![]() | There is currently an ongoing debate over the page deletion process and how it could be improved. See Wikipedia:Deletion reform. See also the separate proposal and vote at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion that would remove the VFD process and replace it with a category-based scheme at once. Also see the related RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD. |
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Politician page, should be deleted as precedent for advertising states. -- Titoxd 00:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Titoxd 00:12, 3 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity? This guy doesn't seem to google well, but I guess he has published a couple books; I haven't determined if they're vanity presses or not. His sales ranks at amazon hover around 2,000,000 for one book and a wee bit better for another. Lots of redlinks here. - R. fiend 00:26, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
get a life, get a job, go to work, my PP in your wife's mouth
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 10:30, 9 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not yet notable. Possible vanity. Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
speedy deleted -- Henrygb 10:10, 3 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 00:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
First VfD (in April) resulted in no consensus. I'm renominating, since a lot of the contents are unverifiable other than an archived personal web page and some untagged images. "Bart McQueary" -wikipedia receives 615 hits on Google. ral 315 01:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
STRONG Delete I've tried to work on this the best I can. Honest to God I have. I've done my homework. I've combed through page after page of McQueary's own archived websites looking for the truth. I find the man despicable, but I have put the positive information I found on him in this article. I could have easily neglected that he did in fact raise money for children's charities, that he was in fact harassed unjustly by the police, that his statutory rape arrest was due to a piddly three year difference. I did no such thing. The good and the bad are both in this article. But McQueary doesn't want the latter of those two included, apparently. Case in point: Bart McQueary is trying to edit the article to remove the fact that he once advertised his page as an escort service. For over two years now the web archive service has featured the page proving this. It was linked to here in the article, and for the past week or so you could click on that link and see it for yourself. Now that McQueary has come in and started editing the page, the "escort page"-- which for YEARS has been out there in the web archive for all to see-- has suddenly been disabled by a robots.txt. Coincidence? I think not. And of course he is going to come in here, boorish as he is in real life, saying, "PROVE IT. PROVE that it existed." Well guess what, Bart, I could've, if I'd have known you were going to block the page. I could've saved the page to my PC and uploaded it to another server for all the world to behold. But you got rid of it. And now, no, I can't "prove it." And the only reason is because of you. McQueary is trying to manipulate what people can know about him. If that's the case, there's no need in having an entry on him in Wiki; he'll only allow information about himself that he WANTS to be known. 69.154.189.180 02:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Is there any way for an administrator or someone to check and see if sock puppets are voting to keep this article. With one exception, the votes to keep are from anonymous users. -- Alabamaboy 21:33, 5 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!) 08:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems a small message forum, with little impact outside its users. Joyous (talk) 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity page for small user forum, no notable content. Bnielsen 03:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. This forum is the preeminent PvP server forum for the online game Everquest. The game is a cultural phenomenon in the online community. The uniqueness of the mindset of the PvP gamer community represented on this forum has created a place of surpassing breadth and depth.
It is unlike any other space online.
As such it is a vital part of online history. Those who will someday care to find out what it was like at the beginning will want to know about TzT.
Flyhalfer
Delete.--BirgitteSB 18:05, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Giga Character Set is vaporware, that has not materialized in any form in the five years since it was announced. It is implausable that it will materialize in any form; as stated in the primary source, it's only a step above a perpetual motion machine. And the only source is one article. It's linked to from two pages, in lists of alternatives to Unicode, which it could probably be deleted from since it's just vaporware. Prosfilaes 02:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep.--BirgitteSB 18:11, August 3, 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is complete nonsense on a topic which has no Google hits, created by a user, User:Venisday who has recently been vandalizing another article on Wikipedia Bnielsen 02:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted -- Henrygb 10:03, 3 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!) 10:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
POV essay. No factual content to be salvaged. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Antaeus Feldspar - Your comments are accepted - But, please explain "I also suspect copyvio" Please explain "No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. " Please explain "reeks of Time Cube." etc., etc.
Your comments are not consistent with the deeds in evidence and you are misunderstanding the nature of your own judgemental issues. Let me explain to you that this submission under Verbewarp has been a test of the intgerity of the Wikipedia process - not an intention to publish, although cloaked in that guise. This article was taken from my blog to be found at http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/ as purely a test case. This test case has arisen due to a number of other rejections and judgements posted by your colleagues - upon other matters. The result is that your active judges are mostly and clearly unqualified and inexperienced individuals inflated to egoistic status embedded in a high level of arrogance and misunderstanding of their own abilities and the issues at stake.
Science can never be consensual - that idea is ludicrous - and this type of "peer" review appears to be derived from the "lowest common denominator" of social attainment; the beginning of life processes rather than from lives hoary with sagecity and experience. As a consequence of this test, my students and colleagues are to be issued with a warning notice as to the integrity of Wikipedia - or lack of it - that is not to say that Wikipedia will be black listed but more framed in an aspect of suspected oversight that needs strong referencing for support. Or, use only as a last resort but only if supporting evidence can be established from other more reliable sources.
Nothing personal about your intentions to create something useful, but before embarking on such adventures that have such huge and serious social implications, particularly for the unsuspecting youth, and in light of this site becoming a social point of reference and therefore a possible milestone for intellectual reference, I would strongly recommend that you all review the implications and possible damage that this effort, built in flawed and thoughtless conception, will bring upon our civilization. Wikipedia is a technology which is posing as a vault of intellectual knowledge and far better that there should be warning to your Users that the information contained within comes from a self appointed group of unqualified and inexperienced individuals acting out judgemental roles in some sort of immatured order. Far better that you train those that judge. far better that Wikipedia clearly declare itself a purely a store for societal storage or warehouse for trivia.
My article 'Science today' should have given you some clue as to where this was taking you as it sketches the basics of what and why general mainstream science today has no integrity and no future. You missed the point due to the fact that you didn't take time to consider the article, finding the construction thereo, uncomfortable and painful to your delicate and spoiled minds. This is no insult. Aristotle wrote of this over 2000 years ago, quite clearly and yet it persists today - rote, imitation and practise. You failed to adjudicate correct and according to your own rules. You took delite with insult. You alleged slander knowing that you couldn't be held responsible. You failed.
Your efforts will build more "dogma" in this world already overflowing with the emotional sewage of the wanabees and false pretenders and as a consequence will Wikipedia only assists in furthering the destruction or devolution of human achievement - dogma and practised thinking together with immatured opinion represents a danger to civilization more horific in its footprint than war; atomic war.
To teach would be more worthy of your time than to record.
I wish you all well but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your future and priorities. This effort that si Wikipedia - just ain't worth wasting your lives on! Verbewarp --peter 06:22, August 5, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:39, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Wikispam — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:42, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is just a definition of a name, and so doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. Unsigned nomination was by user:57.66.51.165 at 23:00, 2 August 2005. The Literate Engineer 04:50, 3 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!) 08:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website; Google lists 33 pages containing the phrase "Kathy's Shrine to Chevys." tregoweth 04:47, August 3, 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 merge with Mario Party 2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Stage in Mario Party 2. Delete. A Link to the Past 04:20, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn local band. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 04:25, 3 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 default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 08:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Blatant advertising. -- malathion talk 05:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Votes after edit of 7 August:
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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) but move to the correct capitalisation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
obvious non-notability Robinh 19:34, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
nn four-month-old webcomic. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 04:59, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
nn three-month-old webcomic. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 04:59, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Second vfd for this article, see here for the first one. Same reason as before. It appears that the article was restored after deletion based on some question as to whether or not the article fit under the CSD, but the subject is still non-notable. -- Mysidia 05:05, 3 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), although it should be merged with Mytharria when an article about this game is created. For those interested in vote count we have one conditional vote, which is counted as a delete here, leaving us with 4 deletes and 3 keep and/or merge votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Character in a game that is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. JamesTeterenko 05:23, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page gives vague information about a location in a
Scott Turow novel. However, "Unspecified State" does not appear to be the actual name of any fictional location, as
Google results indicate. Following
this revision by
User:Teklund, I withdraw this nomination, but I strongly suggest that this article be moved to something like
Midwest (fictional state).
NatusRoma 05:31, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
page appears to have been created by a one-time user about themselves, with no evident claims to notability. Material is more appropriate for a User page. Text also includes substantial advertorial content for a publication supposedly produced by this person. It's been flagged as PotentialVanity for about 2 weeks, the user has not added anything else in that time, so probably time to delete this. cjllw | TALK 06:02, 2005 August 3 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. -- malathion talk 06:16, 3 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 move the rewritten article to Redmoon Theater. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is a sentence and a bundle of "please improve" templates. There's no indication as to where this theater is, and Google's total of 150 hits turns up theaters of this name in both new York and Chicago. Unless there is serious improvement, this needs to be clubbed on the head.
Grutness...
wha?
06:24, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This primary school no longer exists, having been merged with four other schools in Invercargill. Was previously VFDed when it was still open, with the a slim vote for keep. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 06:55, 3 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. – AB C D ✉ 02:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
presumably created by the article's subject, the only demonstration of notability given is to have won 32nd place in a sausage-making competition...for mine, this does not quite cut the mustard (excuse pun, please!). Nice try though...Has been flagged as PotentialVanity for about 2 weeks now, and since the only other contribs of the original creating user have been to articles associated/promoting his business, it's probably time to delete this. Abraham can put it up on his user page if he wants - but not in the main namespace. cjllw | TALK 07:01, 2005 August 3 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Just some kid trying to take credit for a neologism. Necropenguin 07:18, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. -- malathion talk 07:40, 3 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!) 08:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, no hits on google, probably vanity posting. Usrnme h8er 07:52, 3 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!) 08:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.com. Wikibooks isn't either, so they don't want it as a transwiki. The results of the previous VfD were two delete, two transwiki. -- Carnildo 08:12, 3 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!) 08:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a programming guide. Wikisource already has it. The results of the previous VfD were 2 merge with Flood fill, 5 transwiki, and 1 delete. -- Carnildo 08:18, 3 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 deleted - There's an overwhelming consensus to delete when rampant sock/meatpuppetry is ignored. FCYTravis 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism that is neither notable nor encyclopedic. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I can't tell what's going on here. It looks like The Bob Talbot started the VfD, but Thirty3, who created the Webcest article, created the VfD subpage without the template and then blanked it. I am trying to remedy things and get the VfD properly set up, since I do think this article deserves a VfD. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (Amended 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
This was the first VFD I'd ever been involved it, so I wasn't trying anything malicious with the VFD page - I put my vote for keep up and then removed it because I wanted to see what kinds of comments would be put on the page before commiting to that vote. Sorry for the confusion. Also, I don't think most of the no-user comments are from sock puppets, though they obviously aren't from people who care a lot about the wikipedia's process. Thirty3 01:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - a term created on the 2nd of august (yesterday) can not possibly be of sufficent notaritety to warrant an encyclopedia article. Usrnme h8er 09:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
:Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
In essence this is not an argument for whether Webcest should be a word or not, that will be decided simply if it cathes on or not. This argument concerns the ability of one to post a usefull and catchy neologism on this site. Therefore the question which is actually being voted on is this: "Is Wikipedia a place where language can evolve, or is it merely another online encyclopedia?" Jake Mercer
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 cleanup. - Splash 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
More or less verbatim plagerism from the CDC site on the topic Scott.wheeler 08:44, 3 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. This is a near-unanimous "not delete", but there is an even (or nearly even split) over whether it should be merged. Thus it is kept.- Splash 19:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. Some of it is obvious, and all of it would be better on a fansite or Xenogears wikibook or something. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 3 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 MERGE to Battlefield 2. Done. - Splash 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is WP:NOT GameFAQs. Battlefield 2 ably describes the sorts of vehicles in the game; a list of each individual vehicle is more appropriate to GameFAQs or the game's own manual. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"a list of each individual vehicle is more appropriate to GameFAQs or the game's own manual."
I don't own this game, so this wouldn't be very helpful. Jack Hayman
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 08:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Shamoru and Aggo, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:19, 3 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!) 08:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Jintokuan and Aggo, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:20, 3 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!) 08:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Shamoru and Jintokuan, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:20, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
advertisement. Page is just an outside link Usrnme h8er 09:28, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article was created by anonymous IP 84.30.80.16, which has been warned twice for vandalism on its talk page. After seventeen edits by that user (including one removing my Speedy deletion tag and adding minimal content), the article is still basically blank. Even were the user to properly fill out the article, Googling "Grégory Leclair" returns only 430 hits, most of which do not seem to refer to a classical guitarist in any way. Delete. jglc | t | c 10:20, 3 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 Slashdot trolling phenomena, there is not a clear consensus for outright deletion. If anybody wants to merge parts of this, I will leave the history intact so that people can do this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion in September, 2004 ( Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naked and Petrified). The vote received 21 Delete or Merge votes and only 8 Keep votes. For some reason the vote result was listed as "no consensus" by the admin. I believe this article is basically pure trollcruft, similar to the hundreds of other minor examples of trolling that people keep trying to add to the internet troll page. There is some web presence, but over a quarter of the first 100 Google hits are Wikipedia or Wikiquote mirrors, and many of the rest are not in reference to the trolling. My vote is Merge and Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena or Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 11:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't consider ~~~~'s vote to be valid. To follow it would consitute harm in and of itself. WolfKeeper
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). For those interested my vote count shows 9 to delete, 5 to keep which is short of a two-thirds majority anyway. Furthermore, there is agreement that "Jumping the couch" is a neologism, but the keep voters are arguing that this neologism is notable for some reason, and have backed it up with some evidence. Second, there is at least one delete vote which wants part of the article moved to Jumping the shark, this would probably require at least a redirect to be left behind to remain GFDL compliant. I also get the impression that many of the complaints to this article is that it is awfully similar to the more common "Jumping the Shark" phrase. I would like to point out that my closing of this debate as a "keep" does not mean that it's impossible to merge this article with something else if anybody will be bold and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to me to be not-notable. A google search for 'Jumping the couch' and any of the examples name's gives three hits or less. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 11:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hydriotaphia 17:34, 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 speedied. Grue 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a neologism at best and total nonsense at worst 59.92.135.73 11:42, 3 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!) 09:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A[n] rambling extended, multi-lingual dictionary definition.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Offence unintended, poor word choice. -
brenneman
(t)
(c)
23:00, 3 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. brenneman (t) (c) 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's OK, straight to the point. Someone should add more to it though so we can get more information on her. 10.18, 3 August 2005 Unnotable, delete as it stands. UkPaolo 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*Delete.
Eldereft
17:46, 3 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. - Splash 19:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Does a list of fictional physicians have any relevance to anything? No. Delete now. It does not belong on wikipedia. -- Differentgravy 12:12, 3 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!) 09:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy-ed, but author removed tag and added claim to notability, so [11]. Not notable. brenneman (t) (c) 12:16, 3 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!) 09:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
hoax/schoolboy joke
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge with Smash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non. Notable. Every song from a major album does not need an entry Sensation002 13:30, 3 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!) 10:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Same reason as here. Delete DMTsurel 13:41, 3 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. The article was transformed during the VfD and the post-transfiguration votes are pretty clear. - Splash 19:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-english (Dutch?) advertisement for a huge LAN party, I think.
NOTE: I've translated it. The author claims it's the biggest outdoor LAN event in Europe. No idea if it's true or verifiable, but I'd Delete it as a substub unless someone expands to include its location, organizers, etc. - Mgm| (talk) 23:38, August 3, 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 ambiguous. On one hand there is agreement that the article should not stay as it is. On the other hand there is no consensus to discard everything here. I will therefore in one sense "remove" the article by making it a redirect to school bus, while preserving the history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The first half of the article is about the Bus accident at Carrollton, Kentucky in 1988 on which Wikipedia already has an article. The second half is a load of safety instructions, advice and suggestions about buses -- school and church buses to be precise. Consider this comment by the author of the article on its talk page "... I am writing this to everyone in memory of the victims of the school (church) bus tragedy which occurred at Carrollton, Kentucky on 14 May 1988." Dr Gangrene 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Although I think the article should be deleted, there may be some valuable content here that could be incorporated into other articles. Dr Gangrene 14:54, 3 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 merge and I will merge this with Object-oriented programming for now. This is a tough one, because there are six delete votes and three merge votes. Often (probably usually) I will call 6-3 a delete. However, the deciding factor is that many of the merge votes gave fairly well founded reasons for their votes, therefore I will use my discretion and let the comments decide this close debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Silly mistake made by silly computer programmers. Not notable. r3m0t talk 15:20, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Bommannan is a hindu god. Whoever is trying to delete will be punished severly. 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity. -- BradBeattie 15:29, 3 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!) 11:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article consisting of 1 line. Unencyclopedic topic. Dr Gangrene 15:51, 3 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 all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Also Maverick Artists and Jen Min.
Advertising spam. Nabla 15:54, 3 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!) 10:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable as far as I've been able to ascertain. No relevant Google hits. Tried for a speedy, but another user thought otherwise, so let's do this the formal way. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 3 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 merge but there is no real agreement as to where to merge this. Therefore I will keep the article as it is and tag it as a merge-candidate. I was a bit at a loss as to how to count the votes here, but I cannot really see a consensus for an outright deletion. (4 delete, 2 merge, 1 move) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original Research BirgitteSB 15:55, August 3, 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). This debate was a bit confusing however, my count leaves 5 votes on the merge/keep side and 6 on the delete side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A short stretch of road in Portland not deserving of its own article. Merge and Redirect to Portland, Maine. - Soltak 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep Portland, Maine not Portland, Oregon why do you think it's Oregon? -- Maoririder 16:42, 3 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!) 10:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Slightly misleading title... Wikipedia already has an article all about mods in computer games, at Mod (computer gaming) Dr Gangrene 16:51, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google hits [16], which is surprising for the worst person in history eclipsing the evil of Adolf Hitler and even Satan himself. Possible attack page. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:54, August 3, 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 speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete, should be a User Page. RasputinAXP 17:06, 3 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 meaningfull content. Thue | talk 18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. Dr Gangrene 17:06, 3 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 all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
stubby article on yet another worldsim, with one line of text and an external link to the homepage. "True World Simulator" returns 31 hits on Google. "WorldPower" + nationsim returns 0. "SuperPower Classic" on Google returns 2480 hits: 21 are displayed, and the other 12459 are deemed very similar to the 21 already displayed. I say Delete for True World Simulator and WorldPower, but am Neutral on SuperPower Classic. jglc | t | c 17:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hey whats that? This is a free dictionary, its supposed to contain INFORMATION. My articles are just that, information. I see no reason what so ever to delete these entries just because they don't return enough hits on google.
Also, search for WorldPower 3.0 and you will get a hit on the nationsim directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005]] ([[User talk:Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|contribs]])
Now, the WP and TWS entries are only one-liners because I don't have any more information on them. There is probably alot more information to fill in there. If you look at the wikipedia entry for goverment simulation you will see alot of info on TWS that I plan to put in there. As for WP, no I don't have anymore info. If you want to delete it, even though its notable, I demand a vote of some sort. Itake 18:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep I am the current admin of WP and have updated the WP entry to include a more comprhensive history and I hope those who voted for deletion will recondier their votes, surley if superpower and others deserve a entry the largest and most active nationsim deserves 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 keep (no consensus). THe vote is more or lest tied (17d, 17k on my count), at any rate no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article is about a non-notable school in Portland, Maine and provides little information. Unless notability is provided, this should be deleted. - Soltak 17:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*Merge with
Portland Public Schools --
Tim Pope
17:03, 6 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!) 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like an adverisment. AlbertR 18:11, 3 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!) 10:04, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Probably a hoax. Googling "James Charlton" "australian liberal party" returns only one (irrelevant) result, and the picture looks like a Photoshop job. Agentsoo 18:15, 3 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 or merge. no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was marked as {{nonsense}}, but that isn't the case. However, it is still not notable enough for its own article. 93 Google hits. [19] Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:22, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The entire article is the sentence "Tom Panarese is a high school teacher who wrote a novel called "Sayville." Googling for "Tom Panarese" + Sayville returns 25 hits. The novel is legitimate (sold on Amazon), but I call this one non-notable. Delete. jglc | t | c 18:29, 3 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!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Given that he gets 110 google hits I doubt he is notable. The book is real, but doesn't seem to be very popular. Thue | talk 18:49, 3 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!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad for a software library. Wikipedia is not freshmeat. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:51, 3 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. - Splash 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Seems to be copied from his corporate bio.
Chuck
18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ooops, looks like the entry didn't tell the whole story. He is no longer just CEO of a division, but is now President and member of the Board of Directors of the parent. Two different things IMHO. Keep
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. I don't think any votes need discounting. - Splash 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Pov fork of The Bible and homosexuality.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I did a quick google search, and this seems to be a disambiguation page between 3 non-notable persons? Thue | talk 19:11, 3 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 Million Dollar Bridge (Maine). - Splash 19:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No indiaction of notability. sub-stub about a no-longer-existing bridge. Given creator's recent history, no reason to expect expansion. Delete DES (talk) 19:31, 3 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!) 08:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a MLM scheme taken right from their website ( http://www.mlmbusiness.intway.com/products.aspx) Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 19:36, 3 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!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete . Icelight 19:51, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is fancruft. Because of this I nominate and support this article for deletion. -- ZeWrestler Talk 15:44, 2 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!) 09:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This very badly written article does not explain anything about its subject. I think it is about a Russian pornography producer. Both the links are to a Russian porn site (which requires registration). There are 746 hits on Google for 'Gantel' but it's impossible to tell which refers to the subject here. David | Talk 20:12, 3 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!) 09:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A web forum that supports a roleplaying site, I think. While the main site, mapleglobal may have some impact, this one doesn't seem to have enough impact to support a separate article. Joyous (talk) 20:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm, We are the biggest guild of Maplestory, and we have been recognzied by the GM's. Omgwtfhax. ~Trunks.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep the expanded rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A sub-stub about a park. No indication of notability. No reson to think this will get expanded to a decent article, particualrly given the creator's history. Delete.
DES
(talk)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete--Unencyclopedic and childish, also uncapitalized.-- Zxcvbnm 20:41, 3 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax? Move to wikitionary? -- BMIComp (talk) 13:48, 20 July 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!) 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like a small site, insignificant outside it's small group of users. But feel free to correct me. 57.66.51.165 20:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This site is actually very important and should be left alone. (Unsigned comment by 216.197.136.14 ( talk · contribs))
This article should stay. It relates to internet pop culture. Five million page views per month can't be an accident. (Unsigned comment by 12.208.76.100 ( talk · contribs))
This article should most definitly stay. As someone alreagy mentioned
lambgoat is an important site and highly relates to internet pop culture. Many people have heard of lambgoat yet have no clue what its all about and this article helps with that. It should stay just to inform the public what lambgoat in all its absurdity, is really about. ~A dude (Unsigned comment by
12.207.37.67 (
talk ·
contribs))
TLNR
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – AB C D ✉ 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web animator. DS 20:48, 3 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Promotional article, apparently about a would-be singer. The albums and singles referenced are unavailable from English-language sources and appear to be vanity published. There were also two articles for each individual single (why not have a seperate article for the "special edition" version?) that I have redirected here; these should be deleted as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 3 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 BrokenSegue. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
empty or vanity page Snurks 21:05, 3 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. Note that there are actually only two votes here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcomic, 8 matches on Google.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Essjay · Talk 10:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This is just another online retailer, if we list this one we might as well change the name from "Wikipedia" to Wiki-shopping. I have searched Google and Yahoo for traces of noteworthyness, and asked the author for sources, no luck either way" Outlander 22:00, 3 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 this article, merge inheritance (object-oriented programming) into it. I will add the merge tags, and let somebody else finish the job. I'm cleaning out debates right now, and don't have the time or will to do the merge myself. Sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I've put this on VfD, because this article doesn't really add anything on top of inheritance (object-oriented programming), inheritance (genetic algorithm) and inheritance (disambiguation). -- R.Koot 22:22, 3 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 MERGE to HVAC - Splash 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef. DS 22:23, 3 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!) 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: Google returns zero hits for this phrase. Loganberry ( Talk) 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nevertheless, this is a commonly used term in fora; if you can think of a better name for the article, please feel free to rename it, but I object to a perfectly legitimate article being deleted because it doesn't return on google define. Neither, you may note, does Tomie, and that article hasn't been requested for deletion. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia of everything, and even if Google hasn't heard of a frontpage turd, that doesn't mean actual people haven't.
Goodgerster 22:38, 3 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page survived VFD in April (see this) but I fail to see what is encyclopedic about all the publications (including journal articles) of one academic expert in Judaism. No other person, not even Albert Einstein, has received this treatment on Wikipedia, and I really suggest the whole 135 KB monstrosity is deleted, or maximally transwikified somewhere. (The page had a new VFD notice put on it on 9 July by Klonimus; this formalises the re-listing.) JFW | T@lk 22:33, 3 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. – AB C D ✉ 23:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, and not a very good one at that.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 09:02, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Entirely non-notable. This "thing" is the extent of what I can find on this topic. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of a manga called "Ninja vs. Samurai" on Google, though I do find a lot of forum posts about it. It's possible I've just never heard of it, but my fiancee, an avid manga reader, hasn't heard of it either... so here it is, nominated for deletion. I thank the Wikify project for pointing me in the direction of this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Karada. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
no content - dicdef at best and probably just a joke seglea 23:24, 3 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!) 09:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete The link here would seem to indicate that he was a master's student, and is "currently pursuing a law degree at the University of Toronto." The work cited on the page appears to be his master's thesis. Perhaps once he has made more of a name for himself, he can come back. Icelight 23:45, August 3, 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. Essjay · Talk 09:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable seglea 23:51, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page with no useful information. 64.236.243.16 23:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
![]() | There is currently an ongoing debate over the page deletion process and how it could be improved. See Wikipedia:Deletion reform. See also the separate proposal and vote at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion that would remove the VFD process and replace it with a category-based scheme at once. Also see the related RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD. |
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Politician page, should be deleted as precedent for advertising states. -- Titoxd 00:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Titoxd 00:12, 3 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity? This guy doesn't seem to google well, but I guess he has published a couple books; I haven't determined if they're vanity presses or not. His sales ranks at amazon hover around 2,000,000 for one book and a wee bit better for another. Lots of redlinks here. - R. fiend 00:26, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
get a life, get a job, go to work, my PP in your wife's mouth
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 10:30, 9 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not yet notable. Possible vanity. Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
speedy deleted -- Henrygb 10:10, 3 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 00:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
First VfD (in April) resulted in no consensus. I'm renominating, since a lot of the contents are unverifiable other than an archived personal web page and some untagged images. "Bart McQueary" -wikipedia receives 615 hits on Google. ral 315 01:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
STRONG Delete I've tried to work on this the best I can. Honest to God I have. I've done my homework. I've combed through page after page of McQueary's own archived websites looking for the truth. I find the man despicable, but I have put the positive information I found on him in this article. I could have easily neglected that he did in fact raise money for children's charities, that he was in fact harassed unjustly by the police, that his statutory rape arrest was due to a piddly three year difference. I did no such thing. The good and the bad are both in this article. But McQueary doesn't want the latter of those two included, apparently. Case in point: Bart McQueary is trying to edit the article to remove the fact that he once advertised his page as an escort service. For over two years now the web archive service has featured the page proving this. It was linked to here in the article, and for the past week or so you could click on that link and see it for yourself. Now that McQueary has come in and started editing the page, the "escort page"-- which for YEARS has been out there in the web archive for all to see-- has suddenly been disabled by a robots.txt. Coincidence? I think not. And of course he is going to come in here, boorish as he is in real life, saying, "PROVE IT. PROVE that it existed." Well guess what, Bart, I could've, if I'd have known you were going to block the page. I could've saved the page to my PC and uploaded it to another server for all the world to behold. But you got rid of it. And now, no, I can't "prove it." And the only reason is because of you. McQueary is trying to manipulate what people can know about him. If that's the case, there's no need in having an entry on him in Wiki; he'll only allow information about himself that he WANTS to be known. 69.154.189.180 02:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Is there any way for an administrator or someone to check and see if sock puppets are voting to keep this article. With one exception, the votes to keep are from anonymous users. -- Alabamaboy 21:33, 5 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!) 08:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems a small message forum, with little impact outside its users. Joyous (talk) 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity page for small user forum, no notable content. Bnielsen 03:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. This forum is the preeminent PvP server forum for the online game Everquest. The game is a cultural phenomenon in the online community. The uniqueness of the mindset of the PvP gamer community represented on this forum has created a place of surpassing breadth and depth.
It is unlike any other space online.
As such it is a vital part of online history. Those who will someday care to find out what it was like at the beginning will want to know about TzT.
Flyhalfer
Delete.--BirgitteSB 18:05, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Giga Character Set is vaporware, that has not materialized in any form in the five years since it was announced. It is implausable that it will materialize in any form; as stated in the primary source, it's only a step above a perpetual motion machine. And the only source is one article. It's linked to from two pages, in lists of alternatives to Unicode, which it could probably be deleted from since it's just vaporware. Prosfilaes 02:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep.--BirgitteSB 18:11, August 3, 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is complete nonsense on a topic which has no Google hits, created by a user, User:Venisday who has recently been vandalizing another article on Wikipedia Bnielsen 02:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted -- Henrygb 10:03, 3 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!) 10:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
POV essay. No factual content to be salvaged. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Antaeus Feldspar - Your comments are accepted - But, please explain "I also suspect copyvio" Please explain "No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. " Please explain "reeks of Time Cube." etc., etc.
Your comments are not consistent with the deeds in evidence and you are misunderstanding the nature of your own judgemental issues. Let me explain to you that this submission under Verbewarp has been a test of the intgerity of the Wikipedia process - not an intention to publish, although cloaked in that guise. This article was taken from my blog to be found at http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/ as purely a test case. This test case has arisen due to a number of other rejections and judgements posted by your colleagues - upon other matters. The result is that your active judges are mostly and clearly unqualified and inexperienced individuals inflated to egoistic status embedded in a high level of arrogance and misunderstanding of their own abilities and the issues at stake.
Science can never be consensual - that idea is ludicrous - and this type of "peer" review appears to be derived from the "lowest common denominator" of social attainment; the beginning of life processes rather than from lives hoary with sagecity and experience. As a consequence of this test, my students and colleagues are to be issued with a warning notice as to the integrity of Wikipedia - or lack of it - that is not to say that Wikipedia will be black listed but more framed in an aspect of suspected oversight that needs strong referencing for support. Or, use only as a last resort but only if supporting evidence can be established from other more reliable sources.
Nothing personal about your intentions to create something useful, but before embarking on such adventures that have such huge and serious social implications, particularly for the unsuspecting youth, and in light of this site becoming a social point of reference and therefore a possible milestone for intellectual reference, I would strongly recommend that you all review the implications and possible damage that this effort, built in flawed and thoughtless conception, will bring upon our civilization. Wikipedia is a technology which is posing as a vault of intellectual knowledge and far better that there should be warning to your Users that the information contained within comes from a self appointed group of unqualified and inexperienced individuals acting out judgemental roles in some sort of immatured order. Far better that you train those that judge. far better that Wikipedia clearly declare itself a purely a store for societal storage or warehouse for trivia.
My article 'Science today' should have given you some clue as to where this was taking you as it sketches the basics of what and why general mainstream science today has no integrity and no future. You missed the point due to the fact that you didn't take time to consider the article, finding the construction thereo, uncomfortable and painful to your delicate and spoiled minds. This is no insult. Aristotle wrote of this over 2000 years ago, quite clearly and yet it persists today - rote, imitation and practise. You failed to adjudicate correct and according to your own rules. You took delite with insult. You alleged slander knowing that you couldn't be held responsible. You failed.
Your efforts will build more "dogma" in this world already overflowing with the emotional sewage of the wanabees and false pretenders and as a consequence will Wikipedia only assists in furthering the destruction or devolution of human achievement - dogma and practised thinking together with immatured opinion represents a danger to civilization more horific in its footprint than war; atomic war.
To teach would be more worthy of your time than to record.
I wish you all well but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your future and priorities. This effort that si Wikipedia - just ain't worth wasting your lives on! Verbewarp --peter 06:22, August 5, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:39, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Wikispam — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:42, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is just a definition of a name, and so doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. Unsigned nomination was by user:57.66.51.165 at 23:00, 2 August 2005. The Literate Engineer 04:50, 3 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!) 08:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website; Google lists 33 pages containing the phrase "Kathy's Shrine to Chevys." tregoweth 04:47, August 3, 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 merge with Mario Party 2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Stage in Mario Party 2. Delete. A Link to the Past 04:20, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn local band. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 04:25, 3 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 default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 08:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Blatant advertising. -- malathion talk 05:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Votes after edit of 7 August:
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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) but move to the correct capitalisation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
obvious non-notability Robinh 19:34, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
nn four-month-old webcomic. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 04:59, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
nn three-month-old webcomic. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 04:59, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Second vfd for this article, see here for the first one. Same reason as before. It appears that the article was restored after deletion based on some question as to whether or not the article fit under the CSD, but the subject is still non-notable. -- Mysidia 05:05, 3 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), although it should be merged with Mytharria when an article about this game is created. For those interested in vote count we have one conditional vote, which is counted as a delete here, leaving us with 4 deletes and 3 keep and/or merge votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Character in a game that is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. JamesTeterenko 05:23, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This page gives vague information about a location in a
Scott Turow novel. However, "Unspecified State" does not appear to be the actual name of any fictional location, as
Google results indicate. Following
this revision by
User:Teklund, I withdraw this nomination, but I strongly suggest that this article be moved to something like
Midwest (fictional state).
NatusRoma 05:31, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
page appears to have been created by a one-time user about themselves, with no evident claims to notability. Material is more appropriate for a User page. Text also includes substantial advertorial content for a publication supposedly produced by this person. It's been flagged as PotentialVanity for about 2 weeks, the user has not added anything else in that time, so probably time to delete this. cjllw | TALK 06:02, 2005 August 3 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. -- malathion talk 06:16, 3 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 move the rewritten article to Redmoon Theater. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is a sentence and a bundle of "please improve" templates. There's no indication as to where this theater is, and Google's total of 150 hits turns up theaters of this name in both new York and Chicago. Unless there is serious improvement, this needs to be clubbed on the head.
Grutness...
wha?
06:24, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This primary school no longer exists, having been merged with four other schools in Invercargill. Was previously VFDed when it was still open, with the a slim vote for keep. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 06:55, 3 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. – AB C D ✉ 02:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
presumably created by the article's subject, the only demonstration of notability given is to have won 32nd place in a sausage-making competition...for mine, this does not quite cut the mustard (excuse pun, please!). Nice try though...Has been flagged as PotentialVanity for about 2 weeks now, and since the only other contribs of the original creating user have been to articles associated/promoting his business, it's probably time to delete this. Abraham can put it up on his user page if he wants - but not in the main namespace. cjllw | TALK 07:01, 2005 August 3 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Just some kid trying to take credit for a neologism. Necropenguin 07:18, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. -- malathion talk 07:40, 3 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!) 08:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, no hits on google, probably vanity posting. Usrnme h8er 07:52, 3 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!) 08:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.com. Wikibooks isn't either, so they don't want it as a transwiki. The results of the previous VfD were two delete, two transwiki. -- Carnildo 08:12, 3 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!) 08:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a programming guide. Wikisource already has it. The results of the previous VfD were 2 merge with Flood fill, 5 transwiki, and 1 delete. -- Carnildo 08:18, 3 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 deleted - There's an overwhelming consensus to delete when rampant sock/meatpuppetry is ignored. FCYTravis 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism that is neither notable nor encyclopedic. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I can't tell what's going on here. It looks like The Bob Talbot started the VfD, but Thirty3, who created the Webcest article, created the VfD subpage without the template and then blanked it. I am trying to remedy things and get the VfD properly set up, since I do think this article deserves a VfD. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (Amended 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)) reply
This was the first VFD I'd ever been involved it, so I wasn't trying anything malicious with the VFD page - I put my vote for keep up and then removed it because I wanted to see what kinds of comments would be put on the page before commiting to that vote. Sorry for the confusion. Also, I don't think most of the no-user comments are from sock puppets, though they obviously aren't from people who care a lot about the wikipedia's process. Thirty3 01:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - a term created on the 2nd of august (yesterday) can not possibly be of sufficent notaritety to warrant an encyclopedia article. Usrnme h8er 09:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
:Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
In essence this is not an argument for whether Webcest should be a word or not, that will be decided simply if it cathes on or not. This argument concerns the ability of one to post a usefull and catchy neologism on this site. Therefore the question which is actually being voted on is this: "Is Wikipedia a place where language can evolve, or is it merely another online encyclopedia?" Jake Mercer
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 cleanup. - Splash 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
More or less verbatim plagerism from the CDC site on the topic Scott.wheeler 08:44, 3 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. This is a near-unanimous "not delete", but there is an even (or nearly even split) over whether it should be merged. Thus it is kept.- Splash 19:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. Some of it is obvious, and all of it would be better on a fansite or Xenogears wikibook or something. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 3 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 MERGE to Battlefield 2. Done. - Splash 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is WP:NOT GameFAQs. Battlefield 2 ably describes the sorts of vehicles in the game; a list of each individual vehicle is more appropriate to GameFAQs or the game's own manual. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"a list of each individual vehicle is more appropriate to GameFAQs or the game's own manual."
I don't own this game, so this wouldn't be very helpful. Jack Hayman
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 08:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Shamoru and Aggo, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:19, 3 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!) 08:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Jintokuan and Aggo, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:20, 3 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!) 08:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Shamoru and Jintokuan, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:20, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
advertisement. Page is just an outside link Usrnme h8er 09:28, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article was created by anonymous IP 84.30.80.16, which has been warned twice for vandalism on its talk page. After seventeen edits by that user (including one removing my Speedy deletion tag and adding minimal content), the article is still basically blank. Even were the user to properly fill out the article, Googling "Grégory Leclair" returns only 430 hits, most of which do not seem to refer to a classical guitarist in any way. Delete. jglc | t | c 10:20, 3 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 Slashdot trolling phenomena, there is not a clear consensus for outright deletion. If anybody wants to merge parts of this, I will leave the history intact so that people can do this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion in September, 2004 ( Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naked and Petrified). The vote received 21 Delete or Merge votes and only 8 Keep votes. For some reason the vote result was listed as "no consensus" by the admin. I believe this article is basically pure trollcruft, similar to the hundreds of other minor examples of trolling that people keep trying to add to the internet troll page. There is some web presence, but over a quarter of the first 100 Google hits are Wikipedia or Wikiquote mirrors, and many of the rest are not in reference to the trolling. My vote is Merge and Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena or Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 11:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't consider ~~~~'s vote to be valid. To follow it would consitute harm in and of itself. WolfKeeper
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). For those interested my vote count shows 9 to delete, 5 to keep which is short of a two-thirds majority anyway. Furthermore, there is agreement that "Jumping the couch" is a neologism, but the keep voters are arguing that this neologism is notable for some reason, and have backed it up with some evidence. Second, there is at least one delete vote which wants part of the article moved to Jumping the shark, this would probably require at least a redirect to be left behind to remain GFDL compliant. I also get the impression that many of the complaints to this article is that it is awfully similar to the more common "Jumping the Shark" phrase. I would like to point out that my closing of this debate as a "keep" does not mean that it's impossible to merge this article with something else if anybody will be bold and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to me to be not-notable. A google search for 'Jumping the couch' and any of the examples name's gives three hits or less. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 11:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hydriotaphia 17:34, 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 speedied. Grue 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a neologism at best and total nonsense at worst 59.92.135.73 11:42, 3 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!) 09:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A[n] rambling extended, multi-lingual dictionary definition.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Offence unintended, poor word choice. -
brenneman
(t)
(c)
23:00, 3 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. brenneman (t) (c) 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It's OK, straight to the point. Someone should add more to it though so we can get more information on her. 10.18, 3 August 2005 Unnotable, delete as it stands. UkPaolo 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*Delete.
Eldereft
17:46, 3 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. - Splash 19:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Does a list of fictional physicians have any relevance to anything? No. Delete now. It does not belong on wikipedia. -- Differentgravy 12:12, 3 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!) 09:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy-ed, but author removed tag and added claim to notability, so [11]. Not notable. brenneman (t) (c) 12:16, 3 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!) 09:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
hoax/schoolboy joke
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge with Smash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non. Notable. Every song from a major album does not need an entry Sensation002 13:30, 3 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!) 10:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Same reason as here. Delete DMTsurel 13:41, 3 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. The article was transformed during the VfD and the post-transfiguration votes are pretty clear. - Splash 19:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-english (Dutch?) advertisement for a huge LAN party, I think.
NOTE: I've translated it. The author claims it's the biggest outdoor LAN event in Europe. No idea if it's true or verifiable, but I'd Delete it as a substub unless someone expands to include its location, organizers, etc. - Mgm| (talk) 23:38, August 3, 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 ambiguous. On one hand there is agreement that the article should not stay as it is. On the other hand there is no consensus to discard everything here. I will therefore in one sense "remove" the article by making it a redirect to school bus, while preserving the history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The first half of the article is about the Bus accident at Carrollton, Kentucky in 1988 on which Wikipedia already has an article. The second half is a load of safety instructions, advice and suggestions about buses -- school and church buses to be precise. Consider this comment by the author of the article on its talk page "... I am writing this to everyone in memory of the victims of the school (church) bus tragedy which occurred at Carrollton, Kentucky on 14 May 1988." Dr Gangrene 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Although I think the article should be deleted, there may be some valuable content here that could be incorporated into other articles. Dr Gangrene 14:54, 3 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 merge and I will merge this with Object-oriented programming for now. This is a tough one, because there are six delete votes and three merge votes. Often (probably usually) I will call 6-3 a delete. However, the deciding factor is that many of the merge votes gave fairly well founded reasons for their votes, therefore I will use my discretion and let the comments decide this close debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Silly mistake made by silly computer programmers. Not notable. r3m0t talk 15:20, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Bommannan is a hindu god. Whoever is trying to delete will be punished severly. 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity. -- BradBeattie 15:29, 3 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!) 11:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Article consisting of 1 line. Unencyclopedic topic. Dr Gangrene 15:51, 3 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 all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Also Maverick Artists and Jen Min.
Advertising spam. Nabla 15:54, 3 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!) 10:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable as far as I've been able to ascertain. No relevant Google hits. Tried for a speedy, but another user thought otherwise, so let's do this the formal way. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 3 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 merge but there is no real agreement as to where to merge this. Therefore I will keep the article as it is and tag it as a merge-candidate. I was a bit at a loss as to how to count the votes here, but I cannot really see a consensus for an outright deletion. (4 delete, 2 merge, 1 move) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original Research BirgitteSB 15:55, August 3, 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). This debate was a bit confusing however, my count leaves 5 votes on the merge/keep side and 6 on the delete side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A short stretch of road in Portland not deserving of its own article. Merge and Redirect to Portland, Maine. - Soltak 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep Portland, Maine not Portland, Oregon why do you think it's Oregon? -- Maoririder 16:42, 3 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!) 10:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Slightly misleading title... Wikipedia already has an article all about mods in computer games, at Mod (computer gaming) Dr Gangrene 16:51, 3 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. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google hits [16], which is surprising for the worst person in history eclipsing the evil of Adolf Hitler and even Satan himself. Possible attack page. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:54, August 3, 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 speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete, should be a User Page. RasputinAXP 17:06, 3 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 meaningfull content. Thue | talk 18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. Dr Gangrene 17:06, 3 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 all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
stubby article on yet another worldsim, with one line of text and an external link to the homepage. "True World Simulator" returns 31 hits on Google. "WorldPower" + nationsim returns 0. "SuperPower Classic" on Google returns 2480 hits: 21 are displayed, and the other 12459 are deemed very similar to the 21 already displayed. I say Delete for True World Simulator and WorldPower, but am Neutral on SuperPower Classic. jglc | t | c 17:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hey whats that? This is a free dictionary, its supposed to contain INFORMATION. My articles are just that, information. I see no reason what so ever to delete these entries just because they don't return enough hits on google.
Also, search for WorldPower 3.0 and you will get a hit on the nationsim directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005]] ([[User talk:Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|contribs]])
Now, the WP and TWS entries are only one-liners because I don't have any more information on them. There is probably alot more information to fill in there. If you look at the wikipedia entry for goverment simulation you will see alot of info on TWS that I plan to put in there. As for WP, no I don't have anymore info. If you want to delete it, even though its notable, I demand a vote of some sort. Itake 18:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep I am the current admin of WP and have updated the WP entry to include a more comprhensive history and I hope those who voted for deletion will recondier their votes, surley if superpower and others deserve a entry the largest and most active nationsim deserves 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 keep (no consensus). THe vote is more or lest tied (17d, 17k on my count), at any rate no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article is about a non-notable school in Portland, Maine and provides little information. Unless notability is provided, this should be deleted. - Soltak 17:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
*Merge with
Portland Public Schools --
Tim Pope
17:03, 6 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!) 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like an adverisment. AlbertR 18:11, 3 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!) 10:04, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Probably a hoax. Googling "James Charlton" "australian liberal party" returns only one (irrelevant) result, and the picture looks like a Photoshop job. Agentsoo 18:15, 3 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 or merge. no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Was marked as {{nonsense}}, but that isn't the case. However, it is still not notable enough for its own article. 93 Google hits. [19] Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:22, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The entire article is the sentence "Tom Panarese is a high school teacher who wrote a novel called "Sayville." Googling for "Tom Panarese" + Sayville returns 25 hits. The novel is legitimate (sold on Amazon), but I call this one non-notable. Delete. jglc | t | c 18:29, 3 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!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Given that he gets 110 google hits I doubt he is notable. The book is real, but doesn't seem to be very popular. Thue | talk 18:49, 3 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!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad for a software library. Wikipedia is not freshmeat. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:51, 3 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. - Splash 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Seems to be copied from his corporate bio.
Chuck
18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Ooops, looks like the entry didn't tell the whole story. He is no longer just CEO of a division, but is now President and member of the Board of Directors of the parent. Two different things IMHO. Keep
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. I don't think any votes need discounting. - Splash 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Pov fork of The Bible and homosexuality.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I did a quick google search, and this seems to be a disambiguation page between 3 non-notable persons? Thue | talk 19:11, 3 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 Million Dollar Bridge (Maine). - Splash 19:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No indiaction of notability. sub-stub about a no-longer-existing bridge. Given creator's recent history, no reason to expect expansion. Delete DES (talk) 19:31, 3 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!) 08:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a MLM scheme taken right from their website ( http://www.mlmbusiness.intway.com/products.aspx) Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 19:36, 3 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!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete . Icelight 19:51, August 3, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is fancruft. Because of this I nominate and support this article for deletion. -- ZeWrestler Talk 15:44, 2 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!) 09:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This very badly written article does not explain anything about its subject. I think it is about a Russian pornography producer. Both the links are to a Russian porn site (which requires registration). There are 746 hits on Google for 'Gantel' but it's impossible to tell which refers to the subject here. David | Talk 20:12, 3 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!) 09:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A web forum that supports a roleplaying site, I think. While the main site, mapleglobal may have some impact, this one doesn't seem to have enough impact to support a separate article. Joyous (talk) 20:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Mmm, We are the biggest guild of Maplestory, and we have been recognzied by the GM's. Omgwtfhax. ~Trunks.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep the expanded rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
A sub-stub about a park. No indication of notability. No reson to think this will get expanded to a decent article, particualrly given the creator's history. Delete.
DES
(talk)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete--Unencyclopedic and childish, also uncapitalized.-- Zxcvbnm 20:41, 3 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax? Move to wikitionary? -- BMIComp (talk) 13:48, 20 July 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!) 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like a small site, insignificant outside it's small group of users. But feel free to correct me. 57.66.51.165 20:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This site is actually very important and should be left alone. (Unsigned comment by 216.197.136.14 ( talk · contribs))
This article should stay. It relates to internet pop culture. Five million page views per month can't be an accident. (Unsigned comment by 12.208.76.100 ( talk · contribs))
This article should most definitly stay. As someone alreagy mentioned
lambgoat is an important site and highly relates to internet pop culture. Many people have heard of lambgoat yet have no clue what its all about and this article helps with that. It should stay just to inform the public what lambgoat in all its absurdity, is really about. ~A dude (Unsigned comment by
12.207.37.67 (
talk ·
contribs))
TLNR
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – AB C D ✉ 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web animator. DS 20:48, 3 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Promotional article, apparently about a would-be singer. The albums and singles referenced are unavailable from English-language sources and appear to be vanity published. There were also two articles for each individual single (why not have a seperate article for the "special edition" version?) that I have redirected here; these should be deleted as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 3 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 BrokenSegue. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
empty or vanity page Snurks 21:05, 3 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. Note that there are actually only two votes here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcomic, 8 matches on Google.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Essjay · Talk 10:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
This is just another online retailer, if we list this one we might as well change the name from "Wikipedia" to Wiki-shopping. I have searched Google and Yahoo for traces of noteworthyness, and asked the author for sources, no luck either way" Outlander 22:00, 3 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 this article, merge inheritance (object-oriented programming) into it. I will add the merge tags, and let somebody else finish the job. I'm cleaning out debates right now, and don't have the time or will to do the merge myself. Sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I've put this on VfD, because this article doesn't really add anything on top of inheritance (object-oriented programming), inheritance (genetic algorithm) and inheritance (disambiguation). -- R.Koot 22:22, 3 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 MERGE to HVAC - Splash 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef. DS 22:23, 3 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!) 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: Google returns zero hits for this phrase. Loganberry ( Talk) 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Nevertheless, this is a commonly used term in fora; if you can think of a better name for the article, please feel free to rename it, but I object to a perfectly legitimate article being deleted because it doesn't return on google define. Neither, you may note, does Tomie, and that article hasn't been requested for deletion. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia of everything, and even if Google hasn't heard of a frontpage turd, that doesn't mean actual people haven't.
Goodgerster 22:38, 3 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page survived VFD in April (see this) but I fail to see what is encyclopedic about all the publications (including journal articles) of one academic expert in Judaism. No other person, not even Albert Einstein, has received this treatment on Wikipedia, and I really suggest the whole 135 KB monstrosity is deleted, or maximally transwikified somewhere. (The page had a new VFD notice put on it on 9 July by Klonimus; this formalises the re-listing.) JFW | T@lk 22:33, 3 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. – AB C D ✉ 23:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, and not a very good one at that.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 09:02, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Entirely non-notable. This "thing" is the extent of what I can find on this topic. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of a manga called "Ninja vs. Samurai" on Google, though I do find a lot of forum posts about it. It's possible I've just never heard of it, but my fiancee, an avid manga reader, hasn't heard of it either... so here it is, nominated for deletion. I thank the Wikify project for pointing me in the direction of this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Karada. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
no content - dicdef at best and probably just a joke seglea 23:24, 3 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!) 09:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete The link here would seem to indicate that he was a master's student, and is "currently pursuing a law degree at the University of Toronto." The work cited on the page appears to be his master's thesis. Perhaps once he has made more of a name for himself, he can come back. Icelight 23:45, August 3, 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. Essjay · Talk 09:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable seglea 23:51, 3 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. Essjay · Talk 08:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page with no useful information. 64.236.243.16 23:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply