedy deleted at 13:30, 25 May 2005 by
Charles Matthews (nonsense).
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More odd, incoherent stuff by author of Sean ng ( VfD). Delete unless verified and completely rewritten. jni 15:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, prank/bs, neologism, original research, autobiography, whatever. Zero hits. Niteowlneils 16:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a vanity page Xcali 16:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. The article has since been re-written.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 02:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page has been sitting on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since May 14. As with similar articles, there seems little point in giving it the full fourteen days on PNTE. Physchim62 17:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
*Delete, if it's been sitting that long, chances are no one's going to touch it. Looks like someone translated it. Can we resolve this issue now?--
Mitsukai
16:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
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
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another page from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English which looks unsavable. Physchim62 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is a list of names, with no explanation or context (even to say what a pan-Turkist is) Simon Cursitor 17:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 - by my count, all but one keep vote is by a pretty obvious sockpuppet.
CDC
(talk) 19:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity article on an opera singer that I can't seem to find any recordings by. Allmusic hasn't heard of him. Likewise google cannot confirm any of the claims made in this article, including the song he wrote or his connection to "Ask the Rabbi". If reliable sources can be found for all this infromation I could change my vote here. - R. fiend 17:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Cantor Victor Beck 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)===Discussion=== Let's set the record straight shall we? 1) This is not a vanity article. I didn't even know that it existed till someone sent me the url to see it. 2) I've just opened an account here for the first time a few minutes ago. 3) If you really intend to do research, then you need to expand your horizons beyond the confines of Google. For example, you might try checking with the U.S. Library of Congress. There you would find copies of all the original music that I have written, plus all of my recordings. You would also find Airchecks (recordings) of all the "ASK THE RABBI" radio shows. All of this material was submitted to the Library of Congress for Copywrite protection. The Library of Congress accepted, and Copywrites were issued for all of the materials I submitted. You could also check the archives of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for my song "NEVER FORGET ME". You will find not only the music, but my recording done with a 40 piece orchestra, as well as the story of how the song came to be written. I am afraid that if you validate the world around you only by what you can find on Google, then you are doing yourself a great dis-service. reply
Please Note that I will not presume to enter a vote.
-- Cantor Victor Beck 20:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Cantor Victor I. Beck reply
As you say, it is quite a coincidence, especially since I do not live in N.Y.C. nor do I have a dial up service. I do however have Verizon. That is where it ends. And as far as the good doctor is concerned, 1) my weight is non of his concern, and shall we assume by his snide remark that he is physically PERFECT? We know that his character is not.-- Cantor Victor Beck 21:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
As I recall, Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck voted "Keep" in the same hysterical manner as all the other sockpuppets in the Very Reverend Cantor Lawrence Eliezer Képecs VfD. Was that a different Reverend Cantor? Was he lying when he signed as you, O Most Highly Notable Very Good Singer Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck? Or are you lying now when you say that you "just opened an account here for the first time a few minutes ago"? As I recall, I went to the Very Reverend Cantor Beck's website and got his email address and phone number, which I posted in the VfD discussion there. It should be a very small matter to go get that information once again, and this time to actually call the Most Highly Reverend Cantor and see what he has to say about this whole thing in person. I'm disgusted and appalled at the level of chutzpa you exhibit, O Dear High and Mighty Sockpuppet Maestro, and I suspect he would be as well. Tomer TALK 00:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Let's again set the record straight and this is the final time that I will demean myself to stoop to your level. 1) I DO NOT LIE. NOT FOR YOU OR FOR ANYONE ELSE, AND CONSIDERING THAT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ME YOU HAVE INCREADABLE GAUL TO MAKE SUCH AN ACCUSATION 2) You demonstrate the level of your ability and the value of your judgement regarding being an editor by the way that you attack and threaten me with your personal attacks on my privacy. You dare to blackmail me by threatening to publish my home contact information? If this is the kind of action that is condoned on Wikipedia then I think the world should be so informed of the lack of integrity in this online publication and it's editors. You are a disgrace to the publication and any honest people who may be involved. I can also assure you that I do not take kindly to threats and any actions will be dealt with in a definitive, strong, and forthright manner. Now would be the appropriate time for you to try and prove that you are not a sniveling coward hiding behind your screen image and offer a proper apology. -- Cantor Victor Beck 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
All of you negative people who claim to be editors, are just too damn full of yourselves. What gives you the right to talk about somebody like this? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Did you ever hear of the adage, if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all? From what it looks like, I'll guess not. Please note that I'm not voting. (unsigned comment by 64.12.116.134)
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only Google hit this gets is a website that uses the text of this article and nothing else to describe this "character". The farfetched "Obius the Awesome" nickname, coupled with the fact that there is no official mention of Yoda ever having a Master that anyone knows of, is proof enough that the creator of this article made this up himself. Nufy8 17:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Author vanity about a non-notable book. Who said "this book fills a much needed gap" ? The article comes with a portrait/bio as a companion: Image:Gar in blue.jpg Rl 18:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 no consensus to delete, but there is a consensus to discard the content. Therefore redirect to
Scholar's Mate.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The entire article text is: "Blitzkrieg (German for "lightning war") is a chess strategy in which a player can win the game in four moves." The article is completely bogus. There are 4-move checkmates, but they aren't strategies, just blunders by the losing side. Blitzkrieg is a German word with the meaning given, but it isn't the name of any chess strategy. There is no useful content that can be put at Blitzkrieg (chess strategy) because that term does not exist and it names no concept in chess. Quale 18:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A group of people having fun. Good for them! But not a notable enough group to deserve a full article Sarg 18:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 08:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, inflammitory, vanity. InShaneee 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Originally submitted by User:Internodeuser -- Longhair | Talk 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this page should be deleted, as it gives a balanced view to respond to severe inaccuracies in the Port Arthur Massacre and Martin Bryant pages. Unfortunately, the spam filter has removed the ability to use the references that were originally used. Look at the last history section before Tannin's edit, and you will see them all there. [23] Repeated requests for these references to be removed from the spam filter have fallen on deaf ears. This is the final response to attempts to hijack and sabotage pages, and deleting it would mean that personal attacks, vandalism and destruction of the integrity of Wikipedia would be seen as a good idea. Internodeuser 15:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
I count 11 "deletes", 6 "keeps" (2 very new users discounted), 2 commenters who did not express a clear opinion and one "merge". The merge recommendation was generally rejected as an inappropriate target. No alternate target was suggested.
Right around the start of the dicussion, the content and title were changed significantly. However, votes against the article continued after the revisions and none of the early "delete" voters returned to change their votes leading me to conclude that they were unconvinced by the changes.
Looking carefully at the current content, I see an orphaned article which appears to me to be expressing opinions about topics already well covered (and better sourced) in other articles. The content is internally inconsistent. Since the VfD discussion, the article has been neglected. I am going to add my own opinion to the decision and call this (barely) a "delete" decision but without prejudice against the re-creation of the article in a more coherent format. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Inherently POV, un-encyclopedic, original research Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-Goodoldpolonius2: I don't know about that, and if it has no new information, fine, but we shouldn't be deleting it into "unencyclopedic" or POV, that would be inconsistent with the deletion policy-- Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-Comment:Jayjg I both missed your point, and was editing under tnzkai for a while. Please explain on my talk page.-- Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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) 03:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I almost speedied this, but since there was some controversy concerning this article I brought it here. It has no text and is just a bunch of red links which will never be written. Broken Segue 20:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. Carried out at 20:53, 15 Jun 2005 by
user:Danny who didn't close the discussion.
Rossami
(talk) 03:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another cantor vanity article, much like Victor Beck and the deleted Eliezer Kepecs. No real accomplishments except a few mentions in a couple minor publications. 17 googles, none of which establish notability. - R. fiend 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 article was speedy deleted at 20:53, 24 May 2005 by
Rich Farmbrough.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be a vanity article. In any case, not notible. -
SocratesJedi |
Talk
20:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Apparently someone speedily deleted this article. Withdrawn in that case. - SocratesJedi | Talk 21:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 No consensus -> Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 21:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Caiman is a very, very minor character in Star Fox 64 and doesn't need a whole article on him. Thunderbrand 20:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
(please do not edit this section)
Do NOT delete the article! Wikipedia's Star Fox section is already poor enough. I am on a campaign to add to all of the Star Fox Articles and make it complete. Although Caiman is a minor character he deserves a place on Wikipedia. 69.205.228.93 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Unnamed StarFox Fan reply
The problem is that there is not enough secondary characters in StarFox to have a "secondary characters" page. PLEASE don't delete it! 69.205.228.93 21:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Caiman is a pretty cool guy... kind of. I agree that it should be put in a minor Star Fox Characters article, but there just isn't many minor characters in Star Fox 64, so I think it should be kept. 69.205.231.249 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) -Wandering Cleric of sorts 69.205.231.249 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 14:01, Jun 6, 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 I guess this was merged and then speedied, though I'm closing this discussion anyway. —
Xezbeth 14:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of the Wikipedia name space. And what's up with that categorization at the top of the page? Rick K 21:40, May 24, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zero relevant displayed hits. Unverifiable unless someone can dig something up. Niteowlneils 21:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Human creativity warms my little heart. I mean imagine someone making up a word, then taking the time to define it and put it on the Wikipedia. And then they take the time to write a pronunciation guide, and use it in a sentence. I don't know why anyone would want to delete it.</sarcasm> Oh wait, yes I do: It's a hoax and vandalism and it's a good thing I read it before transwikiing it (as it had been tagged by two separate editors). Delete it quickly and ruthlessly. -- Dmcdevit 21:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Article does not indicate notability. Thue | talk 21:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 14:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Thue | talk 21:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 deleted.
sjorford
→•←
08:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Vanity, original research. Delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:16, 2005 May 24 (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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 06:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unreleased game. Probably not notable yet as it only gets one google hit. Thue | talk 22:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Forumcruft. 16 unique Google hits. Rick K 22:38, May 24, 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.
Information Technology Audit - Regulation has been merged to
Information Technology Audit.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"THIS PAGE WILL BE ACTIVE BY JUNE 6, 2005". Well, maybe. In the meantime, odd categorization. The User seems to be trying to use Wikipedia for their own purposes. Information Technology Audit is mainly nothing but a collection of red links which the Uer is planning on expanding, apparently. Rick K 22:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
www.demos.com.uk. It is the best view of the audit problem.
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.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More non-notability by the same editor who brought us Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, Ofer Barnoy and Victor Beck. Rick K 23:01, May 24, 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. —
Xezbeth 07:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Advertising or advocacy, or both. Article does not establish notability. Rick K 23:28, May 24, 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 speedied. —
Xezbeth 07:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Political vanity. Four google hits, none of which seem to be about this group. Unverifiable. -- EvilZak 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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, move to
Samuel Slocum.
CDC
(talk) 20:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does not seem notable - 35 google hits for ["Sam Slocum" paper], a lot of which are from Wikipedia forks. – ugen64 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somebody's campaign worker, I guess. Orphan, only 7 hits on 5 sites for "Greg Sparks" "dick spring", and most can't even confirm the sparse amount of info given, raising verifiability questions. Niteowlneils 00:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need an article that deals solely with Glaswegian dictdefs? →Iñgōlemo← talk 00:03, 2005 May 24 (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. —
Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
As the article says, these two are only up coming book writers, and their debut book has not been published yet. Thus, not noteworthy yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Swat 16:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
16:12, 29 May 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. —
Xezbeth 19:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like an anti-circumcision hoax page. Google doesn't find any results for the hyphenated or unhyphenated forms of the word. From an anatomical standpoint, the described etiology doesn't make sense. Delete this medical nonsense. -- TenOfAllTrades ( talk/ contrib) 00:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Definitely. I was going to recommend it for speedy deletion, actually. M412k 02:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Definitely POV, anti-semitic in fact. Detetion is warranted. Cyferx 02:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 19:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Just another high school garage band, near as I can tell. Zero hits for "Dark Tall Females"--allmusic.com hasn't heard of 'em either. dtf toronto adler cohen doesn't find anything relelvant either. Niteowlneils 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
---It didn't have instruments because it was a barbershop quartet! They wrote out all 4 parts with no help, tabs, score-sheets or anything - just a pen and paper! You don't even know what you're talking about buddy.
I jus't thought that I would point out the hypocracy here. All of these wikipedia members are arguing that we should get rid of this DTF page because it is not relevant and simply trying to promote the band. The funny part is that all of these people on the message board have a page written about themselves. THAT seems completely relevant to me. So it is alright for all of you to have a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post some RELEVANT and TRUE information about themselves?
Dont Delete! This is completely relevant! Some people are researching information on the popularity of unknown teenage bands. The fact that DTF may not be as well known as some other bands does not mean that it does not have potential. DTF is worthy of a spot on the Wikipedia encyclopedia. There are many people interested, as you can see it has had a lot of viewers. I, myself, am a DTF fan. Please do not delete this page! It is gaining popularity to a wider range of people using Wikipedia by drawing attention to the encyclopedia. It is no harm to anybody!
Dont Delete! "What am I talking about?"...well, I am talking about the fact that you (for example Cyrius) would like DTF's page to be deleted because you find it to be irrelevant and for the purpose of self-promotion, yet you happen to have a page on wikipedia for yourself, describing yourself as "just some guy". Why should it be alright for you to post a page about yourself, but not alright for a new band to post a page about themselves? Personally, I do not have a problem with either.
Alright, sorry for my confusion. I still think that DTF should be allowed to keep this page, because they are a talented band that will make a name for themselves one day. I do not think that we should discriminate against bands because they are not as well-known as others. Every band has to start from somewhere.
I will restate the fact that DTF has signed a deal with British record label Delerium to promote their EP in the United States, Continental Europe and Israel, and they have taken it upon themselves to deal with domestic distribution. That in itself is indicative of success, no?
I would just like to say.....DTF rawks the kazbah. My name is Regina Felangi, and i am a very important business woman in the business world. I know when a band is going to make it big. Just this morning, while i was in board room A, I was discussing with my fellow workers, the potential that said band had. Wikipedia is not being harmed by this link, that is my business perspective.
Dont Delete!!!!! DTF is my favorite band! They have the hottest guys ever! Have you ever seen Jacob Fox? His last name is there for a reason. HE certainly is a Fox. A really fine one. I'm sure that if everyone on this forum saw him, they would immeadiately change their mind about deleting this. Did I mention that he is also an AMAZING lead guitarist? He is.Wow.
Dont Delete!!! I love Jacob too! Even more than her!
Dont Delete! But I must disagree with that other fan. Ben is definitely the hottest band member. Seriously. He is gorgeous. DTF for life!
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 transwiki and delete.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This belongs in WikiBooks or some other reference. P0per 00:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
This is a dictionary article about an idiom (one that Wiktionary had already had for a month, by the way — see smart aleck), not an encyclopaedia article about smart alecs. (This article was originally created as "smart alec".) It's difficult to see how one can have an (NPOV) encyclopaedia article about smart alecs, moreover; and no sensible place for a redirection to point to springs to mind. (If we had a biography of Alec Hoag, we could redirect there. But we haven't.) Uncle G 01:00, 2005 May 24 (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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what ought to be done with this article. Submitted to request community review on the notibility of this article. It is possible it is vanity, but then again it does seem to have a least some claim to merit. - SocratesJedi | Talk 01:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rarely used unit with an archaic SI prefix. Georgia guy 01:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Notability not established Samw 02:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:48, 7 Jun 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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 19:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Not noteworthy -- Sesame Street Live dancers are numerous -- it would be like listing everyone who has ever played Mickey Mouse. kmccoy (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just an acronym expansion, has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. — A.M. 03:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 in some form.
I count 1 "delete" vote, 6 "keep as redirect" to the band, 8 "keep as is" (one probable troll vote discounted) and 3 "keep as disambiguation page". The decision about what form to keep this article should now be moved to the article's Talk page.
I will, however, add my own vote. Reviewing the revised content, I consider this to still be a dictionary definition - that is, a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase. If this is not substantially expanded in a reasonable period of time, it may be reappropriate to renominate the page for deletion after updating the transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Megadeath page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Should this remaining page be deleted? Ryan Prior 03:26, May 24, 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 speedy delete per below. Closing the discussion.
Rossami
(talk) 22:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Current Revision Empty. Previous revision appears to be a vanity page with no notable substance. P0per 03:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
I count 7 "delete" to 9 "keep" and note that several people changed their votes following the expansion of the article. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - idle speculation, dicdef at best. FreplySpang (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Slang dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Cyrius| ✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Slang dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Definition also does not appear on urbandictionary.com, where one would expect such a word to reside. Cyrius| ✎ 04:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Minor gaming clan vanity, with no evidence that it's not a vanity article provided. Cyrius| ✎ 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. (One probable troll vote discounted)
Rossami
(talk) 22:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This place does not yet exist, and as such is inherently unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball -- Durin 04:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I say keep. Looks like something in the works. There are plans for the new world trade center - even links for people to be influenced and educated. the topic may seem trivial, but if its really underway, it merits an entry. Barrettmagic
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. —
Xezbeth 07:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be the author of one self-published book, probable vanity. The foundation he links to appears to exist only to publish the book. Very few hits on google: it's not clear whether or not this guy is even the internet's most popular "David Snyder, Ph.D." or "David N. Snyder". - Nat Kraus e 04:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Reads like it's entirely made up or may be from some fictional universe. DJ Clayworth 04:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 No Consensus -> Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Student newspaper for a school we don't have an article on. Rick K 04:32, May 24, 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. —
Xezbeth 07:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. He may be a prince, but he only has two Google hits, one to a guestbook and one a "website dedicated to reuniting Nigerian ex-schoolmates". Nothing to verify that he is a prince, and otherwise non-notable. Rick K 04:44, May 24, 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 move to a Wikiproject, then delete the subsequent redirect. This page will therefore be at a new location:
Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Ocean Animals.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 07:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article apparently started as a school project for the kids to learn how to write and cite sources (see teachers explanation) Duk 04:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Apparent vanity. -- Durin 04:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Apparent vanity. -- Durin 04:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. DJ Clayworth 05:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 12:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Although it's a nice tribute, I don't see why this is notable enough to include. Xcali 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 as merge.
Rossami
(talk) 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Plenty of things in the Star Wars universe are notable, but a battle maneuver? Firebug 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 1 "keep" vote (one very new user discounted) and 4 "keep as merge" votes (one probable troll discounted). Reviewing the article, I conclude that the content was in fact a fork from Islamophobia and find nothing that is appropriate to merge back. I also note that the article is an orphan.
On the principle that we should discourage the creation of forked articles that have the intent of pushing a particular point of view, I am going to exercise my discretion on this one and call it as a delete. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
POV fork. Firebug 05:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 remove content and redirect to
Western world.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Procedural nomination. This article had been listed for VfD earlier, when I speedied it as nonsense. The deletion was disputed. I have agreed to undelete and allow it a chance on VfD. SWAdair | Talk 02:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. "Gregory Kleciak" only gets one Google hit -- us. "Greg Kleciak" gets two hits -- non-notable ones (and his home page at http://wholenote.com/member/profile/profile.asp?i=25255 is empty). "Lame Ass Productions" gets 7 hits. No entry at imdb under Gregory or Greg. Rick K 06:12, May 24, 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.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Wolf530 06:16, May 24, 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 Redirect to
crucifixion since the content is already in that article.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 20:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Has been moved to Wiktionary already. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 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. —
Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Falls closest into the category of original research. But also unverifiable and not noteworthy, considering it's still an "idea" that clearly doesn't have any actual backing, plans, or really any information on what it actually is. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Wolf530 06:23, May 24, 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.
Sjakkalle
13:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Feel free to prove me wrong, but this seems like a vanity page. Are they notable? Wolf530 06:22, May 24, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Advertising, non-notable multi-level marketing company. Article creator Mrcolj ( talk · contribs) has linked to his "profile" page instead of the main page not only on this page, but also on Multi-level marketing and List of network marketing companies. Google shows that this person is supposedly the VP of the company. The company name itself returns 128 pages. Claims to be a matrix scheme, not a pyramid scheme. — Mar ka ci 2005-05-24 T 06:35 Z
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 to
List of minor Star Wars characters
CDC
(talk) 21:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5-word substub (one misspelled) for Star Warscruft minor character. Rick K 07:14, May 24, 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.
161.55.168.90 21:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: Because this discussion was closed by anon, the deletion log says that this article was in fact deleted at 21:23, 9 Jun 2005 by Cdc ( Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monssfisch). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it a joke or not? Is it notable or not? I don't know, but it sure looks shady. Eixo 07:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
CDC
(talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry Swedish Chef, but there's already an article on this; it's South Africa's Great Trek. Eixo 07:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
CDC
(talk) 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If anyone can make sense of this article, please explain it to the rest of us. -- Beland 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 but without prejudice if someone wants to move the content to Wiktionary.
Rossami
(talk) 03:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what the consensus supposedly is on names, since I see no consensus on the discussion of it, but it's been closed as having reached consensus. But this is not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 07:45, May 24, 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 - should be merged -
SimonP 13:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
User:Harro5 nominated the Gray article for speedy deletion. I disagree, even though the article is woefully stubby, Gossamer is a notable band with a large article. I think keep, merge or redirect but not delete. Sjakkalle 08:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep with a stub tag. If the band page is that long, then there must be a decent amount to say about each member too. Internodeuser 12:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Advertising. Website 942,551 on Alexa. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. The community was ultimately unable to
verify the alleged content.
Rossami
(talk) 03:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look, in the spirit of nicey-nicey week, here's a ref to Factitious disorder with psychological schizophrenia symptoms. [8] Unfortunately, the only reference to it on the entire Web is a single page referring to the Morrison, Doe and Decker case. -- The Anome 12:35, May 24, 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.
CDC
(talk) 01:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does not appear to be notable, judging from the article, his website, and a Google search. Sietse 10:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 was keep. Reasoning: There is no consensus to delete. The question is whether to keep or merge. Since the article now actually consists of two sections one about Discworld another about Maskerade, unrelated to each other, I am calling this an outright keep for the moment. This does not mean that it cannot be merged later if somebody wants to do some rework, splitting this article into two pieces and merging both of them.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 07:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK this is some sort of TV show that will be published in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so delete. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Sjakkalle
11:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Nonsense article. No relevance except to a tiny group having fun griff 12:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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: speedily deleted.
sjorford
→•← 22:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
nonsense entry. Delete. P0ppe 12:47, 2005 May 24 (according to history Uncle G 14:47, 2005 May 24 (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.
JeremyA 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 12:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 20:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Complete and utter vanity. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
JeremyA 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another contribution from User:Serapion/Mythrandia (?) who gave us Western civilzation (above). Given the creator's history, their note that 'This is of course purely hypothetical, and wrong in some ways, but hey--when it comes to biology--what isn't?' (see edit history), and that the concept draws a google-blank, I think we have reason to suspect this article's legitimacy -- Doc (t) 13:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
CDC
(talk) 01:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense, for the reasons described on the
talk page.
Physchim62
13:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Suggestion withdrawn. Internodeuser's references have been included in the article. Physchim62 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even if they are related, Wikipedia is not an advert for wikicities. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Most of the "delete" voters clearly expressed an opinion that a new entity can not generally be encyclopedia-worthy the day of its launch (or worse, the day prior) and that more time should be allowed before the decision is made to include it. The "keep" voters were less consistent in their reasoning. By strict vote-count, I count 20 "deletes", 20 "keep as is" (though ten of them had to be discounted as either anonymous or so new that they were indistinguishable from sockpuppets) and 6 "merge". Since the "merge" votes count as a variant of "keep", the decision to delete fails to meet the necessary concensus even though there is a clear majority (20 to 16) in favor of deletion. There is, however, an overwhelming concensus (26 to 10) that this should not remain as an independent article. Accordingly, I am going to call this one as a "merge and redirect". Relevant content has been merged with Kevin Rose per the recommendations below. (If anyone thinks I missed an important detail, you can view it in the page history and can merge it yourself.)
This decision should be considered binding until there is clear and convincing evidence that Systm is independently encyclopedia-worthy. That is usually taken to mean that the entity has been around long enough and has had enough general impact on society that a verifiable article of greater than stub length can be written and that the topic is widely enough known that we can expect the necessary critical mass of knowledgable reader/editors to keep the article neutral. Rossami (talk) 02:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A web videozine released tomorrow. Not encyclopedic. -- Longhair | Talk 11:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Scimitar
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fails the Wikipedia:Google test. Waxtal 02:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. At best should be moved to Wiktionary, but probably not. Kelly Martin 15:42, May 24, 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 article was Speedy deleted at 13:30, 25 May 2005 by
Charles Matthews (nonsense).
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More odd, incoherent stuff by author of Sean ng ( VfD). Delete unless verified and completely rewritten. jni 15:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, prank/bs, neologism, original research, autobiography, whatever. Zero hits. Niteowlneils 16:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a vanity page Xcali 16:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. The article has since been re-written.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 02:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page has been sitting on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English since May 14. As with similar articles, there seems little point in giving it the full fourteen days on PNTE. Physchim62 17:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
*Delete, if it's been sitting that long, chances are no one's going to touch it. Looks like someone translated it. Can we resolve this issue now?--
Mitsukai
16:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
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
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another page from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English which looks unsavable. Physchim62 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is a list of names, with no explanation or context (even to say what a pan-Turkist is) Simon Cursitor 17:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 - by my count, all but one keep vote is by a pretty obvious sockpuppet.
CDC
(talk) 19:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity article on an opera singer that I can't seem to find any recordings by. Allmusic hasn't heard of him. Likewise google cannot confirm any of the claims made in this article, including the song he wrote or his connection to "Ask the Rabbi". If reliable sources can be found for all this infromation I could change my vote here. - R. fiend 17:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Cantor Victor Beck 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)===Discussion=== Let's set the record straight shall we? 1) This is not a vanity article. I didn't even know that it existed till someone sent me the url to see it. 2) I've just opened an account here for the first time a few minutes ago. 3) If you really intend to do research, then you need to expand your horizons beyond the confines of Google. For example, you might try checking with the U.S. Library of Congress. There you would find copies of all the original music that I have written, plus all of my recordings. You would also find Airchecks (recordings) of all the "ASK THE RABBI" radio shows. All of this material was submitted to the Library of Congress for Copywrite protection. The Library of Congress accepted, and Copywrites were issued for all of the materials I submitted. You could also check the archives of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for my song "NEVER FORGET ME". You will find not only the music, but my recording done with a 40 piece orchestra, as well as the story of how the song came to be written. I am afraid that if you validate the world around you only by what you can find on Google, then you are doing yourself a great dis-service. reply
Please Note that I will not presume to enter a vote.
-- Cantor Victor Beck 20:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Cantor Victor I. Beck reply
As you say, it is quite a coincidence, especially since I do not live in N.Y.C. nor do I have a dial up service. I do however have Verizon. That is where it ends. And as far as the good doctor is concerned, 1) my weight is non of his concern, and shall we assume by his snide remark that he is physically PERFECT? We know that his character is not.-- Cantor Victor Beck 21:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
As I recall, Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck voted "Keep" in the same hysterical manner as all the other sockpuppets in the Very Reverend Cantor Lawrence Eliezer Képecs VfD. Was that a different Reverend Cantor? Was he lying when he signed as you, O Most Highly Notable Very Good Singer Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck? Or are you lying now when you say that you "just opened an account here for the first time a few minutes ago"? As I recall, I went to the Very Reverend Cantor Beck's website and got his email address and phone number, which I posted in the VfD discussion there. It should be a very small matter to go get that information once again, and this time to actually call the Most Highly Reverend Cantor and see what he has to say about this whole thing in person. I'm disgusted and appalled at the level of chutzpa you exhibit, O Dear High and Mighty Sockpuppet Maestro, and I suspect he would be as well. Tomer TALK 00:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Let's again set the record straight and this is the final time that I will demean myself to stoop to your level. 1) I DO NOT LIE. NOT FOR YOU OR FOR ANYONE ELSE, AND CONSIDERING THAT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ME YOU HAVE INCREADABLE GAUL TO MAKE SUCH AN ACCUSATION 2) You demonstrate the level of your ability and the value of your judgement regarding being an editor by the way that you attack and threaten me with your personal attacks on my privacy. You dare to blackmail me by threatening to publish my home contact information? If this is the kind of action that is condoned on Wikipedia then I think the world should be so informed of the lack of integrity in this online publication and it's editors. You are a disgrace to the publication and any honest people who may be involved. I can also assure you that I do not take kindly to threats and any actions will be dealt with in a definitive, strong, and forthright manner. Now would be the appropriate time for you to try and prove that you are not a sniveling coward hiding behind your screen image and offer a proper apology. -- Cantor Victor Beck 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
All of you negative people who claim to be editors, are just too damn full of yourselves. What gives you the right to talk about somebody like this? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Did you ever hear of the adage, if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all? From what it looks like, I'll guess not. Please note that I'm not voting. (unsigned comment by 64.12.116.134)
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only Google hit this gets is a website that uses the text of this article and nothing else to describe this "character". The farfetched "Obius the Awesome" nickname, coupled with the fact that there is no official mention of Yoda ever having a Master that anyone knows of, is proof enough that the creator of this article made this up himself. Nufy8 17:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Author vanity about a non-notable book. Who said "this book fills a much needed gap" ? The article comes with a portrait/bio as a companion: Image:Gar in blue.jpg Rl 18:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 no consensus to delete, but there is a consensus to discard the content. Therefore redirect to
Scholar's Mate.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The entire article text is: "Blitzkrieg (German for "lightning war") is a chess strategy in which a player can win the game in four moves." The article is completely bogus. There are 4-move checkmates, but they aren't strategies, just blunders by the losing side. Blitzkrieg is a German word with the meaning given, but it isn't the name of any chess strategy. There is no useful content that can be put at Blitzkrieg (chess strategy) because that term does not exist and it names no concept in chess. Quale 18:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A group of people having fun. Good for them! But not a notable enough group to deserve a full article Sarg 18:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 08:37, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, inflammitory, vanity. InShaneee 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Originally submitted by User:Internodeuser -- Longhair | Talk 19:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this page should be deleted, as it gives a balanced view to respond to severe inaccuracies in the Port Arthur Massacre and Martin Bryant pages. Unfortunately, the spam filter has removed the ability to use the references that were originally used. Look at the last history section before Tannin's edit, and you will see them all there. [23] Repeated requests for these references to be removed from the spam filter have fallen on deaf ears. This is the final response to attempts to hijack and sabotage pages, and deleting it would mean that personal attacks, vandalism and destruction of the integrity of Wikipedia would be seen as a good idea. Internodeuser 15:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
I count 11 "deletes", 6 "keeps" (2 very new users discounted), 2 commenters who did not express a clear opinion and one "merge". The merge recommendation was generally rejected as an inappropriate target. No alternate target was suggested.
Right around the start of the dicussion, the content and title were changed significantly. However, votes against the article continued after the revisions and none of the early "delete" voters returned to change their votes leading me to conclude that they were unconvinced by the changes.
Looking carefully at the current content, I see an orphaned article which appears to me to be expressing opinions about topics already well covered (and better sourced) in other articles. The content is internally inconsistent. Since the VfD discussion, the article has been neglected. I am going to add my own opinion to the decision and call this (barely) a "delete" decision but without prejudice against the re-creation of the article in a more coherent format. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Inherently POV, un-encyclopedic, original research Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-Goodoldpolonius2: I don't know about that, and if it has no new information, fine, but we shouldn't be deleting it into "unencyclopedic" or POV, that would be inconsistent with the deletion policy-- Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-Comment:Jayjg I both missed your point, and was editing under tnzkai for a while. Please explain on my talk page.-- Tznkai 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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) 03:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I almost speedied this, but since there was some controversy concerning this article I brought it here. It has no text and is just a bunch of red links which will never be written. Broken Segue 20:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. Carried out at 20:53, 15 Jun 2005 by
user:Danny who didn't close the discussion.
Rossami
(talk) 03:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another cantor vanity article, much like Victor Beck and the deleted Eliezer Kepecs. No real accomplishments except a few mentions in a couple minor publications. 17 googles, none of which establish notability. - R. fiend 20:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 article was speedy deleted at 20:53, 24 May 2005 by
Rich Farmbrough.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be a vanity article. In any case, not notible. -
SocratesJedi |
Talk
20:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Apparently someone speedily deleted this article. Withdrawn in that case. - SocratesJedi | Talk 21:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 No consensus -> Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 21:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Caiman is a very, very minor character in Star Fox 64 and doesn't need a whole article on him. Thunderbrand 20:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
(please do not edit this section)
Do NOT delete the article! Wikipedia's Star Fox section is already poor enough. I am on a campaign to add to all of the Star Fox Articles and make it complete. Although Caiman is a minor character he deserves a place on Wikipedia. 69.205.228.93 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Unnamed StarFox Fan reply
The problem is that there is not enough secondary characters in StarFox to have a "secondary characters" page. PLEASE don't delete it! 69.205.228.93 21:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Caiman is a pretty cool guy... kind of. I agree that it should be put in a minor Star Fox Characters article, but there just isn't many minor characters in Star Fox 64, so I think it should be kept. 69.205.231.249 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) -Wandering Cleric of sorts 69.205.231.249 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 14:01, Jun 6, 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 I guess this was merged and then speedied, though I'm closing this discussion anyway. —
Xezbeth 14:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of the Wikipedia name space. And what's up with that categorization at the top of the page? Rick K 21:40, May 24, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zero relevant displayed hits. Unverifiable unless someone can dig something up. Niteowlneils 21:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Human creativity warms my little heart. I mean imagine someone making up a word, then taking the time to define it and put it on the Wikipedia. And then they take the time to write a pronunciation guide, and use it in a sentence. I don't know why anyone would want to delete it.</sarcasm> Oh wait, yes I do: It's a hoax and vandalism and it's a good thing I read it before transwikiing it (as it had been tagged by two separate editors). Delete it quickly and ruthlessly. -- Dmcdevit 21:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Article does not indicate notability. Thue | talk 21:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 14:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Thue | talk 21:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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 deleted.
sjorford
→•←
08:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Vanity, original research. Delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:16, 2005 May 24 (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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 06:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unreleased game. Probably not notable yet as it only gets one google hit. Thue | talk 22:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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. —
Xezbeth 07:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Forumcruft. 16 unique Google hits. Rick K 22:38, May 24, 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.
Information Technology Audit - Regulation has been merged to
Information Technology Audit.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"THIS PAGE WILL BE ACTIVE BY JUNE 6, 2005". Well, maybe. In the meantime, odd categorization. The User seems to be trying to use Wikipedia for their own purposes. Information Technology Audit is mainly nothing but a collection of red links which the Uer is planning on expanding, apparently. Rick K 22:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
www.demos.com.uk. It is the best view of the audit problem.
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.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 05:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More non-notability by the same editor who brought us Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, Ofer Barnoy and Victor Beck. Rick K 23:01, May 24, 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. —
Xezbeth 07:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Advertising or advocacy, or both. Article does not establish notability. Rick K 23:28, May 24, 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 speedied. —
Xezbeth 07:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Political vanity. Four google hits, none of which seem to be about this group. Unverifiable. -- EvilZak 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply
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, move to
Samuel Slocum.
CDC
(talk) 20:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does not seem notable - 35 google hits for ["Sam Slocum" paper], a lot of which are from Wikipedia forks. – ugen64 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply