This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. One self-released demo. Joyous (talk) 00:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Lucky 6.9. Closing. Essjay · Talk 02:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Garraty 00:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
.
The result of the debate was delete; 3 keeps and 13 deletes, two moves/rename. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Misspelled title, irrelevant, and unencyclopedic. I'm sure you could make a "list of famous people who were hit by elephants", or "list of people with two eyes", or "list of people who died from cancer" Frenchman113 00:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Off topic of this article's VfD, Frenchman113 mentioned "list of famous people who were hit by elephants", whilst many unknown people have of course been killed by elephants, if there is a list of internationally well known people who so succumbed (I can't think of any myself) then this would be sufficiently quirky that I would look at such an article. It would provide a useful starting point to consider the wild/tammed nature of elephants etc.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. (7 Keep, 4 Deletes, 2 Merge). Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge to Portland, Maine. A non-notable stadium not deserving of its own article. I checked its official website [2] and don't think it's worth expanding. Soltak 00:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I wish him all the best in his singing career, and we may well see him listed on Wikipedia someday, but he doesn't seem notable at the moment. Joyous (talk) 00:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pseudoscience experiment, so far it's got only a couple of mentions like this [4] – Gnomz 007( ?) 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- malathion talk 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. DS 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Really just a vanity page. Not terribly notable, and certainly not encyclopaedic (plans to go on to study veterinary medicine... cute). Delete. Exploding Boy 02:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Move to Jiangjun. Jiangjun article created on August 11 by anon IP, and is basically a copy and paste of this articles text, so I am replacing the teft from this article into Jiangjun. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
i recommend the article to be deleted for the following reasons:
1. "Chiangchun" is a dialect term (Hokkien?) not recognized internationally. i did a google search with "chiangchun" and all results returned were "Chiangchun Harbor", "Chiangchun River" and the likes. This means that the term "chiangchun" is not widely accepted or used at all.
2. The Chinese idea of a general is no different from that in the West. Until perhaps the invention of firearms, leading men of armies around the world often engage in duels to determine the outcome of the conflicts. And whether in China or elsewhere, they do follow a set of honor codes.
Therefore, i believe this article is redundant and should be deleted. -- Plastictv 02:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
But the article has no content at all, and is not likely to have any. Renaming to "Jiangjun" doesn't help in that sense. -- Plastictv 03:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I support the idea of renaming the article. Unlike how other cultures interpretation about generals, the term were use by chinese in the past more like a collective term for any commanding personal in the military than simpily generals. The term should be seperated to let us identify there is a significant difference between how different cultures defined the role of the generals. -- User:wuzika12 0 11:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: The article now is factually incorrect, as there has never been a military class in China - except in periods of foreign rule, in which case the upper-ranking marshalls - but not the officers - are restricted to that race. - Hmib 01:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Kind of the definition of regular negotiation if you ask me. Jemiller226 02:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN other than what's mentioned, and that's already in the Boston Molasses Flood article. If not a delete, at least a redirect is in order, IMO. Jemiller226 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable software. Article has been tagged with {{cleanup-importance}}
since July 10. "quickplayer fmod" yields
44 unique Google hits.
android
79 03:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable pop-psych phenomenon/book. kokology yields 588 unique Google hits. Amazon sales rank of 119,160. android 79 03:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 04:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Barse-man is at it again. -- BD2412 talk 03:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hideously formatted cut-and-paste of automated GEDCOM output (copyvio?), containing tens of individuals. The titular individual is non-notable, and the only notable persons among his descendants already have entries (the 2nd Earl of Salisbury, some Earls of Arundel). Choess 04:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate wasDelete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 00:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
nn web log. -- malathion talk 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to synonym Big Bang nucleosynthesis. ~~ N ( t/ c) 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Primordial nucleosynthesis is just an infrequently used synonym of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which we have a very comprehensive article on. This article is two sentences and just says what can be inferred from the name. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 04:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Local cover band in Billings, Montana. Fails WP:MUSIC — Wahoofive ( talk) 04:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's actually "Granny's Burritos"- but aside from that it's non notable, sort of like me writing an article for the convenience store in my home town. CanadianCaesar 05:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Not deleted; no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No more notable than List of Catholic Criminals, which is already up for VfD. The religion of an actor is not important unless they make it so, such as Mel Gibson. Zoe 05:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
WikiDon 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I think on a page like this POV is not only OK, but essential to the decision of whether or not to keep the list, on which I have spent a lot of time and money and thus have an investment. I don't think I was out of line, but I apologize to anyone who was offended. I used the above examples as examples of how interesting the list can be with surprises and personal details and yes, exposing the hypocrisies and false images of people in the public eye who may not be what they pretend to be, and the Catholic church is a great place to start--it lends itself more to that aspect than say, Methodism or Presbyterianism--given its history of censorship and condemnation. And I don't plan to include POV about them, as it would most likely be removed anyway and would get me blocked, but I think given the subject matter some POV is inevitable, as opposed to other areas (science, technology, mathematics, geography, astronomy, etc.) where POV is wholly unnecessary and should be punished.
By the way, what is "IP", and why do you think I am in California--I am in New York!! Rms125a@hotmail.com 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Skysmith - Who is committing the "intended surreptitious advocacy, and what does it mean?? Am I the screw up again?? Or are you referring to Mir Haven?? Why is it OK to have lists of Lutherans, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Christian laypeople, et al and NOT Catholics?? I think Mir Haven destroyed his own talking points with illogic. WikiDon and NoSeptember, who seem to be the "leaders of the pack" (if you will) have it right. And again, why was Zoe pemitted to reopen this debate which was fairly settled and finalized--isn't that kind of sabotage and willful disregard for the norms of the debate and a respectful acceptance of the will of the majority (why usually goes AGAINST me, by the way) a violation of Wikipedia Netiquette?? If Zoe is an editor then she should be penalized for causing this kind of dissension and turmoil. By the way, Skysmith, why would I care what religion you are?? I am Jewish if you want to know. I look forward to everyone's responses, once again, in this infernal, endless, pointless waste of time, debate, which as far as I am concerned was already settled once. Are Zoe and her allies just looking to keep counting the ballots again and again (shades of Florida 2000) until the count goes her way?? Signing off, Rms125a@hotmail.com 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
POV is unavoidable, we are humans not machines. Again, what is "intended surreptitious advocacy" (you spelled "surreptitious" wrong, by the way, Skysmith)?? What is "trolling"?? Why was Zoe allowed to reopen this debate and threaten all the time, money, work, effort that I have spent on this project, which for whatever reason, it doesn't matter why, is interesting and is something I look forward to. I also contibute to the Jewish show business figures page, but admittedly, not as much. NoSeptember promised that the lists would remain, albeit configured differently. Regrettably I cannot "assume good faith", Doc glasgow. Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
KEEP--there is some useful and interesting info. here. I am a Catholic (from Poland) and I am not offended. Czesć, dzien kuje!! Karas peter@yahoo.com 18:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, zero Google...but I'll be damned if this isn't beautifully written and formatted. To the anon who wrote this: Sign up! We need you! - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Utterly non-notable, as a Google search reveals. Most likely vanity/advertising, considering the handy link to their website. Also note, founded "6th July, 2005". Delete. Dmcdevit· t 06:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity -- malathion talk 06:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dude...you are fast. :) This had been speedied earlier today. Just so long as it goes bye-bye. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I know I'm going to be unpopular with the trekies. Now, I conceed that Star wars is very notable (OK), and a page on the history of Starwars might be notable (OK?), and a page on a starwars fan-website might (just) be motale, and a message board from that website might be worth a passing mention in that article (possibly?), but a dedicated page with a detailed history of a message board of a website of a movie - is cruft. It is of possible interest ONLY to those involved, thus not encyclopaedic. -- Doc (?) 07:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
-- the wub "?/!" 10:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This has got to be a fan creation. If it were canon I would expect a ton of google hits searching for "Jmmaar Vvaw". It turns out one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 04:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Another load of Barse from the same author, Dockcharlotte ( talk · contribs), as Ribbage-duck. Sample excerpt: "In 1936 he won the Brit Award for doing something no one dared to do: kicking Gandhi in the rear." I haven't located any rewrite candidates. Uncle G 08:37:19, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google hits other than pages on Wikipedia. No Google hits with Japanese name. Unverifiable, possibly hoax. Kusunose 09:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page, bad title, asserts notability, but there are zero Google hits for "Satheesh Sreedharan". -- The Anome 09:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comments only, no Vote: I think that the present contents of the article do not qualify for a page in wikipedia and the contents of the article is not encyclopedic; otherwise “Panicker”, also spelt in slightly different styles, is a notable surname / family name of several persons of Kerala, India - just by way of an example: [10]which claims that “Panicker” is a surname bestowed upon the family by the Kings for exemplary services to the nation. It is equal to knighthood in England." I neither agree nor disagree with this assertion, as I have not fully studied the matter. -- Bhadani 14:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous consensus was to merge Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes by season. This is just cruft on a single episode, and would make a pointless redirect. May also be original research. the wub "?/!" 10:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not legendary anywhere else. 195.92.168.166 10:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity 195.92.168.166 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's another weblog, no particular notability; once you've said that it's a weblog and given the link, there's nothing more to be said. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
POV anyone? I just can't wait until someone adds L. Ron Hubbard, Lyndon LaRouche and even David Icke to the list. David | Talk 10:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Male clothes are often better equipped with pockets is just one of the BJAODN-worthy "highlights" this page has to offer. The ingenial authors of this piece have made a list of stereotypes about men and women, and have not even shied away from grouping the resulting ugly list into 'gender gaps favoring men' and 'gender gaps favoring women'. (Needless to say, we all know Wikipedia - the "gaps favoring women"-list is of course twice as long as that of gaps favoring men.) This page is unmaintainable on Wikipedia.-- Fenice 10:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Graham 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nice try, but not notable, yet. Graham 11:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
fourth edit:
I just finished talking to him and he told me to get it off the net ASAP, and that he didn't want to be known for his affiliation to socTH. Please delete this.
I am the author of the article; I don't think this should be deleted, for a couple of reasons.
(1) I am not Alex Wice, which already says alot.
(2) People in the community want to know who he is.
(3) He is easily one of the top 5 people that has contributed to the field, and IMO in the top 2.
(4) People may be unaware that he has written x,y,z articles (the articles that he has written, not literally "x" article, duh) or cannot match his psuedonym to his real life name.
(5) He has very strong, 'professional' (as in, related by work) to notable people, such as "Mystery" (Erik von Markovik), and "TylerDurden" (Owen Cook). To give you a sense of how they are notable, "Mystery" claims that he is the best pickup artist in the world, and backs up this claim with open challenges as well as thousands of testimonials that validate that he is infact the best seduction teacher on the planet. That means that this person is #1 at something, by affiliation the person that is close with someone who is #1 is also notable (not in whole because of their closeness, but in part.)
In response to "Collabi"'s vote for deletion : if you read the page, I provide a note which explains how internet-research is just as notable as "real" research (research affiliated with a university.) The reason is that there are alot of nonstandard ideas that are logically valid but are discarded in a 'professional' setting, and also that people that work in this field really need to have a different set of beliefs (an 'open mind' ?) that lets them explore.
In response to "Dbiv"'s vote for deletion : if you look at the entry "Macky" in wikipedia, you will see that this is a biography of someone born in 1990, who is notable. The age doesn't matter.
edit: I forgot to sign. Here is my signature. 70.24.247.156 12:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
second edit:
From Wikipedia:Importance;
1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject.
you only have to use google for 'pickup' or goto bristollair.com to see how many people are interested in pickup articles; then it is quite easy to find his handle (psuedonym), which by then you will figure out that many people have read his articles, which is evidenced by the hit counter at the bottom of the page in just one of the many places that hold copies of his writing.
so stop saying "nn" : easily more than 1000 people has read some form of his work and many are interested to find more about his work, and possibly in the future where they can find his work / more of his work.
another thing is that his presence in the dictionary may provoke him to come out of hiding and start writing for the general public again.
ps. for the record this is still the same vote even though my signature appears above this.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A pastor. 17 Google hits. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
As User:Raul654 suggested. I would love to know what others think. (Please don't take this sarcastically)
keep Gateman1997 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
CHRIS: The editors who vote on the VfD page are charged with a simple task: to determine whether the article in question satisfies criteria for deletion from Wikipedia. The question before us is unambiguous: does the article now lying at
Surrender of Japan deserve deletion? The first thing to do is to look at that article. It has four sentences. It states that the Emperor announced Japan's surrender to the Allied forces on Aug 14 1945, that that day is known as Victory day in the US but Shusen-kinenbi in Japan, and that it is generally considered to mark the end of WWII. That's it. There's nothing else there.
Now, the reason this article is before us is clear. There is another article, VJ day, which relates precisely the same events, and which has been around for two years. There is a WP policy that you cannot have two articles on the same thing. Since the content of SOJ was so similar to the corresponding, relevant portion of VJD the question essentially boiled down to: which title page should this article come under? I explained in my first post how I answered that question. My opinion is that the article at SOJ should be removed. Other editors have said that the content of SOJ should be removed and "merged" into VJD — that is fine too, the reason I didn't suggest that myself is that I read both articles, and it seems to me there is essentially nothing in SOJ that is not already in VJD.
Now, you and the anon have suggested that the article be kept, and that a future article detailing the whole surrender process can go to that page. I find nothing objectionable in the least about writing an article under that title that would narrate all those issues that you point out — sounds to me like a splendid idea. But that is not our charge. We are asked to decide what to do with the article sitting very publicly on that page right now. (There is a reason why articles that are VfDed are "frozen" - that is the version we are judging, not something in the past or the future.)
Would I object if the SOJ page was blanked and a new version such as what you speak of was put up? No, of course not. I'd want to see a good article like that up sometime. However, I cannot be asked to respond affirmatively to, "Well, why don't you keep this article that violates policy, because in five months we'll have a different article here." This is similar to "In five months I'll be bigger than the Stones, dude, so keep the currently non-notable article on my garage band." — Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:55:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Incoherent. 5 Google hits including Wikipedia
lots of issues | leave me a message 11:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft Pilatus 11:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. B-roads are countryside lanes, not national roads Pilatus 11:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
An article on a message board on a Kylie Minogue website - that's probably reason to delete. The current longer version is a (probably defametory) record of trolling on that website. Attempts to redirect to Kylie have been reverted. -- Doc (?) 11:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable 12:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Grayum 12:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 13:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 15:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a crystal ball. Maybe if this were a major upcoming sequel, but not "a game in development." Lomn 14:04:39, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Soul Calibur III isn't even out yet. Seems strange to have this article as a result. BradBeattie 14:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. DS 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
is blatant advertising an acceptable criterion for speedy deletion yet? DS 15:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 15:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
t c 09:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable San Francisco street gang, although there's no way in hell I'd tell them that to their faces. Googling shows that, although they do have some hits (no pun intended), those are mostly mixed with references to street gangs in the city of Jackson. DS 15:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a list of (I suppose) 1001... um... things. No wiki, no hope of NPOV, coherence, relevance, continued existence. Delete. Lomn 15:30:20, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant promotion. He is a lawyer in Dallas, and did take part in the case stated, but he inflates its importance. The remainder is trivial. I tried to edit to significant only, but he keeps reverting the page. In the end he's just another lawyer with a high opinion of himself, so instead of an edit war I decided to vfd Outlander 15:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not true. I am not Michael Kevin Hurst, but Outlander apparently bears a grudge against the guy. The remainder is not trivial, per Wikipedia's guidelines. In the end Outlander is just another random troll on the internet (or an arrogant person who lives in his own world) who gets his only joy in life by deleting the content that others work hard to create. DevilYouKnow
Michael K. Hurst, Marcie Lande Romick, Dallas, for Appellants. William C. Norvell, Scott D. Marrs, Bruce Charles Morris, Houston, for Appellee. -- Devilyouknow
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Google = 511, Alexa = 1,981,781 . Delete - brenneman (t) (c) 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, no claim of notability. Thue | talk 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The subject may well be notable, but this article is nearly content-free. The google hits seem to refer to a press editor in NY who could be this guy, and a Czech politician. Scimitar parley 16:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a mixture of translation and description of an uncited primary source: the war diary of a man identified only as Corporal Nakamura. I have been unable to trace the source document through Google, the British Library or Nielsen Bibliographic Data. The first draft of the article was in broken English, from which subsequent editors have guessed the intent, but the accuracy of the present version of the translations cannot be verified without the source. It has been suggested that this should be transwikied to Wikisource but the work is inappropriate for that project because it is not simply a transcript of a source. So, as matters stand, the article is not quite encyclopedic, not quite a source and not quite original research. Perhaps it would have a home somewhere at Wikicities. I am convinced, however, that it has no place here. — Theo (Talk) 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article makes some fairly extraordinary claims, with little evidence to back them up. Without anything better than the article creator's own website, delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2754 http://www.theatlasgames.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=40
Still, it sounds like pie in the sky that will probably never get off the ground. And they charge the athletes to participate, according to the FAQ on their website. Delete until there are some news articles in mainstream news outlets. Zoe 21:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"Agropio Fallaver is a character featured in the 1980 film The Falls, directed by Peter Greenaway". This is a minor character of a minor cult film, which I do not believe is notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
POV, inappropriate tone, and apparently a copyvio (can't find the source though). I can't see this developing into anything useful (not that I know anything about architecture though), so delete unless there's a complete rewrite. - ulayiti (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Cleveland heavy metal band that existed for two years in the 80's. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
How has this survived since May? This article perhaps best exemplifies the kind of criticism Wikipedia recieves as a legitimate source of information- it's totally, horribly unverifiable, (5 google hits, all from mirrors), and looks like it was written by a drunk 15-year old. Delete with all possible prejudice. Scimitar parley 17:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
It's still not a notable site on its own, despite being useful to Pokémon fans. (It has been linked on the
Pokémon article.)
Note that
it has been through VFD before, and the consensus then was to delete. -
A Man In Black (
Talk |
Contribs)
17:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I never quite put my finger on why, but these type of articles just don't belong here -- Doc (?) 17:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef neologism Randwicked 17:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article apparently of different content to original deleted article. I've reactivated this page, don't know if there's a way to start a new one.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Glossy advertisement. Also a copyvio, but since the creator is User:MM3Tools I'm going to assume s/he would grant permission. FreplySpang (talk) 17:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Corresponding categories are available in Wikipedia for software products. Similar products also are listed (See e.q. Offline_Explorer, HTTrack) Please inform us if you consider changes to be necessary. -- MM3Tools
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Overlong bio of a guy who ran in the Republican primary for a seat in Congress, losing badly. He also was on some town board or something somewhere, but it's hardly noteworthy. Members of Congress are notable, but random people who make poor attempts to reach that office are a dime a dozen. I'd say your average grade school teacher has a greater impact on the world. - R. fiend 18:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong keep. I think that NPOV articles about minor politicians are fine. He might not be the most successful politician around, but Wikipedia should have as much political coverage as possible and this is a well-written, interesting article.
Academic Challenger
05:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, at least I find no mention of THIS tag corporation during a cursory search. Advert. Delete Usrnme h8er 18:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete
This page should be deleted, since it is so obviously a cut-and-paste of the Plan_9_From_Outer_Space page.The movie Planet Zebra is also quite certainly inexistant (no hit on IMDB) The Son of Oink 22:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. The road in question is in a thinly populated corner of Scotland and has no claim to notability. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. The road in question is in a thinly populated corner of Scotland and has no claim to notability. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
More band vanity, I'm afraid. Created by user:Thescarypirates. Flowerparty talk 18:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Juno. Bratsche talk 5 pillars 02:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a vanity page (though my knowledge of Netherlands rock groups is not exactly comprehensive). I'd like to Delete and then Redirect to Juno, which Iuno is an alternate spelling of. JDoorjam 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. More nonsense from that Ribbage-duck/ Barse fellow. -- BD2412 talk 19:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Waste of energy for all involved. JDoorjam 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable hurricane causing no documented deaths or damages. It's gets just under 2000 Google hits [23] almost all of which are from meteorological sites. The only thing even remotely notable about it is the fact that it's one of only 25 Atlantic Hurricanes to reach Category 5, and that doesn't warrant an article. Soltak 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. One of just 25 in 150 years sounds notable to me. Pilatus 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment This article was 2 minutes old when Soltak tagged it for deletion. The anonymous editor (beware the urge to denigrate anonymity) who created this article made a number of contributions in the field of hurricanes in a short period of time. Let's give this article a chance to develop in the normal course of things. -- Mddake 00:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
A jockstrap for bicycle delivery boys? Sounds like patent nonsense to me. Doesn't pass the Google test either. But I'm willing to give this page the benefit of the doubt, so I'll abstain from voting for now. Aecis 19:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep, but move to Our Italian Husband. -- BD2412 talk 04:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a message board. Delete.--
DrTorstenHenning
19:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus) No votes. -- Ryan Delaney talk 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. nn. (only 35 hits on google) -- R.Koot 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notability, and possible vanity. Refer to User_talk:200.103.250.39 for more details. R Lee E 20:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be advertising for some sort of state healthcare. Not encyclopedic DJ Clayworth 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete. I doubt it is possible to accuratly measure the size of computer character. -- R.Koot 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The amount of new users here is disturbing, and therefore I cannot close as a delete, despite the overwhelming amount of delete votes. I suggest that this discussion may be reopened later, but it should not become such a circus (caused by both sides) again. Dmcdevit· t 05:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
-- Dunheroin 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC) - (User created purely for voting in this ) (Dunheroin's second edit is this) -- Celestianpower hab 22:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
If it can be proved that User:Linnwood is a member of Filepile, and therefore started the orchestrated campaign to delete this article, would that invalidate the Vote for Deletion? - Xed 00:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wow, this page has gotten confusing to read. I've made an attempt to start a conversation about this whole mess on the article's talk page, by way of breaking down my perspective on the events of the past few days. — Adam Conover † 06:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Note that some of these votes have been made by users who had either no or very few edits before voting. See annotations by Xed above for details. (Just trying to make sure all the info is in one place.) — Adam Conover † 08:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
As for vandals, there is also nothing that outright precludes them from voting; additionally, as I have mentioned elsewhere you have been far too liberal with the term "vandal", applying it to any editor who makes a deletion you disagree with. (The best example being the editor who believed that Flickr photosets were not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. I, for one, agree with him -- that editor was not a vandal, and neither are many of the others you have so labelled.)
Xed, can we possibly avoid having an edit war on the section below? You have had your say above -- I proposed this section as a way to tally which voters had a large number of edits, not as a quick summary of every attack that has been made against every voter. The admin who decides this issue will, I'm sure, read everything that everyone has written, and make their decision based on that. If we are just going to fight over this section as well, I suggest we simply delete it, as it will not help anyone. So instead, can we just keep it NPOV -- that is, just that information on which we can all agree?
—
Adam Conover
† 16:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the tally. It was doing nothing but causing an edit war, and it didn't actually provide any information that wasn't already available above. (It is also against the VfD process, as it turns out.) I suggest that the annotation of specific users continue in COMMENT format -- so Xed, if you want to say something about a user, you can add a comment below their votes, and if someone else wants to refute it, they can comment below your post. That way no one will be deleting anything, only adding comments. This deletion on my part is not vandalism -- rather, it is an attempt to change the way matters are being conducted on this page to minimise endless reverting and foster real discussion. If you feel any information might have been discarded with the tally, go into the history and find it, then post it above. I think, though, that we'll all be better off without a revert war, right? Let's do this right, guys. — Adam Conover † 23:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redeleted again, as it remains clear the Wikipedia Guide to VfDs specifically says that tables like this should not exist ("Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process."). I'm not really sure why the removal of this is controversial, either. Jason 01:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Outlandishly frivolous page Jeff Worthington 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Stupid, get rid of it... User:Horatio86, 11 August 2005
Max Williams (Unsigned vote by 151.197.219.196 ( talk · contribs), first edit)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is on a supposed portmanteau of hentai and tenticles [sic]. Even if it were a real word, it's a non-notable neologism. A misspelled one. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. Thue | talk 20:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Content of article is "PwNation is a tournament website for the Xbox game Unreal Championship 2. PwNation was founded by Augy, who hosts tournaments regularly each month." Seems non-notable to me. 302 google hits, which, even if all are pertinent, doesn't seem like notoriety to me. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete. Not notable. - MicroFeet 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
A "5 piece punk/emo/post hardcore band out of Holyoke, Massachusetts" with one EP released. Googling "The Smokey Wambas" returns 158 hits, mostly pertinent. Article claims that band has toured with " Jimmies Chicken Shack, Agent Orange and the Misfits," which are notable bands in their own right. As for these guys, I say... keep trying, and, hopefully, succeed, but until you do, there's no need for an article. Delete jglc | t | c 21:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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
A college student is not notable just because he was the campus grand marshal. Delete. DS1953 21:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
A college student is not notable just because he was the campus grand marshal. Delete. DS1953 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Pilatus 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Unsourced, unverifiable. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax. The phrase "Duke of Liempt" generates no Google hits. None. I am not aware of any easily-accessed resource for Dutch titles of nobility (e.g. Leight Rayment's peerage pages). I and other people who work on British and European nobility welcome the addition of non-British titles, but we'd prefer that they actually exist. If anyone can submit information that verifies this page, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merged -- SPUI ( talk) 23:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I merged it cos it said to merge it horseboy 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article was merged to Religion and sexual orientation horseboy 22:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn radio person. The article is more than faintly ridiculous and the website says "check back soon". - Splash 22:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
He is a fake Digimon. KL 22:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE (by Meelar 2005-08-18 15:43:43)
Advertising. "RN Brazil is a producer of films,videos, events and interactive content"; gives a client list and contact details. Physchim62 22:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Generally I'm an inclusionist, but this is just silly. It's a website, which 'strives to bring forth common in real life meetings'. It has an Alexa rank of 2,102,132, and gets 385 Google hits (which is little for a website). Oh, and no pages link to it, except one redirect. Very kawaii. - ulayiti (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
The stated justification for the deletion nomination is invalid. Users have no right to anonymity on Wikipedia. There is certainly not right to a degree of anonymity greater than the IP address used by the only two contributors to the article so far.
That said, the current article contains essentially no verifiable information. Some information mirrors that of the company's website but the article itself cites credibility concerns with the source. The company lists itself as a Florida corporation but shows up on no search of US companies that I can find.
Despite having only one valid "delete" vote, I am going to exercise my judgment on this one and call it as a "delete" for lack of verifiability. This decision is without prejudice against the recreation of a verifiable article on the same topic. Rossami (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article simply forgot to log in and the topic requires anonymity.
Urgent need to remove IP addresses from history pages or delete the pages "Integrated_Control_Systems, Litcfiel_Associates, IMPAC" as soon as possible.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:12, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete First, the possibility for vanity exists as the article's author was an anonymous IP. In any event, while this professor is quite notable at his University, on the whole notability has not been established. I could write very similar articles about a number of professors I had in college. A line that most clearly demonstrates his lack of notability is this "Russell Impagliazzo has had a big red beard for most of professional life and is recognized by this, at least within the UCSD computer science department." If vanity isn't at work, an over-enthusiastic student is. Soltak 23:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable chat room. Zoe 23:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus.
As several commented, this should properly be resolved through Redirects for deletion, not VfD. However, since the Manual of Style discussion is still quite active, I think it's premature to open the RfD now. I am going to close and archive this discussion. When the Manual of Style discussion reaches consensus, please determine if a redirect for deletion decision is still necessary. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The edit history of this talk page prevents the move of Talk:Mutsuhito to follow the article itself. Please delete soonest. Arrigo 23:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. One self-released demo. Joyous (talk) 00:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Lucky 6.9. Closing. Essjay · Talk 02:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Garraty 00:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
.
The result of the debate was delete; 3 keeps and 13 deletes, two moves/rename. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Misspelled title, irrelevant, and unencyclopedic. I'm sure you could make a "list of famous people who were hit by elephants", or "list of people with two eyes", or "list of people who died from cancer" Frenchman113 00:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Off topic of this article's VfD, Frenchman113 mentioned "list of famous people who were hit by elephants", whilst many unknown people have of course been killed by elephants, if there is a list of internationally well known people who so succumbed (I can't think of any myself) then this would be sufficiently quirky that I would look at such an article. It would provide a useful starting point to consider the wild/tammed nature of elephants etc.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. (7 Keep, 4 Deletes, 2 Merge). Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:00, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge to Portland, Maine. A non-notable stadium not deserving of its own article. I checked its official website [2] and don't think it's worth expanding. Soltak 00:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I wish him all the best in his singing career, and we may well see him listed on Wikipedia someday, but he doesn't seem notable at the moment. Joyous (talk) 00:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pseudoscience experiment, so far it's got only a couple of mentions like this [4] – Gnomz 007( ?) 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- malathion talk 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. DS 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Really just a vanity page. Not terribly notable, and certainly not encyclopaedic (plans to go on to study veterinary medicine... cute). Delete. Exploding Boy 02:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Move to Jiangjun. Jiangjun article created on August 11 by anon IP, and is basically a copy and paste of this articles text, so I am replacing the teft from this article into Jiangjun. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
i recommend the article to be deleted for the following reasons:
1. "Chiangchun" is a dialect term (Hokkien?) not recognized internationally. i did a google search with "chiangchun" and all results returned were "Chiangchun Harbor", "Chiangchun River" and the likes. This means that the term "chiangchun" is not widely accepted or used at all.
2. The Chinese idea of a general is no different from that in the West. Until perhaps the invention of firearms, leading men of armies around the world often engage in duels to determine the outcome of the conflicts. And whether in China or elsewhere, they do follow a set of honor codes.
Therefore, i believe this article is redundant and should be deleted. -- Plastictv 02:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
But the article has no content at all, and is not likely to have any. Renaming to "Jiangjun" doesn't help in that sense. -- Plastictv 03:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I support the idea of renaming the article. Unlike how other cultures interpretation about generals, the term were use by chinese in the past more like a collective term for any commanding personal in the military than simpily generals. The term should be seperated to let us identify there is a significant difference between how different cultures defined the role of the generals. -- User:wuzika12 0 11:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: The article now is factually incorrect, as there has never been a military class in China - except in periods of foreign rule, in which case the upper-ranking marshalls - but not the officers - are restricted to that race. - Hmib 01:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Kind of the definition of regular negotiation if you ask me. Jemiller226 02:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN other than what's mentioned, and that's already in the Boston Molasses Flood article. If not a delete, at least a redirect is in order, IMO. Jemiller226 03:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable software. Article has been tagged with {{cleanup-importance}}
since July 10. "quickplayer fmod" yields
44 unique Google hits.
android
79 03:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable pop-psych phenomenon/book. kokology yields 588 unique Google hits. Amazon sales rank of 119,160. android 79 03:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 04:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Barse-man is at it again. -- BD2412 talk 03:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hideously formatted cut-and-paste of automated GEDCOM output (copyvio?), containing tens of individuals. The titular individual is non-notable, and the only notable persons among his descendants already have entries (the 2nd Earl of Salisbury, some Earls of Arundel). Choess 04:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate wasDelete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 00:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
nn web log. -- malathion talk 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to synonym Big Bang nucleosynthesis. ~~ N ( t/ c) 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Primordial nucleosynthesis is just an infrequently used synonym of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which we have a very comprehensive article on. This article is two sentences and just says what can be inferred from the name. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 04:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Local cover band in Billings, Montana. Fails WP:MUSIC — Wahoofive ( talk) 04:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's actually "Granny's Burritos"- but aside from that it's non notable, sort of like me writing an article for the convenience store in my home town. CanadianCaesar 05:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Not deleted; no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No more notable than List of Catholic Criminals, which is already up for VfD. The religion of an actor is not important unless they make it so, such as Mel Gibson. Zoe 05:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
WikiDon 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I think on a page like this POV is not only OK, but essential to the decision of whether or not to keep the list, on which I have spent a lot of time and money and thus have an investment. I don't think I was out of line, but I apologize to anyone who was offended. I used the above examples as examples of how interesting the list can be with surprises and personal details and yes, exposing the hypocrisies and false images of people in the public eye who may not be what they pretend to be, and the Catholic church is a great place to start--it lends itself more to that aspect than say, Methodism or Presbyterianism--given its history of censorship and condemnation. And I don't plan to include POV about them, as it would most likely be removed anyway and would get me blocked, but I think given the subject matter some POV is inevitable, as opposed to other areas (science, technology, mathematics, geography, astronomy, etc.) where POV is wholly unnecessary and should be punished.
By the way, what is "IP", and why do you think I am in California--I am in New York!! Rms125a@hotmail.com 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Skysmith - Who is committing the "intended surreptitious advocacy, and what does it mean?? Am I the screw up again?? Or are you referring to Mir Haven?? Why is it OK to have lists of Lutherans, Mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Christian laypeople, et al and NOT Catholics?? I think Mir Haven destroyed his own talking points with illogic. WikiDon and NoSeptember, who seem to be the "leaders of the pack" (if you will) have it right. And again, why was Zoe pemitted to reopen this debate which was fairly settled and finalized--isn't that kind of sabotage and willful disregard for the norms of the debate and a respectful acceptance of the will of the majority (why usually goes AGAINST me, by the way) a violation of Wikipedia Netiquette?? If Zoe is an editor then she should be penalized for causing this kind of dissension and turmoil. By the way, Skysmith, why would I care what religion you are?? I am Jewish if you want to know. I look forward to everyone's responses, once again, in this infernal, endless, pointless waste of time, debate, which as far as I am concerned was already settled once. Are Zoe and her allies just looking to keep counting the ballots again and again (shades of Florida 2000) until the count goes her way?? Signing off, Rms125a@hotmail.com 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
POV is unavoidable, we are humans not machines. Again, what is "intended surreptitious advocacy" (you spelled "surreptitious" wrong, by the way, Skysmith)?? What is "trolling"?? Why was Zoe allowed to reopen this debate and threaten all the time, money, work, effort that I have spent on this project, which for whatever reason, it doesn't matter why, is interesting and is something I look forward to. I also contibute to the Jewish show business figures page, but admittedly, not as much. NoSeptember promised that the lists would remain, albeit configured differently. Regrettably I cannot "assume good faith", Doc glasgow. Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
KEEP--there is some useful and interesting info. here. I am a Catholic (from Poland) and I am not offended. Czesć, dzien kuje!! Karas peter@yahoo.com 18:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, zero Google...but I'll be damned if this isn't beautifully written and formatted. To the anon who wrote this: Sign up! We need you! - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Utterly non-notable, as a Google search reveals. Most likely vanity/advertising, considering the handy link to their website. Also note, founded "6th July, 2005". Delete. Dmcdevit· t 06:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity -- malathion talk 06:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dude...you are fast. :) This had been speedied earlier today. Just so long as it goes bye-bye. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I know I'm going to be unpopular with the trekies. Now, I conceed that Star wars is very notable (OK), and a page on the history of Starwars might be notable (OK?), and a page on a starwars fan-website might (just) be motale, and a message board from that website might be worth a passing mention in that article (possibly?), but a dedicated page with a detailed history of a message board of a website of a movie - is cruft. It is of possible interest ONLY to those involved, thus not encyclopaedic. -- Doc (?) 07:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
-- the wub "?/!" 10:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This has got to be a fan creation. If it were canon I would expect a ton of google hits searching for "Jmmaar Vvaw". It turns out one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Longhair | Talk 04:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Another load of Barse from the same author, Dockcharlotte ( talk · contribs), as Ribbage-duck. Sample excerpt: "In 1936 he won the Brit Award for doing something no one dared to do: kicking Gandhi in the rear." I haven't located any rewrite candidates. Uncle G 08:37:19, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google hits other than pages on Wikipedia. No Google hits with Japanese name. Unverifiable, possibly hoax. Kusunose 09:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page, bad title, asserts notability, but there are zero Google hits for "Satheesh Sreedharan". -- The Anome 09:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comments only, no Vote: I think that the present contents of the article do not qualify for a page in wikipedia and the contents of the article is not encyclopedic; otherwise “Panicker”, also spelt in slightly different styles, is a notable surname / family name of several persons of Kerala, India - just by way of an example: [10]which claims that “Panicker” is a surname bestowed upon the family by the Kings for exemplary services to the nation. It is equal to knighthood in England." I neither agree nor disagree with this assertion, as I have not fully studied the matter. -- Bhadani 14:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous consensus was to merge Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes by season. This is just cruft on a single episode, and would make a pointless redirect. May also be original research. the wub "?/!" 10:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not legendary anywhere else. 195.92.168.166 10:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity 195.92.168.166 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's another weblog, no particular notability; once you've said that it's a weblog and given the link, there's nothing more to be said. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
POV anyone? I just can't wait until someone adds L. Ron Hubbard, Lyndon LaRouche and even David Icke to the list. David | Talk 10:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Male clothes are often better equipped with pockets is just one of the BJAODN-worthy "highlights" this page has to offer. The ingenial authors of this piece have made a list of stereotypes about men and women, and have not even shied away from grouping the resulting ugly list into 'gender gaps favoring men' and 'gender gaps favoring women'. (Needless to say, we all know Wikipedia - the "gaps favoring women"-list is of course twice as long as that of gaps favoring men.) This page is unmaintainable on Wikipedia.-- Fenice 10:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Graham 09:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nice try, but not notable, yet. Graham 11:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
fourth edit:
I just finished talking to him and he told me to get it off the net ASAP, and that he didn't want to be known for his affiliation to socTH. Please delete this.
I am the author of the article; I don't think this should be deleted, for a couple of reasons.
(1) I am not Alex Wice, which already says alot.
(2) People in the community want to know who he is.
(3) He is easily one of the top 5 people that has contributed to the field, and IMO in the top 2.
(4) People may be unaware that he has written x,y,z articles (the articles that he has written, not literally "x" article, duh) or cannot match his psuedonym to his real life name.
(5) He has very strong, 'professional' (as in, related by work) to notable people, such as "Mystery" (Erik von Markovik), and "TylerDurden" (Owen Cook). To give you a sense of how they are notable, "Mystery" claims that he is the best pickup artist in the world, and backs up this claim with open challenges as well as thousands of testimonials that validate that he is infact the best seduction teacher on the planet. That means that this person is #1 at something, by affiliation the person that is close with someone who is #1 is also notable (not in whole because of their closeness, but in part.)
In response to "Collabi"'s vote for deletion : if you read the page, I provide a note which explains how internet-research is just as notable as "real" research (research affiliated with a university.) The reason is that there are alot of nonstandard ideas that are logically valid but are discarded in a 'professional' setting, and also that people that work in this field really need to have a different set of beliefs (an 'open mind' ?) that lets them explore.
In response to "Dbiv"'s vote for deletion : if you look at the entry "Macky" in wikipedia, you will see that this is a biography of someone born in 1990, who is notable. The age doesn't matter.
edit: I forgot to sign. Here is my signature. 70.24.247.156 12:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
second edit:
From Wikipedia:Importance;
1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject.
you only have to use google for 'pickup' or goto bristollair.com to see how many people are interested in pickup articles; then it is quite easy to find his handle (psuedonym), which by then you will figure out that many people have read his articles, which is evidenced by the hit counter at the bottom of the page in just one of the many places that hold copies of his writing.
so stop saying "nn" : easily more than 1000 people has read some form of his work and many are interested to find more about his work, and possibly in the future where they can find his work / more of his work.
another thing is that his presence in the dictionary may provoke him to come out of hiding and start writing for the general public again.
ps. for the record this is still the same vote even though my signature appears above this.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A pastor. 17 Google hits. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
As User:Raul654 suggested. I would love to know what others think. (Please don't take this sarcastically)
keep Gateman1997 14:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
CHRIS: The editors who vote on the VfD page are charged with a simple task: to determine whether the article in question satisfies criteria for deletion from Wikipedia. The question before us is unambiguous: does the article now lying at
Surrender of Japan deserve deletion? The first thing to do is to look at that article. It has four sentences. It states that the Emperor announced Japan's surrender to the Allied forces on Aug 14 1945, that that day is known as Victory day in the US but Shusen-kinenbi in Japan, and that it is generally considered to mark the end of WWII. That's it. There's nothing else there.
Now, the reason this article is before us is clear. There is another article, VJ day, which relates precisely the same events, and which has been around for two years. There is a WP policy that you cannot have two articles on the same thing. Since the content of SOJ was so similar to the corresponding, relevant portion of VJD the question essentially boiled down to: which title page should this article come under? I explained in my first post how I answered that question. My opinion is that the article at SOJ should be removed. Other editors have said that the content of SOJ should be removed and "merged" into VJD — that is fine too, the reason I didn't suggest that myself is that I read both articles, and it seems to me there is essentially nothing in SOJ that is not already in VJD.
Now, you and the anon have suggested that the article be kept, and that a future article detailing the whole surrender process can go to that page. I find nothing objectionable in the least about writing an article under that title that would narrate all those issues that you point out — sounds to me like a splendid idea. But that is not our charge. We are asked to decide what to do with the article sitting very publicly on that page right now. (There is a reason why articles that are VfDed are "frozen" - that is the version we are judging, not something in the past or the future.)
Would I object if the SOJ page was blanked and a new version such as what you speak of was put up? No, of course not. I'd want to see a good article like that up sometime. However, I cannot be asked to respond affirmatively to, "Well, why don't you keep this article that violates policy, because in five months we'll have a different article here." This is similar to "In five months I'll be bigger than the Stones, dude, so keep the currently non-notable article on my garage band." — Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:55:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Incoherent. 5 Google hits including Wikipedia
lots of issues | leave me a message 11:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft Pilatus 11:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. B-roads are countryside lanes, not national roads Pilatus 11:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
An article on a message board on a Kylie Minogue website - that's probably reason to delete. The current longer version is a (probably defametory) record of trolling on that website. Attempts to redirect to Kylie have been reverted. -- Doc (?) 11:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable 12:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Grayum 12:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 13:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 00:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 15:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a crystal ball. Maybe if this were a major upcoming sequel, but not "a game in development." Lomn 14:04:39, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Soul Calibur III isn't even out yet. Seems strange to have this article as a result. BradBeattie 14:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. DS 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
is blatant advertising an acceptable criterion for speedy deletion yet? DS 15:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 15:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
t c 09:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 01:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 18:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable San Francisco street gang, although there's no way in hell I'd tell them that to their faces. Googling shows that, although they do have some hits (no pun intended), those are mostly mixed with references to street gangs in the city of Jackson. DS 15:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a list of (I suppose) 1001... um... things. No wiki, no hope of NPOV, coherence, relevance, continued existence. Delete. Lomn 15:30:20, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant promotion. He is a lawyer in Dallas, and did take part in the case stated, but he inflates its importance. The remainder is trivial. I tried to edit to significant only, but he keeps reverting the page. In the end he's just another lawyer with a high opinion of himself, so instead of an edit war I decided to vfd Outlander 15:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not true. I am not Michael Kevin Hurst, but Outlander apparently bears a grudge against the guy. The remainder is not trivial, per Wikipedia's guidelines. In the end Outlander is just another random troll on the internet (or an arrogant person who lives in his own world) who gets his only joy in life by deleting the content that others work hard to create. DevilYouKnow
Michael K. Hurst, Marcie Lande Romick, Dallas, for Appellants. William C. Norvell, Scott D. Marrs, Bruce Charles Morris, Houston, for Appellee. -- Devilyouknow
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Google = 511, Alexa = 1,981,781 . Delete - brenneman (t) (c) 15:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, no claim of notability. Thue | talk 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The subject may well be notable, but this article is nearly content-free. The google hits seem to refer to a press editor in NY who could be this guy, and a Czech politician. Scimitar parley 16:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a mixture of translation and description of an uncited primary source: the war diary of a man identified only as Corporal Nakamura. I have been unable to trace the source document through Google, the British Library or Nielsen Bibliographic Data. The first draft of the article was in broken English, from which subsequent editors have guessed the intent, but the accuracy of the present version of the translations cannot be verified without the source. It has been suggested that this should be transwikied to Wikisource but the work is inappropriate for that project because it is not simply a transcript of a source. So, as matters stand, the article is not quite encyclopedic, not quite a source and not quite original research. Perhaps it would have a home somewhere at Wikicities. I am convinced, however, that it has no place here. — Theo (Talk) 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article makes some fairly extraordinary claims, with little evidence to back them up. Without anything better than the article creator's own website, delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2754 http://www.theatlasgames.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=40
Still, it sounds like pie in the sky that will probably never get off the ground. And they charge the athletes to participate, according to the FAQ on their website. Delete until there are some news articles in mainstream news outlets. Zoe 21:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"Agropio Fallaver is a character featured in the 1980 film The Falls, directed by Peter Greenaway". This is a minor character of a minor cult film, which I do not believe is notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
POV, inappropriate tone, and apparently a copyvio (can't find the source though). I can't see this developing into anything useful (not that I know anything about architecture though), so delete unless there's a complete rewrite. - ulayiti (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Cleveland heavy metal band that existed for two years in the 80's. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
How has this survived since May? This article perhaps best exemplifies the kind of criticism Wikipedia recieves as a legitimate source of information- it's totally, horribly unverifiable, (5 google hits, all from mirrors), and looks like it was written by a drunk 15-year old. Delete with all possible prejudice. Scimitar parley 17:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
It's still not a notable site on its own, despite being useful to Pokémon fans. (It has been linked on the
Pokémon article.)
Note that
it has been through VFD before, and the consensus then was to delete. -
A Man In Black (
Talk |
Contribs)
17:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I never quite put my finger on why, but these type of articles just don't belong here -- Doc (?) 17:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef neologism Randwicked 17:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article apparently of different content to original deleted article. I've reactivated this page, don't know if there's a way to start a new one.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Glossy advertisement. Also a copyvio, but since the creator is User:MM3Tools I'm going to assume s/he would grant permission. FreplySpang (talk) 17:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Corresponding categories are available in Wikipedia for software products. Similar products also are listed (See e.q. Offline_Explorer, HTTrack) Please inform us if you consider changes to be necessary. -- MM3Tools
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Overlong bio of a guy who ran in the Republican primary for a seat in Congress, losing badly. He also was on some town board or something somewhere, but it's hardly noteworthy. Members of Congress are notable, but random people who make poor attempts to reach that office are a dime a dozen. I'd say your average grade school teacher has a greater impact on the world. - R. fiend 18:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong keep. I think that NPOV articles about minor politicians are fine. He might not be the most successful politician around, but Wikipedia should have as much political coverage as possible and this is a well-written, interesting article.
Academic Challenger
05:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, at least I find no mention of THIS tag corporation during a cursory search. Advert. Delete Usrnme h8er 18:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete
This page should be deleted, since it is so obviously a cut-and-paste of the Plan_9_From_Outer_Space page.The movie Planet Zebra is also quite certainly inexistant (no hit on IMDB) The Son of Oink 22:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. The road in question is in a thinly populated corner of Scotland and has no claim to notability. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
B-roads are minor countryside roads, not national roads. The road in question is in a thinly populated corner of Scotland and has no claim to notability. This is fancruft. Wikipedians from outside Britain, please read Great Britain road numbering scheme before voting! Pilatus 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
More band vanity, I'm afraid. Created by user:Thescarypirates. Flowerparty talk 18:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Juno. Bratsche talk 5 pillars 02:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a vanity page (though my knowledge of Netherlands rock groups is not exactly comprehensive). I'd like to Delete and then Redirect to Juno, which Iuno is an alternate spelling of. JDoorjam 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. More nonsense from that Ribbage-duck/ Barse fellow. -- BD2412 talk 19:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Waste of energy for all involved. JDoorjam 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable hurricane causing no documented deaths or damages. It's gets just under 2000 Google hits [23] almost all of which are from meteorological sites. The only thing even remotely notable about it is the fact that it's one of only 25 Atlantic Hurricanes to reach Category 5, and that doesn't warrant an article. Soltak 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. One of just 25 in 150 years sounds notable to me. Pilatus 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment This article was 2 minutes old when Soltak tagged it for deletion. The anonymous editor (beware the urge to denigrate anonymity) who created this article made a number of contributions in the field of hurricanes in a short period of time. Let's give this article a chance to develop in the normal course of things. -- Mddake 00:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
A jockstrap for bicycle delivery boys? Sounds like patent nonsense to me. Doesn't pass the Google test either. But I'm willing to give this page the benefit of the doubt, so I'll abstain from voting for now. Aecis 19:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep, but move to Our Italian Husband. -- BD2412 talk 04:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a message board. Delete.--
DrTorstenHenning
19:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus) No votes. -- Ryan Delaney talk 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. nn. (only 35 hits on google) -- R.Koot 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notability, and possible vanity. Refer to User_talk:200.103.250.39 for more details. R Lee E 20:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be advertising for some sort of state healthcare. Not encyclopedic DJ Clayworth 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete. I doubt it is possible to accuratly measure the size of computer character. -- R.Koot 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The amount of new users here is disturbing, and therefore I cannot close as a delete, despite the overwhelming amount of delete votes. I suggest that this discussion may be reopened later, but it should not become such a circus (caused by both sides) again. Dmcdevit· t 05:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
-- Dunheroin 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC) - (User created purely for voting in this ) (Dunheroin's second edit is this) -- Celestianpower hab 22:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
If it can be proved that User:Linnwood is a member of Filepile, and therefore started the orchestrated campaign to delete this article, would that invalidate the Vote for Deletion? - Xed 00:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wow, this page has gotten confusing to read. I've made an attempt to start a conversation about this whole mess on the article's talk page, by way of breaking down my perspective on the events of the past few days. — Adam Conover † 06:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Note that some of these votes have been made by users who had either no or very few edits before voting. See annotations by Xed above for details. (Just trying to make sure all the info is in one place.) — Adam Conover † 08:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
As for vandals, there is also nothing that outright precludes them from voting; additionally, as I have mentioned elsewhere you have been far too liberal with the term "vandal", applying it to any editor who makes a deletion you disagree with. (The best example being the editor who believed that Flickr photosets were not appropriate material for an encyclopedia. I, for one, agree with him -- that editor was not a vandal, and neither are many of the others you have so labelled.)
Xed, can we possibly avoid having an edit war on the section below? You have had your say above -- I proposed this section as a way to tally which voters had a large number of edits, not as a quick summary of every attack that has been made against every voter. The admin who decides this issue will, I'm sure, read everything that everyone has written, and make their decision based on that. If we are just going to fight over this section as well, I suggest we simply delete it, as it will not help anyone. So instead, can we just keep it NPOV -- that is, just that information on which we can all agree?
—
Adam Conover
† 16:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the tally. It was doing nothing but causing an edit war, and it didn't actually provide any information that wasn't already available above. (It is also against the VfD process, as it turns out.) I suggest that the annotation of specific users continue in COMMENT format -- so Xed, if you want to say something about a user, you can add a comment below their votes, and if someone else wants to refute it, they can comment below your post. That way no one will be deleting anything, only adding comments. This deletion on my part is not vandalism -- rather, it is an attempt to change the way matters are being conducted on this page to minimise endless reverting and foster real discussion. If you feel any information might have been discarded with the tally, go into the history and find it, then post it above. I think, though, that we'll all be better off without a revert war, right? Let's do this right, guys. — Adam Conover † 23:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redeleted again, as it remains clear the Wikipedia Guide to VfDs specifically says that tables like this should not exist ("Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process."). I'm not really sure why the removal of this is controversial, either. Jason 01:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Outlandishly frivolous page Jeff Worthington 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Stupid, get rid of it... User:Horatio86, 11 August 2005
Max Williams (Unsigned vote by 151.197.219.196 ( talk · contribs), first edit)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is on a supposed portmanteau of hentai and tenticles [sic]. Even if it were a real word, it's a non-notable neologism. A misspelled one. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 10:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. Thue | talk 20:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Content of article is "PwNation is a tournament website for the Xbox game Unreal Championship 2. PwNation was founded by Augy, who hosts tournaments regularly each month." Seems non-notable to me. 302 google hits, which, even if all are pertinent, doesn't seem like notoriety to me. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Delete. Not notable. - MicroFeet 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
A "5 piece punk/emo/post hardcore band out of Holyoke, Massachusetts" with one EP released. Googling "The Smokey Wambas" returns 158 hits, mostly pertinent. Article claims that band has toured with " Jimmies Chicken Shack, Agent Orange and the Misfits," which are notable bands in their own right. As for these guys, I say... keep trying, and, hopefully, succeed, but until you do, there's no need for an article. Delete jglc | t | c 21:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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
A college student is not notable just because he was the campus grand marshal. Delete. DS1953 21:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
A college student is not notable just because he was the campus grand marshal. Delete. DS1953 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Pilatus 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Unsourced, unverifiable. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax. The phrase "Duke of Liempt" generates no Google hits. None. I am not aware of any easily-accessed resource for Dutch titles of nobility (e.g. Leight Rayment's peerage pages). I and other people who work on British and European nobility welcome the addition of non-British titles, but we'd prefer that they actually exist. If anyone can submit information that verifies this page, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merged -- SPUI ( talk) 23:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I merged it cos it said to merge it horseboy 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article was merged to Religion and sexual orientation horseboy 22:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 19:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn radio person. The article is more than faintly ridiculous and the website says "check back soon". - Splash 22:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/ C 20:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC) reply
He is a fake Digimon. KL 22:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE (by Meelar 2005-08-18 15:43:43)
Advertising. "RN Brazil is a producer of films,videos, events and interactive content"; gives a client list and contact details. Physchim62 22:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Generally I'm an inclusionist, but this is just silly. It's a website, which 'strives to bring forth common in real life meetings'. It has an Alexa rank of 2,102,132, and gets 385 Google hits (which is little for a website). Oh, and no pages link to it, except one redirect. Very kawaii. - ulayiti (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
The stated justification for the deletion nomination is invalid. Users have no right to anonymity on Wikipedia. There is certainly not right to a degree of anonymity greater than the IP address used by the only two contributors to the article so far.
That said, the current article contains essentially no verifiable information. Some information mirrors that of the company's website but the article itself cites credibility concerns with the source. The company lists itself as a Florida corporation but shows up on no search of US companies that I can find.
Despite having only one valid "delete" vote, I am going to exercise my judgment on this one and call it as a "delete" for lack of verifiability. This decision is without prejudice against the recreation of a verifiable article on the same topic. Rossami (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article simply forgot to log in and the topic requires anonymity.
Urgent need to remove IP addresses from history pages or delete the pages "Integrated_Control_Systems, Litcfiel_Associates, IMPAC" as soon as possible.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:12, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete First, the possibility for vanity exists as the article's author was an anonymous IP. In any event, while this professor is quite notable at his University, on the whole notability has not been established. I could write very similar articles about a number of professors I had in college. A line that most clearly demonstrates his lack of notability is this "Russell Impagliazzo has had a big red beard for most of professional life and is recognized by this, at least within the UCSD computer science department." If vanity isn't at work, an over-enthusiastic student is. Soltak 23:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE
Non-notable chat room. Zoe 23:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus.
As several commented, this should properly be resolved through Redirects for deletion, not VfD. However, since the Manual of Style discussion is still quite active, I think it's premature to open the RfD now. I am going to close and archive this discussion. When the Manual of Style discussion reaches consensus, please determine if a redirect for deletion decision is still necessary. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The edit history of this talk page prevents the move of Talk:Mutsuhito to follow the article itself. Please delete soonest. Arrigo 23:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply