This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 based on evidence that it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. --
Michael Snow
21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This article appears to be a hoax. Google brings up zero hits for "Fortress Blakely". Villa Tuscana in British Columbia does no better. The NASA projects that were supposedly based there don't seem to have existed. The ISBN number of one reference actually belongs to a wholely unrelated book. All in all, I see no reason to think that this place exists, despite this detailed history. I've left a note on the only editor's talk page asking for sources. Willmcw 07:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
The Fortress_Blakeley#World_War_II sections is especially droll. It's prefaced by, "Nothing much happened at this time." Then it goes on to say how 753 Jewish refugees from the Philippines were personally saved and housed by Howard Blakeley on his estate, who also had time to help on the construction of the atom bomb. That's not to mention the island's fortifications, including "3,000 soldiers ... under the command of the Blakeley family." One of history's most overlooked heroes or a detailed fantasy. - Willmcw 09:02, May 25, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Entire article reads "Washington Gladden was a pastor in Ohio during the Social Gospel movement." Not enough evidence of notability. -- Lee Hunter 00:06, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Another group of wannabe noisemakers that came and went without leaving much of a trace. 5 google hits on 4 websites, nothing on allmusic.com. OK, so it's (barely) verifiable that someone made some music under that name--So? Niteowlneils 00:14, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This appears to be a vanity page Shoaler 00:18, 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 move to
ableism
CDC
(talk) 04:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Misspelled dicdef. Move to Wiktionary as "ableism" and delete. Denni ☯ 00:22, 2005 May 25 (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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Entirely non-notable. Denni ☯ 00:26, 2005 May 25 (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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
One half-sentence on an actress with no info on what she has done, or even what period she might have done it in! Harro5 00:27, May 25, 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, and redirect to
Seventh-generation era. -
Mailer Diablo
22:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
No such era exists and it's ridiculous (laughable is actually a better word) to state it's the "512-bit" era because a system has 512MB of RAM. Anything that isn't incorrect, speculation, POV, etc is already at Seventh-generation era which this appears to be a fork of. K1Bond007 00:38, May 25, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
I'm not the biggest Star Wars geek in the world, I haven't heard of this, and neither has Google. Nothing links to it internally, and this is the sole contribution of an anon. I suspect a hoax or vandalism. Delete Rlandmann 00:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete This is not real -- M412k 01:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
(comment by 80.132.74.149)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was settlement via WP:CP (copyvio). -
Mailer Diablo
22:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This is not an article, it's just a narrative. However, I can't tell if it can be turned into an article or not. M412k 01:45, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Tagged for speedy deletion, bringing it here because it gets 49,300 google hits [2], possibly not all on topic. Kappa 01:14, 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.
Rossami
(talk) 03:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable chess program. The fact that it's Greek and written in Java are uncommon, but the stub is over a year old and although only a two sentences long, it seems to have little possibility of expansion. The provided link ( [3]) seems dead tonight, although google cached it last month. The google cached Pyotr Chess Engine Frequently Asked Questions shows that the FAQ was last updated in December 2001. One highly respected partial list of chess engines provided by Tim Mann includes 176 engines. Although the list is arranged alphabetically and not by importance, Pyotr is number 132 on that list which is probably not too far away from where it ranks in notability. Quale 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notible. Delete. - SocratesJedi | Talk 02:03, 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
CDC
(talk) 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ad sort of thing. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:08, May 25, 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, request by creator.
Thue |
talk
21:20, 26 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 delete upon author's request. -
Mailer Diablo
22:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This article is likely nonsense. Kelly Martin 03:05, May 25, 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) 21:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic and original research. This page may also have been already deleted yesterday. Delete
JeremyA
03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
The page was not deleted merely modified to make it more encyclopedic.Leave[[User:Aldreds|Scot Aldred]
Delete non-encyclopedic Bgeer 16:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this comment. While I agree that this is original work from my students it is in no way a copyright violation and the suggestion that this is the case is insulting and defamitory. I would also like to draw this person's attention to the following rules of Wikipedia which appear to have been ignored on the Wikipedia link he has included to his wikipedia home page:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect.
CDC
(talk) 21:23, 1 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 no consensus (default KEEP)
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement on the back of a book jacket. Xcali 03:15, 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 no consensus (default KEEP)
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It goes against Wikipedia Official Policy stated in WP:WIN. drini ☎ 05:56, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An "up-and-coming" photographer, doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO at this time. 17 google hits [5]. Kappa 06:38, 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 keep. —
Xezbeth 12:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
this rapper is not notable and his annoying wiki edits are ruining our great encyclopedia. F White Dawg 18:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sup, BrowardPlaya? How does it feel to be up for deletion AGAIN? HAHAHAHAHA.... we're gonna keep putting this up until you get taken down. You have to win every time, and we only have to win once. That Bentley ain't yours. You ain't from no Westside. And you sure as hell have no right to call yourself a "nigga." Someone's gotta slap the teeth out your mouth, FOOL. I vote DELETE! Also I eat cock. TRU THUG 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DELETE. This page has no business being on an encyclopedia. Keeping it up makes wikipedia look like a JOKE! Fan of REAL Hip-Hop 18:16, 14 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.
While I respect Jerzy's concerns, most of the early voters did not cite the copyvio as the dominant reason for deletion. They argued that this was "vanity" which, however prejudicial you consider that word, is the normal shorthand used here for an article about a person which is either auto-biographical or unverifiable. I find that there is concensus to delete this from the main article space on that basis.
Noting that there is an associated user who appears to be the same person, I am going to offer to move this to his user page. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nom & Del vote: This police chief of a population-55,000 city has no higher apparent distinction than that. User:Rdoscherca (R Doscher of Califonia?) has resolving copyvio concerns via EMail by stating he is both the author and subject. His baliwick is about one 5-thousandth of the US population, and where i come from, chiefs are considered professionals whose training must be up to snuff but who exercise less significant policy-making discretion than the elected officials on zoning commissions. If he's one of the few who use the position as a rung on a political ladder, he may later become notable, but he's not now. WP:BIO#People still alive seems to establish non-notability. -- Jerzy~ t 07:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a copyvio from http://www.ycpd.org/index.cfm?navid=1023. I would have thought that something from the Yuba City Police Department would be public domain, but it says at the bottom of the page "© 2003 Yuba City Police Department, All Rights Reserved". Listed on Copyright problems. Rick K 22:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Now on CopyVio
Those who are following this page without following the article have been left without what would seem to be the required notice that the VfD notice has been removed there, and a CopyVio notice put in its place. While my judgement is that the Chief's claim to exercise the copyright holder's power to put this text under VfD should be assumed valid in the absence of contrary evidence that has not been offered, there is IMO no reason not to let this play out on the Copyright problems page; AFAIK it will just come back here in due time, if Rick turns out to be mistaken.
--
Jerzy·
t
07:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
User:Rdoscherca has convinced me that he is the subject of the article and also the Yuba City PD's webmaster. Therefore he seems to be of sufficient authority to release the article and the image to the GFDL, and I have reverted the copyvio boilerplate. Rick K 04:33, Jun 3, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
I'm an Australian, and would usually defend anything written about the great land down under, but this is just plain pointless. Harro5 07:44, May 25, 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) 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Credibility gap. The Duchy of Windsor may be technically vacant, but a grant of this sort would have been world-famous. Vanity (and petit treason) -- throttle Simon Cursitor 07:55, 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 already deleted.
CDC
(talk) 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another gentleman with a lower-cased surname. Also with little or nothing other than vanity in his entry. Delete Simon Cursitor 08:03, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's already an entry on Wiktionary, and the bit on confusion between "thank you" and "trash" notwithstanding, there's not much that you can really expand on this one. Delete. -- KeithH 08:06, 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 move/redirect (already done).
CDC
(talk) 21:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A new article has been created, by the name of
List of airports in Norway. This new article:
1) has the standard namespace (see
List of airports)
2) is better structured, and more extensive
There is no need for two articles on the same subject.
List of Norwegian airports contains no information missing on
List of airports in Norway, so no merge will be necessary, it should simply be made into a redirect.
Eixo
08:29, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
probable nonsense - no Google hits [6] AYArktos 08:48, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Appears to be the etymology of someone's name. -- W( t) 08:52, 2005 May 25 (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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
As explained on its talk page, Is this a joke? Many of these "names" are rarely used as names nor are they real Vietnamese words. The pronunciation for those that are names are often wrong. In an effort to use Vietnamese spellings, the author used dubious characters that are never used in Vietnamese. This is so hopelessly inaccurate ... A Vietnamese Wikipedia sysop.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to
Albury, New South Wales.
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While the information is facturally accurate and verifiable, it is trivial and adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge. If one travels along Borella Road as I have, one will observe takeaways, the hospital, the airport, but so what - not notable: Delete. AYArktos 09:17, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- W( t) 09:32, 2005 May 25 (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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be more an online CV than an encyclopedia article. Looks like autobiography / advertising / self-promotion. -- The Anome 09:33, May 25, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- W( t) 10:07, 2005 May 25 (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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:38, 5 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 all.
CDC
(talk) 21:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The idea behind this is to have a system similar to WP:FAC, to determine when an article is 'half-decent' and label it as such. This system has not been advertised, discussed or even used, and frankly I fail to see the point. Is it by itself half-decent? I don't think we should bother archiving this since it isn't even a failed proposal. R adiant _* 10:13, May 25, 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) 21:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Failed speedy candidate. <1000 Google hits for 'Golden Throw', none relevant to this article. Apparently the 'premier sport' in the area, which you would expect to leave a lot of media references on the web. Probably completely fake, delete Kiand 10:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Does wikisource want this? By Byron, apparently. -- W( t) 10:27, 2005 May 25 (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
Symbionese Liberation Army
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Russell Little is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately dealt with on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:38, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need articles on the board members of all mensa chapters. -- W( t) 10:45, 2005 May 25 (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.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were almost exactly evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one has not been expanded beyond this two-line stub after almost 3 years as an article), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
James Kilgore is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately described on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:55, 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 keep.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Only four of the 11 voters argued to "keep as is". Many argued to "keep as merge or redirect". After reviewing both articles, I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Michael Bortin is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately described on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:59, 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 keep.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Only 5 of the 12 voters argued to "keep as is". Many others argued to "keep as merge or redirect". After reviewing both articles, I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Steven Soliah is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 11:10, 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 keep.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were almost exactly evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one has not been expanded beyond this three-line stub after 3 years as an article), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Content has not been deleted because it can be recovered from page history by any future reader/editor. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Willie Wolf is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 11:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
keep A biography was written about him: An American Journey: the Short Life of Willy Wolfe, by Max Eastman and published by Simon and Schuster in 1979. Ydorb 14:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Why is this a red link? I'm not going to vote on every one of these, but I do hereby declare my vote of merge and redirect for all of them. Rick K 22:37, May 25, 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.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were about evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one was not expanded during most of its 3 years as an article and that the recent expansion consisted of the addition of trivia which I would not anticipate to survive the normal edit process), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded with relevant and verifiable information to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Patricia Soltysik is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page An An 11:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
keep or at least merge, it contains information not on the SLA page Ydorb 14:45, May 25, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef + etymology = transwiki. Dicdef + already in Wiktionary = delete. R adiant _* 11:03, May 25, 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
CDC
(talk) 21:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef, already in wiktionary. It is rather lengthy but it really only deals with the usage of this oft-Canadian interjection. Not encyclopedic, eh? R adiant _* 11:02, May 25, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While I did find it rather funny, I also found it an arbitrary and unencyclopedic list. R adiant _* 11:05, May 25, 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 (no consensus).
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, this contains such marvels as "the, it, that, I". But it's really an arbitrary and pointless list. No sources are cited, and the Finnish one isn't even complete. R adiant _* 11:18, May 25, 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; however, since
Camilla Hall didn't have a VfD tag, it will be renominated. --
cesarb 02:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They are not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page An An 11:24, 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 --
cesarb 02:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Local cab company, not notable. -- W( t) 11:26, 2005 May 25 (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 No consensus, so keep.
Death
phoenix 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This standalone article is practically a stub, original research, term invented/used only by Mike Ossipoff Whig 12:32, 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 Keep.
Death
phoenix 21:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This standalone article is original research, excessively technical, term invented/used only by Mike Ossipoff Whig 12:38, 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 --
cesarb 00:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I have figured this out correctly it is a list of people who have tithed in Headley. As this is probably primary source material it is probably not a copyvio, even though it is a replica of this. If this is a copyvio however, delete as a copyvio, if this is not a copyvio either transwiki to Wikisource or delete. I have serious trouble figuring out a possible use for this at Wikisource, so I doubt that a transwiki is really needed. Sjakkalle 12:43, 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 --
cesarb 01:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystall-ball. Not even the title is known yet. delete - JiFish 12:50, 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 - deleted -
SimonP 21:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
A lengthy bit of original research of some sort. Might maybe belong on WikiSource. Kelly Martin 12:57, May 25, 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
(Check!) 09:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Stub, possibly non-notable Whig 13:25, 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 --
cesarb 01:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The term is a neologism, and the page is clearly an advertisement for a website. Kelly Martin 13:35, May 25, 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 16:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Incomplete VfD nomination, couldn't find the source article. R adiant _* 14:35, May 25, 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 16:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax created by a student of Trinity College, Dublin. Or am I missing something? Delete. Lupo 13:40, 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 - Merge -
SimonP 21:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to deserve its own page. Has adequate information on the Majora's Mask page, and I personally doubt anyone would search for Fierce Deity's Mask, so no reason to merge or redirect. -- A Link to the Past 14:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Phred Levi 23:14, 6 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 Keep.
Death
phoenix 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Author removed the VfD notice so this nomination never ran its' course. Originally submitted by TonyW -- Longhair | Talk 14:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Lisa Donahue was a contestant on the reality TV show Big Brother (USA), and as such has no other claim to fame. With that in mind, it's not worth having as an encyclopedic entry. - TonyW 00:38, Sep 4, 2004 (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 as Merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:33, May 25, 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 as merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:33, May 25, 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 as Merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:34, May 25, 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 as Merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and since he has a minor role in more than one game, a redirect or merge would not work well. -- A Link to the Past 14:44, May 25, 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 ambiguous.
I count 8 clear "delete" votes, 5 "keep" votes (one probable sockpuppet discounted) and 2 votes that were too ambiguous to call. The debate became very heated and appears to have focused on the content of the article overlooking the original reason for nomination - that the content is more dictionary-ish than encyclopedic.
I do note that an introduction to the article was created late in the discussion period. Votes continued to be mixed after the addition of the introduction. In my judgment, the introduction was insuffient to convince the majority to change their votes and retain the list as an encyclopedia article.
In general, "list of ABC slang" articles have been deemed necessary evils - ways of discouraging the endless re-creation of dictionary entries. Military slang is a good example. The topics were deleted, moved to Wiktionary and deleted again. The community concensus was clearly and repeatedly expressed that these terms belonged in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Yet they were being constantly re-created by new users in ignorance of prior decisions. By centralizing the terms in a single list, we believed that we were containing the policy violations somewhat and providing a way for new users to gently learn that Wiktionary is a better recipient for these contributions.
So far, no evidence has been presented that the topic of Singapore sexual slang will receive the same volume of editors nor that this topic will be endlessly re-created by new users if it is moved to Wiktionary. In fact, the evidence presented makes the opposite case very convincingly. Accordingly, I am going to exercise my discretion and call this decision as a "move to Wiktionary".
I'll further note that based on a spot check of the terms listed, they appear to already have been moved into Wiktionary. Since there appears to be nothing left to transwiki, I will execute the last step of the process and delete this left-over. Warning: I have not checked every term listed. If someone needs or wants a copy of the list in order to do that verification, please contact any admin. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it goes against Wikipedia official policy drini ☎ 15:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these words and phrases are NOT protologisms (as defined by Wikipedia), which Uncle G has implied. The traditional slang words have been in use for centuries (if not millenia in the case of the Chinese dialects) and the ones coined in the new entity called Singlish have been around for decades.
An analogous case in point: take the English slang words 'fuck', 'shit' and 'cunt'. Before the 1950's, say, one would be hard put to find such entries in any respectable English dictionary, comprehensive or otherwise. This does not mean that these words were ' protologisms'. They had been in use for over a century if not more. The same applies to the words I have listed. The fact that you cannot find some of this information anywhere in the virtual or real world demonstrates a salient aspect of Asian culture. We put on a smiling obsequious face while locking our dirty linen firmly in the closet. My aim is to bring out that dirty linen and subject it to academic scrutiny...and let outsiders have a sniff too.
Let me quote from Wikipedia's original research policy: 'In some cases, where an article makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events).' The latter description fits my list to a T.
It is not appropriate as Uncle G suggested to update the 'steam' entry in the English dictionary because Singlish is just not English. Moreover, there is no entry called 'burung' at the moment, and to create one out of the blue with no categorisation or context would be meaningless. Groyn88 15:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply
And Wikipedia is a place that is not meant for such crude terms. If all the sexual slangs from every language in the world are to be listed, I feel that wikipedia will become a cheap-skit encyclopedia if this goes on. Wikipedia knows it well: Writing such obscene terms are banned from Wikipedia; and even the official wikipedia policy agrees to my viewpoint.
Let's come down to the social factor; does the world leaders ever use such obscene terms? I believe that they never do such sinful things that go against the will of god. And wikipedia is a high-class encyclopedia that will and always defend itself against such sins.
Mr Tan 17:24, 11 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 --
cesarb 01:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non standard name, non-encyclopedic Proto 15:30, 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 keep --
cesarb 01:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is non-encyclopedic and is of extremely poor quality. Bgeer 15:40, 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 --
cesarb 01:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Full text: "Lim Tak Wah is born in 1940. He owns a company called LTW Holdings Sdn Bhd." and "LTW Holdings Sdn Bhd is a paper printing company. It was founded by Lim Tak Wah in 1972". No attempt to establish notability. Rl 15:53, 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 --
cesarb 01:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:55, 2005 May 25 (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 --
cesarb 01:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The activity by several editors suggests these are real. However, I can't verify anything about it. Neither about the series nor about either character. Rl 16:01, 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 --
cesarb 01:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
promotional JoJan 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Geogre 19:18, 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.
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης) 13:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why is this on VFD? -- 84.9.103.212 22:41, 21 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 --
cesarb 01:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some 600,000 Google hits, but less than 1 ‰ mention Cedarhurst. Besides the bad name, the article provides very little information, let alone any facts that might establish notability. Rl 16:20, 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 speedy deleted as a recreation.
Sjakkalle
07:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This article is non-encyclopedic FliiP 16:23, 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 keep --
cesarb 01:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Advert. - SocratesJedi | Talk 16:48, 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 --
cesarb 01:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A violation of just about all conventions. The beginning makes it clear that it's just a soapbox for a relatively little-known advocacy group: "On March 6, 1996, David R. Morgan, the National President of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms presented The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946 - 1985 to enumerate those world events wherein the imminent use of nuclear weapons was either threatened or implied." 172 16:58, 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 keep. (2 delete, 3 keep -> No consensus -> Keep)
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 14:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Her IMDB entry only lists a couple of minor roles. Also, I cannot find any other relevant Google hits to verify that she is noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:42, 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 --
cesarb 01:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. Mindmatrix 18:02, 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 keep.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 09:15, 3 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 --
cesarb 01:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Vcodec claims to be a revolutionary codec, but only installs maliscious spyware. Avoid installing." I cannot verify that. The rest of the text is copyvioish, but might just pass (basically a feature list). The claims made are rather strong, especially given that zero evidence is provided. Rl 18:24, 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 --
cesarb 01:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
College student's vanity page. -- Michael Snow 18:25, 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 --
cesarb 01:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity. Rl 18:49, 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 --
cesarb 01:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
dicdef at best. Alai 18:49, 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 - should be merged -
SimonP 22:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
The title is POV itself, and I don't think the article has any hope of being neutral. The article tries to say that some cultures are primitive or uncivilized while others, according to the criteria mentioned in the article, are civilized. This, at least to me, is very POV. Delete. Revolución 18:49, 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.
Joyous 01:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page makes no sense. A prep school student is highly unlikely to have published everything claimed here. I'd call this a very poorly written vanity page. Xcali 18:55, 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 Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
VfD added to article by User:Happyfeet10 on May 8, but never listed on VfD. (I'm just completing the listing and abstaining from vote) Brighterorange 19:17, 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. While this could be appropriate content for a user page, no signed in user stepped forward to claim it. If you later decide that you do want this for you user page, please contact any administrator.
Rossami
(talk) 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity grendel| khan 19:47, 2005 May 25 (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. --
DropDeadGorgias
(talk) 21:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Likely vanity. Google gives no hits for "Pentagon Moneyhouse". If he is a budding star, the bud must be very small. If it ever blooms, maybe the page could be added then. Xcali 20:18, 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 - no consensus -
SimonP 22:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Stagecoach Group is a big company, it rightly has its own article, and it has many regional activities - but do we really need an article on each region? Particularly when most of its info is bus routes? -- Doc (?) 20:24, 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 redirect.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excellent article title, and not to be confused with Daughter in the box. Not in itself a poor article, but the problem is that all the information including the links appears - and makes a lot more sense - in the article on B. F. Skinner, where it is in context. There's nothing to be merged, and who on earth is going to search Wikipedia for 'Daughter in a box'? I say delete it.- Ashley Pomeroy 20:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, I found the page whilst searching for Living in a Box, the late-80s pop group who had a big hit with a song called 'Living in a Box'.- Ashley Pomeroy 09:49, 26 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?) 01:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
disambig page - but since we have no articles on any Katie Jones this is unneccessary -- Doc (?) 20:47, 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 this article was deleted at 18:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) by
Duk for being a {{
copyvio}}.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 12:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Likely vanity. Xcali 20:51, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Or unverifiable, and/or prank fiction. Zero hits for "32 universes" duncan. Niteowlneils 21:18, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A concept from a site that was only set up a couple of days ago. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 21:26, May 25, 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 21:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, creative-writing, joke, whatever. Zero relevant hits for "Eric Elliot" neutron or "Eric Elliot" Leominster. Niteowlneils 21:32, 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. —
Xezbeth 16:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
No notable accomplishments. Vanity. Xcali 21:40, 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 keep page as rewritten about composer.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uses picture of Reese Witherspoon instead of article subject. Was created after a previous attempt at advertising. Unfortunately, this has more meat to it, but it's still an advertisement. Delete. Mgm| (talk) 21:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
The non-noteworthy person was replaced by the famous televison composer of the same name. -- Spotteddogsdotorg 04:10, 6 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 speedy delete. (
MacGyverMagic did it, but
Smoddy is closing the discussion).
22:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is a completely un-wiki article, and is POV right from the title. It is no more than a mere collection of external links, and, as such, should be deleted. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:02, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 07:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a high school marching band. Not even a stub. Delete DS1953 22:17, 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 keep.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 09:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
" Stagecoach Group is a big company, it rightly has its own article, and it has many regional activities - but do we really need an article on each region?" This article already existed, but the same logic applies to this as the ones currently being created. All of the info can be found at the external link. Sonic Mew 22:27, May 25, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 07:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: Until
BaronLarf
JYolkowski reformatted this listing a few minutes ago it had no link to the article and there was no indication what it was a vote on. Most people didn't even realise it was distinct from the VfD before it. I'm moving this to the May 25 listings to give us a chance to discuss it. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk
22:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable. Stellertony the Bookcrosser 07:15, 16 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?) 01:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a hoax. Smells like a hoax. Lack of Google hits like a hoax. Delete like a hoax. Cyrius| ✎ 22:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep.
Vanity. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oceanographer and Kils. Rick K 23:15, May 25, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 07:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Teen-age vanity Frjwoolley 23:24, 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 Not enough votes to form consensus → Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 16:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another imaginary music genre, a combination of Death metal and Hardcore punk. Only one page links here, a band which is specifying this isn't it's genre.— Wahoofive ( talk) 00:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this page once more for a multitude of reasons.
For one, the last nomination was two years ago, and no one frequented the page enough to even care about discussion.
My reasons are simple: the article fails on every aspect of WP:MUSIC. The bands listed as deathcore are confirmed to be other genres (most of them are death metal) and are listed as such on Wikipedia and every major source. The genre is simply not notable. Also, the sources listed are mainly unreliable (myspace, Amazon, "deathcore-is-sexy.blogspot, Metal Archives, etc.). The few that are reliable make a passing mention of the genre or none at all. The strongest of them that I saw was a review of Dying Fetus, which pertained to bands ripping of the sound of Dying Fetus as part of a "deathcore" fad. The funny thing is that there is an extensive review of the band's genre on their discussion page, and deathcore is never mentioned..
I think this should be fairly straightforward. -- Wick3dd 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If we are going to keep, then the article needs bands which are actually considered deathcore. So far, we have none. This article is over two years old, yet no one still considers it legitimate enough to add it in genre boxes.-- Wick3dd 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for real sources, however those really do not do much for us. One is ascertaining that the band has been lumped into this recent fad, another is a death metal band claiming to be "deathcore". On Wikipedia it is already established that a band is not a reliable source on their genre. Also, the pop matters page cals bands that must be completely underground for lack of information, deathcore. Most of the bands that we actually know (Despised Icon for one) are death metal, and can be cited to the teeth as such. All I am saying is that deathcore seems to be another sub-genre of a sub-genre labeling fad, and if we are going to keep this article, we have to make note of that. Most of these bands are arguably death metal with hardcore influences. -- Wick3dd 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The last argument may be valid, but hits on google? What needs to be done in order to keep this article is to prove it is notable. That is my main argument. Any band listed as "deathcore" is usually listed (and sourced to the teeth) as death metal. If we keep this article, it cannot remain as it is. The controversial nature of the genre must be addressed, because put quite simply, there is not enough information on the genre to make it a factual document. -- Wick3dd 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No offense taken. Forgive me if I came off condescending. You will notice above, that I gave many suggestions if we do keep it. I simply saw this article, saw the terrible sourcing and listing of death metal bands as deathcore, and figured hey this doesn't need to be here. I did not go through the deletion process on purpose, though I could of. The purpose of this debate is to decide A. should this article be here and B. if so what do we do to improve it. I am here to help, not to tear down. First off, I suggest we find solid cases of deathcore bands. So far Despised Icon seems to be the only concrete case. Also, what you were saying about bands determining their genre is what I have been saying all along. That is why I think this article (or thought) should be deleted. One band claiming to be deathcore didn't seem to be too reliable.
However, the problem of sources still exists. We have a shaky notability at best. That needs to improve. Thanks for the time and consideration.
PS: please leave out anecdotal evidence. Chris Crocker exists, whether you think he is lame or not. Thanks -- Wick3dd 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I understand your vandalism predicament. If we are to keep this a sane article, it needs to be sourced, and possibly protected. -- Wick3dd 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Remember, this is not a vote. If you want to delete it, post valid reasons. Thank you.-- Wick3dd 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah it would be biased of us to close it, so just wait for the end.-- Wick3dd ( talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (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) 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ichi (kanji) Shichi (kanji) Ku (kanji) Ni (kanji) Go (kanji) Hachi (kanji) Roku (kanji) Ju (kanji) Sen (kanji) Shi (kanji) Haku (kanji) Hyaku (kanji) Sei (kanji)
These articles are all poorly titled dictdefs: their subjects are individual character/morphemes in the Japanese language, making them more suitable for a dictionary, and since many kanji share readings (pronunciations), any titling based on transliteration is inherently ambiguous. Wiktionary in fact already has all of the information in these articles, so there is no transwiki necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 00:15, 26 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 delete based on evidence that it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. --
Michael Snow
21:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This article appears to be a hoax. Google brings up zero hits for "Fortress Blakely". Villa Tuscana in British Columbia does no better. The NASA projects that were supposedly based there don't seem to have existed. The ISBN number of one reference actually belongs to a wholely unrelated book. All in all, I see no reason to think that this place exists, despite this detailed history. I've left a note on the only editor's talk page asking for sources. Willmcw 07:22, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
The Fortress_Blakeley#World_War_II sections is especially droll. It's prefaced by, "Nothing much happened at this time." Then it goes on to say how 753 Jewish refugees from the Philippines were personally saved and housed by Howard Blakeley on his estate, who also had time to help on the construction of the atom bomb. That's not to mention the island's fortifications, including "3,000 soldiers ... under the command of the Blakeley family." One of history's most overlooked heroes or a detailed fantasy. - Willmcw 09:02, May 25, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Entire article reads "Washington Gladden was a pastor in Ohio during the Social Gospel movement." Not enough evidence of notability. -- Lee Hunter 00:06, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Another group of wannabe noisemakers that came and went without leaving much of a trace. 5 google hits on 4 websites, nothing on allmusic.com. OK, so it's (barely) verifiable that someone made some music under that name--So? Niteowlneils 00:14, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This appears to be a vanity page Shoaler 00:18, 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 move to
ableism
CDC
(talk) 04:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Misspelled dicdef. Move to Wiktionary as "ableism" and delete. Denni ☯ 00:22, 2005 May 25 (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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Entirely non-notable. Denni ☯ 00:26, 2005 May 25 (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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
One half-sentence on an actress with no info on what she has done, or even what period she might have done it in! Harro5 00:27, May 25, 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, and redirect to
Seventh-generation era. -
Mailer Diablo
22:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
No such era exists and it's ridiculous (laughable is actually a better word) to state it's the "512-bit" era because a system has 512MB of RAM. Anything that isn't incorrect, speculation, POV, etc is already at Seventh-generation era which this appears to be a fork of. K1Bond007 00:38, May 25, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
I'm not the biggest Star Wars geek in the world, I haven't heard of this, and neither has Google. Nothing links to it internally, and this is the sole contribution of an anon. I suspect a hoax or vandalism. Delete Rlandmann 00:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete This is not real -- M412k 01:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
(comment by 80.132.74.149)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was settlement via WP:CP (copyvio). -
Mailer Diablo
22:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This is not an article, it's just a narrative. However, I can't tell if it can be turned into an article or not. M412k 01:45, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Tagged for speedy deletion, bringing it here because it gets 49,300 google hits [2], possibly not all on topic. Kappa 01:14, 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.
Rossami
(talk) 03:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable chess program. The fact that it's Greek and written in Java are uncommon, but the stub is over a year old and although only a two sentences long, it seems to have little possibility of expansion. The provided link ( [3]) seems dead tonight, although google cached it last month. The google cached Pyotr Chess Engine Frequently Asked Questions shows that the FAQ was last updated in December 2001. One highly respected partial list of chess engines provided by Tim Mann includes 176 engines. Although the list is arranged alphabetically and not by importance, Pyotr is number 132 on that list which is probably not too far away from where it ranks in notability. Quale 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notible. Delete. - SocratesJedi | Talk 02:03, 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
CDC
(talk) 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ad sort of thing. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:08, May 25, 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, request by creator.
Thue |
talk
21:20, 26 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 delete upon author's request. -
Mailer Diablo
22:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This article is likely nonsense. Kelly Martin 03:05, May 25, 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) 21:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic and original research. This page may also have been already deleted yesterday. Delete
JeremyA
03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
The page was not deleted merely modified to make it more encyclopedic.Leave[[User:Aldreds|Scot Aldred]
Delete non-encyclopedic Bgeer 16:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this comment. While I agree that this is original work from my students it is in no way a copyright violation and the suggestion that this is the case is insulting and defamitory. I would also like to draw this person's attention to the following rules of Wikipedia which appear to have been ignored on the Wikipedia link he has included to his wikipedia home page:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect.
CDC
(talk) 21:23, 1 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 no consensus (default KEEP)
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement on the back of a book jacket. Xcali 03:15, 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 no consensus (default KEEP)
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It goes against Wikipedia Official Policy stated in WP:WIN. drini ☎ 05:56, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An "up-and-coming" photographer, doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO at this time. 17 google hits [5]. Kappa 06:38, 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 keep. —
Xezbeth 12:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
this rapper is not notable and his annoying wiki edits are ruining our great encyclopedia. F White Dawg 18:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sup, BrowardPlaya? How does it feel to be up for deletion AGAIN? HAHAHAHAHA.... we're gonna keep putting this up until you get taken down. You have to win every time, and we only have to win once. That Bentley ain't yours. You ain't from no Westside. And you sure as hell have no right to call yourself a "nigga." Someone's gotta slap the teeth out your mouth, FOOL. I vote DELETE! Also I eat cock. TRU THUG 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DELETE. This page has no business being on an encyclopedia. Keeping it up makes wikipedia look like a JOKE! Fan of REAL Hip-Hop 18:16, 14 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.
While I respect Jerzy's concerns, most of the early voters did not cite the copyvio as the dominant reason for deletion. They argued that this was "vanity" which, however prejudicial you consider that word, is the normal shorthand used here for an article about a person which is either auto-biographical or unverifiable. I find that there is concensus to delete this from the main article space on that basis.
Noting that there is an associated user who appears to be the same person, I am going to offer to move this to his user page. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nom & Del vote: This police chief of a population-55,000 city has no higher apparent distinction than that. User:Rdoscherca (R Doscher of Califonia?) has resolving copyvio concerns via EMail by stating he is both the author and subject. His baliwick is about one 5-thousandth of the US population, and where i come from, chiefs are considered professionals whose training must be up to snuff but who exercise less significant policy-making discretion than the elected officials on zoning commissions. If he's one of the few who use the position as a rung on a political ladder, he may later become notable, but he's not now. WP:BIO#People still alive seems to establish non-notability. -- Jerzy~ t 07:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a copyvio from http://www.ycpd.org/index.cfm?navid=1023. I would have thought that something from the Yuba City Police Department would be public domain, but it says at the bottom of the page "© 2003 Yuba City Police Department, All Rights Reserved". Listed on Copyright problems. Rick K 22:27, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Now on CopyVio
Those who are following this page without following the article have been left without what would seem to be the required notice that the VfD notice has been removed there, and a CopyVio notice put in its place. While my judgement is that the Chief's claim to exercise the copyright holder's power to put this text under VfD should be assumed valid in the absence of contrary evidence that has not been offered, there is IMO no reason not to let this play out on the Copyright problems page; AFAIK it will just come back here in due time, if Rick turns out to be mistaken.
--
Jerzy·
t
07:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
User:Rdoscherca has convinced me that he is the subject of the article and also the Yuba City PD's webmaster. Therefore he seems to be of sufficient authority to release the article and the image to the GFDL, and I have reverted the copyvio boilerplate. Rick K 04:33, Jun 3, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
I'm an Australian, and would usually defend anything written about the great land down under, but this is just plain pointless. Harro5 07:44, May 25, 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) 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Credibility gap. The Duchy of Windsor may be technically vacant, but a grant of this sort would have been world-famous. Vanity (and petit treason) -- throttle Simon Cursitor 07:55, 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 already deleted.
CDC
(talk) 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another gentleman with a lower-cased surname. Also with little or nothing other than vanity in his entry. Delete Simon Cursitor 08:03, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's already an entry on Wiktionary, and the bit on confusion between "thank you" and "trash" notwithstanding, there's not much that you can really expand on this one. Delete. -- KeithH 08:06, 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 move/redirect (already done).
CDC
(talk) 21:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A new article has been created, by the name of
List of airports in Norway. This new article:
1) has the standard namespace (see
List of airports)
2) is better structured, and more extensive
There is no need for two articles on the same subject.
List of Norwegian airports contains no information missing on
List of airports in Norway, so no merge will be necessary, it should simply be made into a redirect.
Eixo
08:29, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
probable nonsense - no Google hits [6] AYArktos 08:48, 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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Appears to be the etymology of someone's name. -- W( t) 08:52, 2005 May 25 (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. -
Mailer Diablo
22:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
As explained on its talk page, Is this a joke? Many of these "names" are rarely used as names nor are they real Vietnamese words. The pronunciation for those that are names are often wrong. In an effort to use Vietnamese spellings, the author used dubious characters that are never used in Vietnamese. This is so hopelessly inaccurate ... A Vietnamese Wikipedia sysop.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to
Albury, New South Wales.
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While the information is facturally accurate and verifiable, it is trivial and adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge. If one travels along Borella Road as I have, one will observe takeaways, the hospital, the airport, but so what - not notable: Delete. AYArktos 09:17, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- W( t) 09:32, 2005 May 25 (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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be more an online CV than an encyclopedia article. Looks like autobiography / advertising / self-promotion. -- The Anome 09:33, May 25, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- W( t) 10:07, 2005 May 25 (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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:38, 5 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 all.
CDC
(talk) 21:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The idea behind this is to have a system similar to WP:FAC, to determine when an article is 'half-decent' and label it as such. This system has not been advertised, discussed or even used, and frankly I fail to see the point. Is it by itself half-decent? I don't think we should bother archiving this since it isn't even a failed proposal. R adiant _* 10:13, May 25, 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) 21:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Failed speedy candidate. <1000 Google hits for 'Golden Throw', none relevant to this article. Apparently the 'premier sport' in the area, which you would expect to leave a lot of media references on the web. Probably completely fake, delete Kiand 10:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Does wikisource want this? By Byron, apparently. -- W( t) 10:27, 2005 May 25 (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
Symbionese Liberation Army
—
Gwalla |
Talk 21:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Russell Little is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately dealt with on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:38, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need articles on the board members of all mensa chapters. -- W( t) 10:45, 2005 May 25 (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.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were almost exactly evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one has not been expanded beyond this two-line stub after almost 3 years as an article), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
James Kilgore is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately described on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:55, 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 keep.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Only four of the 11 voters argued to "keep as is". Many argued to "keep as merge or redirect". After reviewing both articles, I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Michael Bortin is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and is adequately described on the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 10:59, 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 keep.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Only 5 of the 12 voters argued to "keep as is". Many others argued to "keep as merge or redirect". After reviewing both articles, I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Steven Soliah is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 11:10, 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 keep.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were almost exactly evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one has not been expanded beyond this three-line stub after 3 years as an article), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Content has not been deleted because it can be recovered from page history by any future reader/editor. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Willie Wolf is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page. An An 11:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
keep A biography was written about him: An American Journey: the Short Life of Willy Wolfe, by Max Eastman and published by Simon and Schuster in 1979. Ydorb 14:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Why is this a red link? I'm not going to vote on every one of these, but I do hereby declare my vote of merge and redirect for all of them. Rick K 22:37, May 25, 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.
The type of "keep", however, is unclear. Votes and comments were about evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge". After reviewing both articles (and noting that this one was not expanded during most of its 3 years as an article and that the recent expansion consisted of the addition of trivia which I would not anticipate to survive the normal edit process), I am going to redirect it. If the content is ever expanded with relevant and verifiable information to the point that it no longer fits within the SLA article, it can be broken out as a separate article at that time. Rossami (talk) 04:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Patricia Soltysik is not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page An An 11:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
keep or at least merge, it contains information not on the SLA page Ydorb 14:45, May 25, 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.
CDC
(talk) 21:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef + etymology = transwiki. Dicdef + already in Wiktionary = delete. R adiant _* 11:03, May 25, 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
CDC
(talk) 21:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef, already in wiktionary. It is rather lengthy but it really only deals with the usage of this oft-Canadian interjection. Not encyclopedic, eh? R adiant _* 11:02, May 25, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 05:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While I did find it rather funny, I also found it an arbitrary and unencyclopedic list. R adiant _* 11:05, May 25, 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 (no consensus).
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, this contains such marvels as "the, it, that, I". But it's really an arbitrary and pointless list. No sources are cited, and the Finnish one isn't even complete. R adiant _* 11:18, May 25, 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; however, since
Camilla Hall didn't have a VfD tag, it will be renominated. --
cesarb 02:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They are not encyclopedic outside the Symbionese Liberation Army, and can be adequately merged into the Symbionese Liberation Army page An An 11:24, 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 --
cesarb 02:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Local cab company, not notable. -- W( t) 11:26, 2005 May 25 (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 No consensus, so keep.
Death
phoenix 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This standalone article is practically a stub, original research, term invented/used only by Mike Ossipoff Whig 12:32, 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 Keep.
Death
phoenix 21:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This standalone article is original research, excessively technical, term invented/used only by Mike Ossipoff Whig 12:38, 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 --
cesarb 00:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I have figured this out correctly it is a list of people who have tithed in Headley. As this is probably primary source material it is probably not a copyvio, even though it is a replica of this. If this is a copyvio however, delete as a copyvio, if this is not a copyvio either transwiki to Wikisource or delete. I have serious trouble figuring out a possible use for this at Wikisource, so I doubt that a transwiki is really needed. Sjakkalle 12:43, 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 --
cesarb 01:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystall-ball. Not even the title is known yet. delete - JiFish 12:50, 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 - deleted -
SimonP 21:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
A lengthy bit of original research of some sort. Might maybe belong on WikiSource. Kelly Martin 12:57, May 25, 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
(Check!) 09:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Stub, possibly non-notable Whig 13:25, 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 --
cesarb 01:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The term is a neologism, and the page is clearly an advertisement for a website. Kelly Martin 13:35, May 25, 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 16:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Incomplete VfD nomination, couldn't find the source article. R adiant _* 14:35, May 25, 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 16:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax created by a student of Trinity College, Dublin. Or am I missing something? Delete. Lupo 13:40, 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 - Merge -
SimonP 21:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to deserve its own page. Has adequate information on the Majora's Mask page, and I personally doubt anyone would search for Fierce Deity's Mask, so no reason to merge or redirect. -- A Link to the Past 14:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Phred Levi 23:14, 6 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 Keep.
Death
phoenix 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Author removed the VfD notice so this nomination never ran its' course. Originally submitted by TonyW -- Longhair | Talk 14:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Lisa Donahue was a contestant on the reality TV show Big Brother (USA), and as such has no other claim to fame. With that in mind, it's not worth having as an encyclopedic entry. - TonyW 00:38, Sep 4, 2004 (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 as Merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:33, May 25, 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 as merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:33, May 25, 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 as Merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to be split from the main game. Adequate information on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and WP:FICT does not apply in this case, because the idea of WP:FICT is that the character is too big for the page, and in this case, they are not. -- A Link to the Past 14:34, May 25, 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 as Merge/redirect.
Rossami
(talk) 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and since he has a minor role in more than one game, a redirect or merge would not work well. -- A Link to the Past 14:44, May 25, 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 ambiguous.
I count 8 clear "delete" votes, 5 "keep" votes (one probable sockpuppet discounted) and 2 votes that were too ambiguous to call. The debate became very heated and appears to have focused on the content of the article overlooking the original reason for nomination - that the content is more dictionary-ish than encyclopedic.
I do note that an introduction to the article was created late in the discussion period. Votes continued to be mixed after the addition of the introduction. In my judgment, the introduction was insuffient to convince the majority to change their votes and retain the list as an encyclopedia article.
In general, "list of ABC slang" articles have been deemed necessary evils - ways of discouraging the endless re-creation of dictionary entries. Military slang is a good example. The topics were deleted, moved to Wiktionary and deleted again. The community concensus was clearly and repeatedly expressed that these terms belonged in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Yet they were being constantly re-created by new users in ignorance of prior decisions. By centralizing the terms in a single list, we believed that we were containing the policy violations somewhat and providing a way for new users to gently learn that Wiktionary is a better recipient for these contributions.
So far, no evidence has been presented that the topic of Singapore sexual slang will receive the same volume of editors nor that this topic will be endlessly re-created by new users if it is moved to Wiktionary. In fact, the evidence presented makes the opposite case very convincingly. Accordingly, I am going to exercise my discretion and call this decision as a "move to Wiktionary".
I'll further note that based on a spot check of the terms listed, they appear to already have been moved into Wiktionary. Since there appears to be nothing left to transwiki, I will execute the last step of the process and delete this left-over. Warning: I have not checked every term listed. If someone needs or wants a copy of the list in order to do that verification, please contact any admin. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it goes against Wikipedia official policy drini ☎ 15:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these words and phrases are NOT protologisms (as defined by Wikipedia), which Uncle G has implied. The traditional slang words have been in use for centuries (if not millenia in the case of the Chinese dialects) and the ones coined in the new entity called Singlish have been around for decades.
An analogous case in point: take the English slang words 'fuck', 'shit' and 'cunt'. Before the 1950's, say, one would be hard put to find such entries in any respectable English dictionary, comprehensive or otherwise. This does not mean that these words were ' protologisms'. They had been in use for over a century if not more. The same applies to the words I have listed. The fact that you cannot find some of this information anywhere in the virtual or real world demonstrates a salient aspect of Asian culture. We put on a smiling obsequious face while locking our dirty linen firmly in the closet. My aim is to bring out that dirty linen and subject it to academic scrutiny...and let outsiders have a sniff too.
Let me quote from Wikipedia's original research policy: 'In some cases, where an article makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events).' The latter description fits my list to a T.
It is not appropriate as Uncle G suggested to update the 'steam' entry in the English dictionary because Singlish is just not English. Moreover, there is no entry called 'burung' at the moment, and to create one out of the blue with no categorisation or context would be meaningless. Groyn88 15:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply
And Wikipedia is a place that is not meant for such crude terms. If all the sexual slangs from every language in the world are to be listed, I feel that wikipedia will become a cheap-skit encyclopedia if this goes on. Wikipedia knows it well: Writing such obscene terms are banned from Wikipedia; and even the official wikipedia policy agrees to my viewpoint.
Let's come down to the social factor; does the world leaders ever use such obscene terms? I believe that they never do such sinful things that go against the will of god. And wikipedia is a high-class encyclopedia that will and always defend itself against such sins.
Mr Tan 17:24, 11 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 --
cesarb 01:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non standard name, non-encyclopedic Proto 15:30, 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 keep --
cesarb 01:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is non-encyclopedic and is of extremely poor quality. Bgeer 15:40, 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 --
cesarb 01:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Full text: "Lim Tak Wah is born in 1940. He owns a company called LTW Holdings Sdn Bhd." and "LTW Holdings Sdn Bhd is a paper printing company. It was founded by Lim Tak Wah in 1972". No attempt to establish notability. Rl 15:53, 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 --
cesarb 01:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:55, 2005 May 25 (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 --
cesarb 01:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The activity by several editors suggests these are real. However, I can't verify anything about it. Neither about the series nor about either character. Rl 16:01, 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 --
cesarb 01:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
promotional JoJan 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Geogre 19:18, 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.
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης) 13:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why is this on VFD? -- 84.9.103.212 22:41, 21 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 --
cesarb 01:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some 600,000 Google hits, but less than 1 ‰ mention Cedarhurst. Besides the bad name, the article provides very little information, let alone any facts that might establish notability. Rl 16:20, 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 speedy deleted as a recreation.
Sjakkalle
07:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This article is non-encyclopedic FliiP 16:23, 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 keep --
cesarb 01:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Advert. - SocratesJedi | Talk 16:48, 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 --
cesarb 01:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A violation of just about all conventions. The beginning makes it clear that it's just a soapbox for a relatively little-known advocacy group: "On March 6, 1996, David R. Morgan, the National President of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms presented The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises of the Cold War, 1946 - 1985 to enumerate those world events wherein the imminent use of nuclear weapons was either threatened or implied." 172 16:58, 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 keep. (2 delete, 3 keep -> No consensus -> Keep)
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 14:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Her IMDB entry only lists a couple of minor roles. Also, I cannot find any other relevant Google hits to verify that she is noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:42, 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 --
cesarb 01:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research. Mindmatrix 18:02, 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 keep.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 09:15, 3 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 --
cesarb 01:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Vcodec claims to be a revolutionary codec, but only installs maliscious spyware. Avoid installing." I cannot verify that. The rest of the text is copyvioish, but might just pass (basically a feature list). The claims made are rather strong, especially given that zero evidence is provided. Rl 18:24, 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 --
cesarb 01:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
College student's vanity page. -- Michael Snow 18:25, 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 --
cesarb 01:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Band vanity. Rl 18:49, 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 --
cesarb 01:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
dicdef at best. Alai 18:49, 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 - should be merged -
SimonP 22:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
The title is POV itself, and I don't think the article has any hope of being neutral. The article tries to say that some cultures are primitive or uncivilized while others, according to the criteria mentioned in the article, are civilized. This, at least to me, is very POV. Delete. Revolución 18:49, 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.
Joyous 01:49, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
This page makes no sense. A prep school student is highly unlikely to have published everything claimed here. I'd call this a very poorly written vanity page. Xcali 18:55, 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 Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
VfD added to article by User:Happyfeet10 on May 8, but never listed on VfD. (I'm just completing the listing and abstaining from vote) Brighterorange 19:17, 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. While this could be appropriate content for a user page, no signed in user stepped forward to claim it. If you later decide that you do want this for you user page, please contact any administrator.
Rossami
(talk) 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanity grendel| khan 19:47, 2005 May 25 (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. --
DropDeadGorgias
(talk) 21:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Likely vanity. Google gives no hits for "Pentagon Moneyhouse". If he is a budding star, the bud must be very small. If it ever blooms, maybe the page could be added then. Xcali 20:18, 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 - no consensus -
SimonP 22:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Stagecoach Group is a big company, it rightly has its own article, and it has many regional activities - but do we really need an article on each region? Particularly when most of its info is bus routes? -- Doc (?) 20:24, 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 redirect.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excellent article title, and not to be confused with Daughter in the box. Not in itself a poor article, but the problem is that all the information including the links appears - and makes a lot more sense - in the article on B. F. Skinner, where it is in context. There's nothing to be merged, and who on earth is going to search Wikipedia for 'Daughter in a box'? I say delete it.- Ashley Pomeroy 20:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, I found the page whilst searching for Living in a Box, the late-80s pop group who had a big hit with a song called 'Living in a Box'.- Ashley Pomeroy 09:49, 26 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?) 01:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
disambig page - but since we have no articles on any Katie Jones this is unneccessary -- Doc (?) 20:47, 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 this article was deleted at 18:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) by
Duk for being a {{
copyvio}}.
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 12:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Likely vanity. Xcali 20:51, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Or unverifiable, and/or prank fiction. Zero hits for "32 universes" duncan. Niteowlneils 21:18, 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.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A concept from a site that was only set up a couple of days ago. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 21:26, May 25, 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 21:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, creative-writing, joke, whatever. Zero relevant hits for "Eric Elliot" neutron or "Eric Elliot" Leominster. Niteowlneils 21:32, 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. —
Xezbeth 16:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
No notable accomplishments. Vanity. Xcali 21:40, 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 keep page as rewritten about composer.
Mindspillage
(spill yours?) 01:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uses picture of Reese Witherspoon instead of article subject. Was created after a previous attempt at advertising. Unfortunately, this has more meat to it, but it's still an advertisement. Delete. Mgm| (talk) 21:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
The non-noteworthy person was replaced by the famous televison composer of the same name. -- Spotteddogsdotorg 04:10, 6 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 speedy delete. (
MacGyverMagic did it, but
Smoddy is closing the discussion).
22:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is a completely un-wiki article, and is POV right from the title. It is no more than a mere collection of external links, and, as such, should be deleted. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:02, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 07:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a high school marching band. Not even a stub. Delete DS1953 22:17, 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 keep.
Sjakkalle
(Check!) 09:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
" Stagecoach Group is a big company, it rightly has its own article, and it has many regional activities - but do we really need an article on each region?" This article already existed, but the same logic applies to this as the ones currently being created. All of the info can be found at the external link. Sonic Mew 22:27, May 25, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 07:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: Until
BaronLarf
JYolkowski reformatted this listing a few minutes ago it had no link to the article and there was no indication what it was a vote on. Most people didn't even realise it was distinct from the VfD before it. I'm moving this to the May 25 listings to give us a chance to discuss it. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk
22:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable. Stellertony the Bookcrosser 07:15, 16 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?) 01:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a hoax. Smells like a hoax. Lack of Google hits like a hoax. Delete like a hoax. Cyrius| ✎ 22:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep.
Vanity. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oceanographer and Kils. Rick K 23:15, May 25, 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
—
Gwalla |
Talk 07:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Teen-age vanity Frjwoolley 23:24, 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 Not enough votes to form consensus → Keep
Zzyzx11
(Talk) 16:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Another imaginary music genre, a combination of Death metal and Hardcore punk. Only one page links here, a band which is specifying this isn't it's genre.— Wahoofive ( talk) 00:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this page once more for a multitude of reasons.
For one, the last nomination was two years ago, and no one frequented the page enough to even care about discussion.
My reasons are simple: the article fails on every aspect of WP:MUSIC. The bands listed as deathcore are confirmed to be other genres (most of them are death metal) and are listed as such on Wikipedia and every major source. The genre is simply not notable. Also, the sources listed are mainly unreliable (myspace, Amazon, "deathcore-is-sexy.blogspot, Metal Archives, etc.). The few that are reliable make a passing mention of the genre or none at all. The strongest of them that I saw was a review of Dying Fetus, which pertained to bands ripping of the sound of Dying Fetus as part of a "deathcore" fad. The funny thing is that there is an extensive review of the band's genre on their discussion page, and deathcore is never mentioned..
I think this should be fairly straightforward. -- Wick3dd 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If we are going to keep, then the article needs bands which are actually considered deathcore. So far, we have none. This article is over two years old, yet no one still considers it legitimate enough to add it in genre boxes.-- Wick3dd 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for real sources, however those really do not do much for us. One is ascertaining that the band has been lumped into this recent fad, another is a death metal band claiming to be "deathcore". On Wikipedia it is already established that a band is not a reliable source on their genre. Also, the pop matters page cals bands that must be completely underground for lack of information, deathcore. Most of the bands that we actually know (Despised Icon for one) are death metal, and can be cited to the teeth as such. All I am saying is that deathcore seems to be another sub-genre of a sub-genre labeling fad, and if we are going to keep this article, we have to make note of that. Most of these bands are arguably death metal with hardcore influences. -- Wick3dd 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The last argument may be valid, but hits on google? What needs to be done in order to keep this article is to prove it is notable. That is my main argument. Any band listed as "deathcore" is usually listed (and sourced to the teeth) as death metal. If we keep this article, it cannot remain as it is. The controversial nature of the genre must be addressed, because put quite simply, there is not enough information on the genre to make it a factual document. -- Wick3dd 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No offense taken. Forgive me if I came off condescending. You will notice above, that I gave many suggestions if we do keep it. I simply saw this article, saw the terrible sourcing and listing of death metal bands as deathcore, and figured hey this doesn't need to be here. I did not go through the deletion process on purpose, though I could of. The purpose of this debate is to decide A. should this article be here and B. if so what do we do to improve it. I am here to help, not to tear down. First off, I suggest we find solid cases of deathcore bands. So far Despised Icon seems to be the only concrete case. Also, what you were saying about bands determining their genre is what I have been saying all along. That is why I think this article (or thought) should be deleted. One band claiming to be deathcore didn't seem to be too reliable.
However, the problem of sources still exists. We have a shaky notability at best. That needs to improve. Thanks for the time and consideration.
PS: please leave out anecdotal evidence. Chris Crocker exists, whether you think he is lame or not. Thanks -- Wick3dd 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I understand your vandalism predicament. If we are to keep this a sane article, it needs to be sourced, and possibly protected. -- Wick3dd 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Remember, this is not a vote. If you want to delete it, post valid reasons. Thank you.-- Wick3dd 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah it would be biased of us to close it, so just wait for the end.-- Wick3dd ( talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (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) 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ichi (kanji) Shichi (kanji) Ku (kanji) Ni (kanji) Go (kanji) Hachi (kanji) Roku (kanji) Ju (kanji) Sen (kanji) Shi (kanji) Haku (kanji) Hyaku (kanji) Sei (kanji)
These articles are all poorly titled dictdefs: their subjects are individual character/morphemes in the Japanese language, making them more suitable for a dictionary, and since many kanji share readings (pronunciations), any titling based on transliteration is inherently ambiguous. Wiktionary in fact already has all of the information in these articles, so there is no transwiki necessary. — Gwalla | Talk 00:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply