This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be very notable. And it looks an awful lot like advertising. Tuf-Kat 06:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Here is a list with only 3 bands on the list and im suspitious about 2 of them. Listcruft Expand Greatly or Delete -- Aranda56 00:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (probably should have been speedied) -- Doc (?) 22:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as speedy and, whilst it ought to be, it isn't. Abstain with a giggle. - Splash talk 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Kushboy 00:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Thivierr. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef with definition already in Wiktionary. Kushboy 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE and damn the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Appears to be a local club. Zero google hits and no indicia of encyclopedic notability. External link provided confirms this suspicion. -- BD2412 talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Save.Have heard of the superrooters, but they are considered an underground society with a great deal of sway at the university of adelaide, so there is unlikely to be anything publicised about them. -- JohnyChimpo talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
save. I've also heard about them, I went to adelaide university for 5 years and they're an important part of the culture of the university. Keep it up.
Save the Rooters They exist, ask any recent graduate from Adelaide University, they'll all claim to have met a 'rooter.
Save I'm dating one of the 'secret seven' and I can well and truly testify to the existence of the superrooters. I'm sure that me, and many other girls, can vouch for the worthiness of the superrooters.
Save I met a superrooter at Skullduggery, they're the real deal.
Good Blokes You're all such good blokes, with, I imagine, heaps of cool friends, hot girlfriends and witty acronyms and jargon for everything. Not like the geeky limp dick poofs that you sound like. Boy the Buttslammers are really masterbating over the keyboard today.
SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE
Delete Not notible. Jwissick 05:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Save and File this page This organisation has significant influence on the cultural identity of Adelaide University and its students and as such should be kept up. The influence of this club can be seen in their structured mentoring program for gifted individuals, which fosters intellectual, spiritual and physical growth. They are an active participant in many events and there are frequent references to them in community newspapers, street press and University communications. You don't have to spend long in Adelaide to hear a story about a good deed they've done or a function they've organised. This organisation has been involved in the running and organisation of the prestigious Cascade Cup. Including rowing to several notable victories. They are known to stand for the strict maintenance of rules and standards in inter Varsity 'rograms. Most of the comments posted above seem to come from well intentioned but illinformed users from the other side of the globe. I appreciate their input and it's understandable that patent attorneys from the US would have little understanding of the cultural significance of such an organisation. The page stays because it contributes positively to the World of knowledge that is Wikipedia. unsigned vote by: 165.228.46.130 ( talk · contribs)
Save It is clear to me that this article should be well and truly retained. The use of the term 'sockpuppetry' which all you deleters despise is just xenophobia towards people of the wider community intruding in on your little world. How many people do you think actually spend all their time critiquing websites? It makes sense that anonymous users should vote for this article, as it refers to and is known by people whose main concern is not the internet, or let alone wikipedia. Furthermore, comments like 'unverifiable' really pertain to the effort applied and the access to such knowledge. A quick search on google, an american centric search engine, is hardly enough evidence to rule that something well known, significant and verifiable in the city of Adelaide Australia, doesn't exist. The enthusiasm of some of the'sockpuppets' while over done, is indicative of the very real existence and influence of this club. The article editor obviously thought that Wikipedia was a global repository of knowledge- which is not something that is only approved and seconded by a small esoteric community of close minded internet dwellers. unsigned vote by: 202.20.20.129 ( talk · contribs)
Save. It's a good thing that the Cyberjunkie knows everything about Adelaide, bow down before the mighty intellect of the all knowing and wise Cyberjunkie who is so learned that he ended up at Flinders Uni. It's safe to say that the intellectual powerhouse that is Flinders has produced some well informed individuals over the years, but CyberJunkie must be foremost amongst them becuase he knows everything about Adelaide. I think it's safe to say that CyberJunkie hasn't bothered doing any research other than going to the comic book store or tapping away at the keyboard. If Cyberjunkie bothered asking around, or even looking in a few local publications, they'd see many references to this organisation. In fact only a few months ago they featured live on channel 7's sunrise program. I suppose when you are hacking the internet and deleting wikipedia articles all night, you don't get up early enough to watch morning TV. The sort of subjective generalisations that CyberJunkie is making are reason enough to delete everything he's ever contributed to Wikipedia, but since i'm not a vindictive busy body, I've got better things to do than conduct some sort of Cyber terrorism against legitimate encyclopedic content. It's safe to say that a little bit of knowledge(Flinders Uni) in CyberJunkie's case is a bad thing.
Delete. Non notable. -- Ashenai 09:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Trivial but not speediable.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable, and is trying to push a "popular opinion" (rather than describe what groups, organizations, and notable persons opinions are) through the use of a Wikipedia page. I would have no problem merging any information into existing articles, but most of it is already present in others. -- Mrmiscellanious 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an (inaccurate [1]) dictionary definition without a corresponding entry in Wiktionary. — Mateo SA | talk 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. -- RHaworth 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
unverifable neologism WCFrancis 01:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
'Delete, as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Thryduulf 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
How is this encyclopedia-worthy? There's plenty of porn directories on the net, Wikipedia doesn't need to be one. Also, listing her real name, residence, employer, and link to her blog seems like a great way to get this girl fired, harassed by stalkers or anti-porn zealots, etc. Her blog says she is unhappy with the extent of exposure she got. So she had a youthful lapse in judgement, one that she'll have following her for years. Wikipedia doesn't need to play a role in that. There's nothing of scholarly value in this page, and it seems unethical in the extreme to list some of this information in this context. -Murple
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I found this page months ago as a random article. I cleaned it up a bit and requested verification of the information. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this article is factual. I would love to be proven wrong, though. Pburka 01:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax, nonsense, made up diety. Sadly, I don't quite see this as nonsensical enough to qualify as patent nonsense under speedy. So I guess the writers deserve a few days to argue that this god does exist and is notable... Dragons flight 02:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 23:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable. Can't have a page for every public servant. Possible vanity. Whitejay 251 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This stub is almost a dictdef; subject already covered at length and in detail in Polarization (elliptical polarisation is somewhat of a tautology, since all forms of polarisation may considered elliptical in electrodynamics, as the stub itself states). Consequently, this article should be deleted. NicholasTurnbull 02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Unable to find this particular Sherif Moussa anywhere. The write up looks to be suspect. German shells in Paris streets is very unlikly and he would have been 3 years old at the most. CambridgeBayWeather 02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, as non-verifiable, contrived subject. The article even effectively admits that this is a game contrived for submitting as an article. -- Mysidia ( talk) 03:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP: merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 23:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This topic is already covered as a section with Watercooling. The article itself doesn't really add much in encyclopeadic terms other than describing the equipment that may be used. Delete - this is duplicated material that adds nothing new. Eddie.willers 03:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The title says nothing about the article - the article fails to explain the title. Delete as jibberjabber.
Eddie.willers
03:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a sub-stub whose inclusion perfectly illustrates the need to explain: where; when; why; whom etc in an article that is to be considered encylopaedic. Delete unless someone can quickly provide answers. Eddie.willers 03:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MOVE and REDIRECT. Paul August ☎ 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This character page replicates material given in much more depth at The Dark Tower (series). No need for redirect since pagename is misspelled. Delete Chick Bowen 03:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. (The transwiki suggestion seems...wide of the mark.) So I'm going to be an editor and redirect it. - Splash talk 00:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this the funniest deletion in the world? There is sufficient encyclopaedic coverage in 'Funniest joke in the world' link referenced here so what expansion or cleanup is possible? Delete and laugh about it. Eddie.willers 03:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Offers no proof, not NPOV. Its useless, pointless nonsense Jack Cain
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Sigh - yes, I know there are other schools listed but, really, do we have to consider the alleged worthiness of every provincial state sinkhole in existence?? Delete. Eddie.willers 03:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not noteworthy, likely a vanity page. Malo 03:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio NeilN 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. That was just a platform for the single external link. - Splash talk 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like an ad NeilN 04:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising Dismas| (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish any notability. Dismas| (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement/spam. -- Blackcap | talk 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. As there's no votes to keep, I guess it makes sense to redirect, being bold, not as an admin. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable except for being the son of a famous father. Google hits are from Wikipedia mirrors, and other sites only have 1-liners about him saying he is John Nash's son. Jay 05:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable school Dismas| (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school teacher. I previously speedy deleted it but it has been recreated. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:11 PM EST
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a business directory. If someone wants to replace it with real encyc info, thats OK. Full disclosure: My neighborhood has its own article, but its not a standard houses-and-shops neighborhood. Jason McHuff 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school. Dismas| (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school. Dismas| (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-Another non-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:43 PM EST
The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This, along with Morgan Cavanaugh and Miles Goodman are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This, along with Miles Goodman and Roxie King are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This, along with Morgan Cavanaugh and Roxie King are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Yes, it was a mighty battle, the Deletes had the advantage, but the Keeps came back. </melodrama>. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Delete. - brenneman (t) (c) 07:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment on suggested merger
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. mikka (t) 16:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I am absolutely amazed how the community turns the blind eye onto something that it really likes. The article as 100% original research. Period. The cleanup would amount to its total deletion, with the exception of quotations, since all discource is nonverifiable. mikka (t) 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not Noteworthy, a mere 17 google results, Amazon carries this book (ranked #424,415 in book section), however one of the user reviews is this exact article. Delete Malo 07:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
For one, it's an unheard of system, and hence not noteworthy, for two this is shamely self promotion because the user name happens to be the same person who makes this product. Hence advertisement, check http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/db/DOdbs/Jobs/info/122.html and the user name of page history. Delete Malo 08:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied. android 79 14:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Anti-gravity properties. Super-conducting at room temperature. Philosopher's stone. Pseudo-science, crank, fake - surely? -- RHaworth 11:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Response from author: At issue here is wether a discovery which has yet to be validated by the scientific community is indeed Pseudo-science or a discovery with merit that has yet to be validated by the scientific community and become part of common knowledge.
I argue that the entry should be allowed to facilitate discussions in this regard. It is possible that ultimately, the claim will be dismissed as fraudulent and the entry for ORMUS may then show this fact to the benefit of everyone. Alternatively, a new branch of physics is about to open up. Without this entry, neither of these results are possible. User:freddie10538 21 September 2005
Note from Author: I concede and note the above points. If I were a physicist instead of just a high-school grad... :-)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP mikka (t) 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.66.2 ( talk • contribs) .
This was already voted on.The result was keep. " From the second paragraph: "It should be noted that the term anti-Polonism has not found wide currency in the English language.." Why not following sentence ? . It has, however, appeared in some scholarly works ([1])and is listed as subject in Polish National Library index[2] Btw your changes are wrong since it is in the dictionary in Polish National Library.You removed that sentence. Also they are scholary works on the issue:
-- Molobo 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) As you can see the word exists in Polish dictionary of Polish National Library as subject.It also exists in scientific works. -- Molobo 13:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please you are trying for a second time to delete this using arguments "this is a bullshit". You are neither serious or credible. -- Molobo 17:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
" Also, since "Anti-Polonism" is a made-up word the article should be renamed." If you would read the article you would know that the word is used in foreign ( nonpolish) scientific works, and is listed in Dictionary of Subjects of Polish National Library.-- Molobo 11:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Molobo 11:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
··gracefool | ☺ 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE! factual accuracy disputed. Ellen.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable developer; 134 unique Google hits. Paul 03:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to HORSE the band. Rob Church Talk 20:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - very little evidence of any significance. It was a cleanup page, but when I investigaed it, band members name reveal no true Google hits and I'm not sure this band meets any substantial criteria for inclusion. But I'm prepared to be proved wrong because I like the name! (This comment was deleted and replaced with the useful 'hyper viper rules') Budgiekiller 16:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this is a non notable promo compilation cd which is not part of the Official discography. It even has commercials for goodness sake. Non notable compilations are excluded from the chronology. - Dr Haggis - Talk 23:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Publicity Ahpoddar 22:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. And Wikipedia is not a web directory. Sucks sites might best be added to the attackee page. Mmmbeer 01:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Phil talk 14:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Do something with the title if you like. - Splash talk 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-another non-notable school Dudtz 9/29/05 5:00 PM EST
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a vanity page, complete with press release. Serrie 12:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Nn-bio. The speedy tag, strangely, hadn't stuck which is why it's taken until now to delete it. - Splash talk 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, non notable, biography Dismas| (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Essay on political views. DS 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 nn-bio, but that doesn't apply to articles about bands, ever. Still, "[n]ow you can even listen to them in their myspace.com site" so they're sure to be deeply notable. - Splash talk 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Usually when someone creates an article that's just a recipe, I comment that at least it looks yummy. But I hate peppers. And this is just a recipe. DS 13:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Australian school newspaper. "Its audience was largely limited to the graduating class of 2005." Bonus for spelling "its" properly, but non-notable (even though its content "ranged from necrophilia to female masturbation" and "copies did manage to filter down into the lower grades"). DS 13:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Substub about a nn drive through outlet. Sadly not speediable. Delete. Proto t c 15:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Not worth relisting this. - Splash talk 01:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Plenty of Google hits for "ataji"; none in this context. DS 15:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The article has a much too large scope, but consists of little more than a list of links to very disparate structures, some of which are not even made of stone. Burschik 15:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
There is nothing culturally significant about Blue Bell Ice Cream as opposed to other brands of ice cream. One can already find information about ice cream on it's own article. If we're going to do an article about specific brands of ice cream, does that mean we're going to do one on Breyer's, and Edy's, and Blue Bunny Ice Cream? Will there soon be entries for every differnt brand of toothpaste as well? If the company has some significant history or recognition in culture (a la the soda Dr Pepper) then yes, but I see none here. SeaFox 15:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
*keep Notable ice cream. Wikipedia is not paper.
Roodog2k
(talk) 16:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC) D'oh, Merge I pulled a W. Its Friday, and I'm Fried.
Roodog2k
(talk)
18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Although the debate is hard to judge, there would appear to be a weakish consensus that the article is not telling the whole truth in some parts. - Splash talk 01:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooax. Did I mention hoax? From details such as the precise minute of the band's formation, to the fact that their "countless classic albums" reached the heady heights of #32 on the Liechtenstein charts, to their controversial Albania tour during which they became addicted to heroin and popsicles, there is no doubt whatsoever. Hoax. Kill them with fire - oh, and their article too. DS 16:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, although the author gets to comment for turning up, despite being a new user so this is actually touching the two-thirds guideline that is often used. - Splash talk 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
ad for nn four restaurant chain. No claim of notibility, none found on Google Outlander 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I do wish that there were more private restaurant chains listed here in wikipedia. Posted by: {BillboardMister}
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Zero google matches for 'Ricky Bushaway' was first check for notability, followup was no relevant matches for googling '"Sore losers" comic'. There does not appear to be a wikipedia article for the supposed host comic, additional evidence of non-notability. CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 16:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Tally: del:7, keep:3, "conditional keep": 2. The author went berserk, got banned and did not fulfil the condition: provide verifiable sources of info and proof of notability. mikka (t) 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nonnotable. Nonverifiable. Vanity original research by an apparent descendant. mikka (t) 16:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep
Conditional keep: If he is notable, it doesn't come across in the article — just one of countless (unfortunate) casualties. However, the additional information from the author, below, does seem notable. Assuming it's factual, the author should add it to the article. Just a suggestion, but I'd change the tone of the article away from reading like a family history piece and make it read more like a neutral observation — avoiding judgmental descriptions like "heroic" and "slaughtered." Maybe more about the man and what he did and less emphasis on his less-notable decendants. — Cory Maylett 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Note what the page says: The following list is a translation of names and minimal personal data for 8,500 people included in Jewish Encyclopedia of Russia (Rossiyskaya Evreiskaya Entsiclopediya); first edition; 1995, Moscow. Famous people who are listed in the book, which in fact is a biographical dictionary, were born in Russia, the USSR, the Russian Empire, or lived there. This is the first edition of this kind in Russia and a large group of specialist from Russia, Israel and other countries participated in the project.
I hope that answers the question about notability. LevKamensky
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep: this vote page resulted from combination of my error and vandalism of perm-blocked user:LevKamensky as explained by user:Curps here. mikka (t) 19:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Also, I apologize for the confusion I caused with this nomination. But it seems to be too late. mikka (t) 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This concept does not exist in a form well-enough defined or widely-enough used to justify an article. The article's creation looks like an exercise in POV-pushing (see main user's involvement with coercion and natural monopoly for that user's point of view) - which seems to have been rather successful. Almost every single usage of the term in the sense described the article is traceable either to wikipedia's article or to people who use it informally (blogs etc) and have probably picked it up from there. [27] A single-figure number of more serious uses (usually with actual or implied inverted commas) do not justify the article. An encylopedia is supposed to reflect existing knowledge, and the very existence of the article makes a claim to an existence of an established concept, which claim is simply untrue. The actual meaning of the phrase "coercive monopoly" is "a monopoly on the use of coercion", in discussions of the state. Rd232 17:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio and no offer of a rewrite and a marginal debate here. No prejudice against rewriting this one, however. - Splash talk 01:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Copied verbatim from http://www.hfac.uh.edu/phil/leiber/vita.htm . Doesn't appear more notable than any other college professor, except for being the child of a notable author. Al 17:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Strong Delete NN Vanity Unable to verify any indication that he is a published poet beyond mirrors of this article and numerous ldead inks to a defunct Geocities site he had set up for the poetry he had written.
Caerwine
17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
KEEP - ALL INFORMATION IS VERIFIABLE - READ THIS - He is an internationally acclaimed poet, his poetry can be read here http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:3nGdauexxcsJ:www.geocities.com/musicplanet2k/nazpoems.htm and his poetry is published in an international antholody ISBN 0-7951-5160-8. Proof that he is an investment banker: http://ubs.chichi.me.uk/?p=38 Proof that he won LSE prize on LSE internal site. 82.35.90.111 23:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
(See link in amateur writing.) The Sound of Poetry, is the same thing, only done to CD instead of paper by poetry.com's parent company, The International Library of Poetry. Being a self-published poet does not make one notable unless people actually buy the book, and I've seen no indication that anyone beyond his friends and relatives have even seen the book. To quote from the Better Business Bureau file on the company:
Caerwine 00:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 19:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. -- Blackcap | talk 18:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a non-notable website to me JoanneB 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 18:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not sensible. Not notable. Molotov (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is structured to define an unnotable term and it should be deleted. Solarusdude 18:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see my comment on the article's talk page. — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied, again. android 79 05:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert that person's importance or significance but given edit by user Mustaffa I did not want to speedy Tracyt1800 19:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by User:Postdlf. - Splash talk 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Problem: Not formatted in proper form, and any info relevant is already covered in other articles. Molotov (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising or other spam Buster79 20:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable. Organization gets one Google match—its own website.
Admin, please note that creator c/p'd IBIS to Input Output Buffer Information Specification, made IBIS a redirect to Ibis (disambiguation), and added nominated page to the disambiguation page; this should probably be reversed if nominated page is deleted. — Brent Dax 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as a speedy (which it's not) for advertising (which it is) - sending here instead. -- Doc (?) 21:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense, nn bio, attack page - -- Doc (?) 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for a speedy, and deserves it. But it isn't 'short' to speedy as an attack, and isn't 'patent' to speedy as nonsense. -- Doc (?) 21:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Band that has no All Music entry and only has one album, which doesn't show up in a Google search. I could not confirm the band's existence, either. -- Kjkolb 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
failure to meet WP:Music - WCFrancis 21:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
According to the article, the 'CFP' has been a 'newly founded party' for almost half a year now. No context though (not even the full name of the party, or the name of the 'parent country', as they call it), no sources, so unverifiable. Sounds pretty fake. JoanneB 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. DS 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely local interest. Town only has about 200 people Whitejay 251 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable website. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Francs 2000 22:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. No encyclopedic information. Schoolcruft. Dunc| ☺ 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was tagged for deletion back on 5 July. Someone recently added it to the /Old page with a request that the discussion be closed. I can find no evidence that the discussion was ever listed on the main VfD/AFD page. This is a procedural nomination and restarts the clock. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. This is a speedy. - Splash talk 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, notability not established. siafu 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Complete hoax, zero google hits on Claahammers or either of the alleged culinary terms. Should be speedied, but I can't find any criterion. It's not empty, it's not nonsense, so heigh-ho to AfD we go. Tonywalton | Talk 23:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webmaster. DS 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as "This article has no potential for expansion, and all the necessary information contained here is also available in the Warhammer_40000_Imperial_Guard_Equipment_and_Weaponry article". Now, whilst that is certainly no speedy criterion, I would advocate deletion. This is because the term is too generic to usefully redirect to the Warhammer target and is not, so far as my limited legal knowledge goes, a proper legal term. If there is a valid, non-ambiguous legalese target, then it should of course be redirected there. - Splash talk 23:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Google search for "ice metal" finds results related largely to car wheels, and a few insignificant music links. Sonata Arctica, the band the article cites as a prime example of ice metal, can be easily classified as power metal. While keyboards are important in Sonata Arctica, they certainly don't make the guitars secondary. -- Dalkaen 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be very notable. And it looks an awful lot like advertising. Tuf-Kat 06:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Here is a list with only 3 bands on the list and im suspitious about 2 of them. Listcruft Expand Greatly or Delete -- Aranda56 00:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (probably should have been speedied) -- Doc (?) 22:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as speedy and, whilst it ought to be, it isn't. Abstain with a giggle. - Splash talk 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Kushboy 00:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Thivierr. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef with definition already in Wiktionary. Kushboy 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE and damn the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Appears to be a local club. Zero google hits and no indicia of encyclopedic notability. External link provided confirms this suspicion. -- BD2412 talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Save.Have heard of the superrooters, but they are considered an underground society with a great deal of sway at the university of adelaide, so there is unlikely to be anything publicised about them. -- JohnyChimpo talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
save. I've also heard about them, I went to adelaide university for 5 years and they're an important part of the culture of the university. Keep it up.
Save the Rooters They exist, ask any recent graduate from Adelaide University, they'll all claim to have met a 'rooter.
Save I'm dating one of the 'secret seven' and I can well and truly testify to the existence of the superrooters. I'm sure that me, and many other girls, can vouch for the worthiness of the superrooters.
Save I met a superrooter at Skullduggery, they're the real deal.
Good Blokes You're all such good blokes, with, I imagine, heaps of cool friends, hot girlfriends and witty acronyms and jargon for everything. Not like the geeky limp dick poofs that you sound like. Boy the Buttslammers are really masterbating over the keyboard today.
SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE
Delete Not notible. Jwissick 05:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Save and File this page This organisation has significant influence on the cultural identity of Adelaide University and its students and as such should be kept up. The influence of this club can be seen in their structured mentoring program for gifted individuals, which fosters intellectual, spiritual and physical growth. They are an active participant in many events and there are frequent references to them in community newspapers, street press and University communications. You don't have to spend long in Adelaide to hear a story about a good deed they've done or a function they've organised. This organisation has been involved in the running and organisation of the prestigious Cascade Cup. Including rowing to several notable victories. They are known to stand for the strict maintenance of rules and standards in inter Varsity 'rograms. Most of the comments posted above seem to come from well intentioned but illinformed users from the other side of the globe. I appreciate their input and it's understandable that patent attorneys from the US would have little understanding of the cultural significance of such an organisation. The page stays because it contributes positively to the World of knowledge that is Wikipedia. unsigned vote by: 165.228.46.130 ( talk · contribs)
Save It is clear to me that this article should be well and truly retained. The use of the term 'sockpuppetry' which all you deleters despise is just xenophobia towards people of the wider community intruding in on your little world. How many people do you think actually spend all their time critiquing websites? It makes sense that anonymous users should vote for this article, as it refers to and is known by people whose main concern is not the internet, or let alone wikipedia. Furthermore, comments like 'unverifiable' really pertain to the effort applied and the access to such knowledge. A quick search on google, an american centric search engine, is hardly enough evidence to rule that something well known, significant and verifiable in the city of Adelaide Australia, doesn't exist. The enthusiasm of some of the'sockpuppets' while over done, is indicative of the very real existence and influence of this club. The article editor obviously thought that Wikipedia was a global repository of knowledge- which is not something that is only approved and seconded by a small esoteric community of close minded internet dwellers. unsigned vote by: 202.20.20.129 ( talk · contribs)
Save. It's a good thing that the Cyberjunkie knows everything about Adelaide, bow down before the mighty intellect of the all knowing and wise Cyberjunkie who is so learned that he ended up at Flinders Uni. It's safe to say that the intellectual powerhouse that is Flinders has produced some well informed individuals over the years, but CyberJunkie must be foremost amongst them becuase he knows everything about Adelaide. I think it's safe to say that CyberJunkie hasn't bothered doing any research other than going to the comic book store or tapping away at the keyboard. If Cyberjunkie bothered asking around, or even looking in a few local publications, they'd see many references to this organisation. In fact only a few months ago they featured live on channel 7's sunrise program. I suppose when you are hacking the internet and deleting wikipedia articles all night, you don't get up early enough to watch morning TV. The sort of subjective generalisations that CyberJunkie is making are reason enough to delete everything he's ever contributed to Wikipedia, but since i'm not a vindictive busy body, I've got better things to do than conduct some sort of Cyber terrorism against legitimate encyclopedic content. It's safe to say that a little bit of knowledge(Flinders Uni) in CyberJunkie's case is a bad thing.
Delete. Non notable. -- Ashenai 09:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Trivial but not speediable.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable, and is trying to push a "popular opinion" (rather than describe what groups, organizations, and notable persons opinions are) through the use of a Wikipedia page. I would have no problem merging any information into existing articles, but most of it is already present in others. -- Mrmiscellanious 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an (inaccurate [1]) dictionary definition without a corresponding entry in Wiktionary. — Mateo SA | talk 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. -- RHaworth 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
unverifable neologism WCFrancis 01:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
'Delete, as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Thryduulf 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
How is this encyclopedia-worthy? There's plenty of porn directories on the net, Wikipedia doesn't need to be one. Also, listing her real name, residence, employer, and link to her blog seems like a great way to get this girl fired, harassed by stalkers or anti-porn zealots, etc. Her blog says she is unhappy with the extent of exposure she got. So she had a youthful lapse in judgement, one that she'll have following her for years. Wikipedia doesn't need to play a role in that. There's nothing of scholarly value in this page, and it seems unethical in the extreme to list some of this information in this context. -Murple
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I found this page months ago as a random article. I cleaned it up a bit and requested verification of the information. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this article is factual. I would love to be proven wrong, though. Pburka 01:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax, nonsense, made up diety. Sadly, I don't quite see this as nonsensical enough to qualify as patent nonsense under speedy. So I guess the writers deserve a few days to argue that this god does exist and is notable... Dragons flight 02:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 23:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable. Can't have a page for every public servant. Possible vanity. Whitejay 251 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This stub is almost a dictdef; subject already covered at length and in detail in Polarization (elliptical polarisation is somewhat of a tautology, since all forms of polarisation may considered elliptical in electrodynamics, as the stub itself states). Consequently, this article should be deleted. NicholasTurnbull 02:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Unable to find this particular Sherif Moussa anywhere. The write up looks to be suspect. German shells in Paris streets is very unlikly and he would have been 3 years old at the most. CambridgeBayWeather 02:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, as non-verifiable, contrived subject. The article even effectively admits that this is a game contrived for submitting as an article. -- Mysidia ( talk) 03:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP: merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 23:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This topic is already covered as a section with Watercooling. The article itself doesn't really add much in encyclopeadic terms other than describing the equipment that may be used. Delete - this is duplicated material that adds nothing new. Eddie.willers 03:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The title says nothing about the article - the article fails to explain the title. Delete as jibberjabber.
Eddie.willers
03:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a sub-stub whose inclusion perfectly illustrates the need to explain: where; when; why; whom etc in an article that is to be considered encylopaedic. Delete unless someone can quickly provide answers. Eddie.willers 03:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MOVE and REDIRECT. Paul August ☎ 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This character page replicates material given in much more depth at The Dark Tower (series). No need for redirect since pagename is misspelled. Delete Chick Bowen 03:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. (The transwiki suggestion seems...wide of the mark.) So I'm going to be an editor and redirect it. - Splash talk 00:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this the funniest deletion in the world? There is sufficient encyclopaedic coverage in 'Funniest joke in the world' link referenced here so what expansion or cleanup is possible? Delete and laugh about it. Eddie.willers 03:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Offers no proof, not NPOV. Its useless, pointless nonsense Jack Cain
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Sigh - yes, I know there are other schools listed but, really, do we have to consider the alleged worthiness of every provincial state sinkhole in existence?? Delete. Eddie.willers 03:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not noteworthy, likely a vanity page. Malo 03:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio NeilN 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. That was just a platform for the single external link. - Splash talk 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like an ad NeilN 04:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising Dismas| (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish any notability. Dismas| (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement/spam. -- Blackcap | talk 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. As there's no votes to keep, I guess it makes sense to redirect, being bold, not as an admin. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable except for being the son of a famous father. Google hits are from Wikipedia mirrors, and other sites only have 1-liners about him saying he is John Nash's son. Jay 05:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable school Dismas| (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school teacher. I previously speedy deleted it but it has been recreated. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:11 PM EST
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a business directory. If someone wants to replace it with real encyc info, thats OK. Full disclosure: My neighborhood has its own article, but its not a standard houses-and-shops neighborhood. Jason McHuff 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school. Dismas| (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school. Dismas| (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-Another non-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:43 PM EST
The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This, along with Morgan Cavanaugh and Miles Goodman are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This, along with Miles Goodman and Roxie King are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This, along with Morgan Cavanaugh and Roxie King are articles about minor characters from Sabrina the Teenage Witch (sitcom)...I merged the info to the article about the show, so no info will be lost Paul 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Yes, it was a mighty battle, the Deletes had the advantage, but the Keeps came back. </melodrama>. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Delete. - brenneman (t) (c) 07:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment on suggested merger
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. mikka (t) 16:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I am absolutely amazed how the community turns the blind eye onto something that it really likes. The article as 100% original research. Period. The cleanup would amount to its total deletion, with the exception of quotations, since all discource is nonverifiable. mikka (t) 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not Noteworthy, a mere 17 google results, Amazon carries this book (ranked #424,415 in book section), however one of the user reviews is this exact article. Delete Malo 07:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
For one, it's an unheard of system, and hence not noteworthy, for two this is shamely self promotion because the user name happens to be the same person who makes this product. Hence advertisement, check http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/db/DOdbs/Jobs/info/122.html and the user name of page history. Delete Malo 08:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied. android 79 14:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Anti-gravity properties. Super-conducting at room temperature. Philosopher's stone. Pseudo-science, crank, fake - surely? -- RHaworth 11:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Response from author: At issue here is wether a discovery which has yet to be validated by the scientific community is indeed Pseudo-science or a discovery with merit that has yet to be validated by the scientific community and become part of common knowledge.
I argue that the entry should be allowed to facilitate discussions in this regard. It is possible that ultimately, the claim will be dismissed as fraudulent and the entry for ORMUS may then show this fact to the benefit of everyone. Alternatively, a new branch of physics is about to open up. Without this entry, neither of these results are possible. User:freddie10538 21 September 2005
Note from Author: I concede and note the above points. If I were a physicist instead of just a high-school grad... :-)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP mikka (t) 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.66.2 ( talk • contribs) .
This was already voted on.The result was keep. " From the second paragraph: "It should be noted that the term anti-Polonism has not found wide currency in the English language.." Why not following sentence ? . It has, however, appeared in some scholarly works ([1])and is listed as subject in Polish National Library index[2] Btw your changes are wrong since it is in the dictionary in Polish National Library.You removed that sentence. Also they are scholary works on the issue:
-- Molobo 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) As you can see the word exists in Polish dictionary of Polish National Library as subject.It also exists in scientific works. -- Molobo 13:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please you are trying for a second time to delete this using arguments "this is a bullshit". You are neither serious or credible. -- Molobo 17:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
" Also, since "Anti-Polonism" is a made-up word the article should be renamed." If you would read the article you would know that the word is used in foreign ( nonpolish) scientific works, and is listed in Dictionary of Subjects of Polish National Library.-- Molobo 11:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Molobo 11:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
··gracefool | ☺ 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE! factual accuracy disputed. Ellen.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable developer; 134 unique Google hits. Paul 03:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to HORSE the band. Rob Church Talk 20:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - very little evidence of any significance. It was a cleanup page, but when I investigaed it, band members name reveal no true Google hits and I'm not sure this band meets any substantial criteria for inclusion. But I'm prepared to be proved wrong because I like the name! (This comment was deleted and replaced with the useful 'hyper viper rules') Budgiekiller 16:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this is a non notable promo compilation cd which is not part of the Official discography. It even has commercials for goodness sake. Non notable compilations are excluded from the chronology. - Dr Haggis - Talk 23:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Publicity Ahpoddar 22:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. And Wikipedia is not a web directory. Sucks sites might best be added to the attackee page. Mmmbeer 01:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Phil talk 14:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Do something with the title if you like. - Splash talk 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-another non-notable school Dudtz 9/29/05 5:00 PM EST
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a vanity page, complete with press release. Serrie 12:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school Dismas| (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Nn-bio. The speedy tag, strangely, hadn't stuck which is why it's taken until now to delete it. - Splash talk 23:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, non notable, biography Dismas| (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Essay on political views. DS 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 nn-bio, but that doesn't apply to articles about bands, ever. Still, "[n]ow you can even listen to them in their myspace.com site" so they're sure to be deeply notable. - Splash talk 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Usually when someone creates an article that's just a recipe, I comment that at least it looks yummy. But I hate peppers. And this is just a recipe. DS 13:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Australian school newspaper. "Its audience was largely limited to the graduating class of 2005." Bonus for spelling "its" properly, but non-notable (even though its content "ranged from necrophilia to female masturbation" and "copies did manage to filter down into the lower grades"). DS 13:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Substub about a nn drive through outlet. Sadly not speediable. Delete. Proto t c 15:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Not worth relisting this. - Splash talk 01:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Plenty of Google hits for "ataji"; none in this context. DS 15:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The article has a much too large scope, but consists of little more than a list of links to very disparate structures, some of which are not even made of stone. Burschik 15:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
There is nothing culturally significant about Blue Bell Ice Cream as opposed to other brands of ice cream. One can already find information about ice cream on it's own article. If we're going to do an article about specific brands of ice cream, does that mean we're going to do one on Breyer's, and Edy's, and Blue Bunny Ice Cream? Will there soon be entries for every differnt brand of toothpaste as well? If the company has some significant history or recognition in culture (a la the soda Dr Pepper) then yes, but I see none here. SeaFox 15:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
*keep Notable ice cream. Wikipedia is not paper.
Roodog2k
(talk) 16:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC) D'oh, Merge I pulled a W. Its Friday, and I'm Fried.
Roodog2k
(talk)
18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Although the debate is hard to judge, there would appear to be a weakish consensus that the article is not telling the whole truth in some parts. - Splash talk 01:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooax. Did I mention hoax? From details such as the precise minute of the band's formation, to the fact that their "countless classic albums" reached the heady heights of #32 on the Liechtenstein charts, to their controversial Albania tour during which they became addicted to heroin and popsicles, there is no doubt whatsoever. Hoax. Kill them with fire - oh, and their article too. DS 16:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, although the author gets to comment for turning up, despite being a new user so this is actually touching the two-thirds guideline that is often used. - Splash talk 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
ad for nn four restaurant chain. No claim of notibility, none found on Google Outlander 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I do wish that there were more private restaurant chains listed here in wikipedia. Posted by: {BillboardMister}
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Zero google matches for 'Ricky Bushaway' was first check for notability, followup was no relevant matches for googling '"Sore losers" comic'. There does not appear to be a wikipedia article for the supposed host comic, additional evidence of non-notability. CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 16:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Tally: del:7, keep:3, "conditional keep": 2. The author went berserk, got banned and did not fulfil the condition: provide verifiable sources of info and proof of notability. mikka (t) 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nonnotable. Nonverifiable. Vanity original research by an apparent descendant. mikka (t) 16:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep
Conditional keep: If he is notable, it doesn't come across in the article — just one of countless (unfortunate) casualties. However, the additional information from the author, below, does seem notable. Assuming it's factual, the author should add it to the article. Just a suggestion, but I'd change the tone of the article away from reading like a family history piece and make it read more like a neutral observation — avoiding judgmental descriptions like "heroic" and "slaughtered." Maybe more about the man and what he did and less emphasis on his less-notable decendants. — Cory Maylett 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Note what the page says: The following list is a translation of names and minimal personal data for 8,500 people included in Jewish Encyclopedia of Russia (Rossiyskaya Evreiskaya Entsiclopediya); first edition; 1995, Moscow. Famous people who are listed in the book, which in fact is a biographical dictionary, were born in Russia, the USSR, the Russian Empire, or lived there. This is the first edition of this kind in Russia and a large group of specialist from Russia, Israel and other countries participated in the project.
I hope that answers the question about notability. LevKamensky
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep: this vote page resulted from combination of my error and vandalism of perm-blocked user:LevKamensky as explained by user:Curps here. mikka (t) 19:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Also, I apologize for the confusion I caused with this nomination. But it seems to be too late. mikka (t) 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This concept does not exist in a form well-enough defined or widely-enough used to justify an article. The article's creation looks like an exercise in POV-pushing (see main user's involvement with coercion and natural monopoly for that user's point of view) - which seems to have been rather successful. Almost every single usage of the term in the sense described the article is traceable either to wikipedia's article or to people who use it informally (blogs etc) and have probably picked it up from there. [27] A single-figure number of more serious uses (usually with actual or implied inverted commas) do not justify the article. An encylopedia is supposed to reflect existing knowledge, and the very existence of the article makes a claim to an existence of an established concept, which claim is simply untrue. The actual meaning of the phrase "coercive monopoly" is "a monopoly on the use of coercion", in discussions of the state. Rd232 17:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio and no offer of a rewrite and a marginal debate here. No prejudice against rewriting this one, however. - Splash talk 01:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Copied verbatim from http://www.hfac.uh.edu/phil/leiber/vita.htm . Doesn't appear more notable than any other college professor, except for being the child of a notable author. Al 17:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Strong Delete NN Vanity Unable to verify any indication that he is a published poet beyond mirrors of this article and numerous ldead inks to a defunct Geocities site he had set up for the poetry he had written.
Caerwine
17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
KEEP - ALL INFORMATION IS VERIFIABLE - READ THIS - He is an internationally acclaimed poet, his poetry can be read here http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:3nGdauexxcsJ:www.geocities.com/musicplanet2k/nazpoems.htm and his poetry is published in an international antholody ISBN 0-7951-5160-8. Proof that he is an investment banker: http://ubs.chichi.me.uk/?p=38 Proof that he won LSE prize on LSE internal site. 82.35.90.111 23:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
(See link in amateur writing.) The Sound of Poetry, is the same thing, only done to CD instead of paper by poetry.com's parent company, The International Library of Poetry. Being a self-published poet does not make one notable unless people actually buy the book, and I've seen no indication that anyone beyond his friends and relatives have even seen the book. To quote from the Better Business Bureau file on the company:
Caerwine 00:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 19:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. -- Blackcap | talk 18:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a non-notable website to me JoanneB 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 18:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not sensible. Not notable. Molotov (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is structured to define an unnotable term and it should be deleted. Solarusdude 18:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see my comment on the article's talk page. — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied, again. android 79 05:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert that person's importance or significance but given edit by user Mustaffa I did not want to speedy Tracyt1800 19:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by User:Postdlf. - Splash talk 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Problem: Not formatted in proper form, and any info relevant is already covered in other articles. Molotov (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising or other spam Buster79 20:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable. Organization gets one Google match—its own website.
Admin, please note that creator c/p'd IBIS to Input Output Buffer Information Specification, made IBIS a redirect to Ibis (disambiguation), and added nominated page to the disambiguation page; this should probably be reversed if nominated page is deleted. — Brent Dax 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as a speedy (which it's not) for advertising (which it is) - sending here instead. -- Doc (?) 21:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense, nn bio, attack page - -- Doc (?) 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for a speedy, and deserves it. But it isn't 'short' to speedy as an attack, and isn't 'patent' to speedy as nonsense. -- Doc (?) 21:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Band that has no All Music entry and only has one album, which doesn't show up in a Google search. I could not confirm the band's existence, either. -- Kjkolb 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
failure to meet WP:Music - WCFrancis 21:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
According to the article, the 'CFP' has been a 'newly founded party' for almost half a year now. No context though (not even the full name of the party, or the name of the 'parent country', as they call it), no sources, so unverifiable. Sounds pretty fake. JoanneB 21:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. DS 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely local interest. Town only has about 200 people Whitejay 251 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable website. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Francs 2000 22:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. No encyclopedic information. Schoolcruft. Dunc| ☺ 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was tagged for deletion back on 5 July. Someone recently added it to the /Old page with a request that the discussion be closed. I can find no evidence that the discussion was ever listed on the main VfD/AFD page. This is a procedural nomination and restarts the clock. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. This is a speedy. - Splash talk 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, notability not established. siafu 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Complete hoax, zero google hits on Claahammers or either of the alleged culinary terms. Should be speedied, but I can't find any criterion. It's not empty, it's not nonsense, so heigh-ho to AfD we go. Tonywalton | Talk 23:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webmaster. DS 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as "This article has no potential for expansion, and all the necessary information contained here is also available in the Warhammer_40000_Imperial_Guard_Equipment_and_Weaponry article". Now, whilst that is certainly no speedy criterion, I would advocate deletion. This is because the term is too generic to usefully redirect to the Warhammer target and is not, so far as my limited legal knowledge goes, a proper legal term. If there is a valid, non-ambiguous legalese target, then it should of course be redirected there. - Splash talk 23:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Google search for "ice metal" finds results related largely to car wheels, and a few insignificant music links. Sonata Arctica, the band the article cites as a prime example of ice metal, can be easily classified as power metal. While keyboards are important in Sonata Arctica, they certainly don't make the guitars secondary. -- Dalkaen 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply